Talk:Glosa

pre-merged comments

BUT WHY?!

I quote: "(In my personal opinion this way is not only interesting, but also the best for an auxlang.)" Wikipedia is not the place for "personal opinions".--Carabinieri 11:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Should definitely be merged with Glosa! It's the same language afterall. Anyway, they both read like ad-copy. (Most isolasting my foot.) --Kaleissin 18:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are talking about this being the Interglossa page, then it has. I know this is a little bit late for a response. 98.27.171.83 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Copyright Notice

I am currently rewriting this article to avoid copyright violation/disputes. Help is appreciated. 76.188.26.92 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

the rewrite was deemed acceptable and the subpage contents have been moved to the main article page. I also renamed this section from "New Article" to "Responding to Copyright Notice" in order to be more precise and appropriate. 98.27.171.83 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Date change

From the history file it appears that while in 1972 Ronald Clark and Wendy Ashby teamed up and started refining the language, nothing was actually published until 1978. Is there another source that backs up the claim the the first publication was in 1972 (of the Glosa version)? --Bequw (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated Links

Added a new link to the Glosa group on Facebook. Lobe642 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Split?

I believe this article should be split into smaller articles, as it's a bit hard to navigate with all the tables, etc. Does anyone agree? Quintusπ ^talk 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree -- a dense layout kind of comes with the territory in the case of brief capsule summaries of a language's grammar, and if the article were split, then the new articles wouldn't be very standalone or self-contained at all (i.e. wouldn't make too much sense unless read in conjunction with other articles). AnonMoos (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting from Interglossa?

I do not agree to REDIRECT the page INTERGLOSSA to GLOSA. Interglossa deserves by far an independent article. I do know Interglossa since I bought the original handbook, which I have actually scanned upon a google site. So I think the article INTERGLOSSA should be developped. I may do it in a few days. --Xabadiar (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Done

The page on INTERGLOSSA is ready. --Xabadiar (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No reference?

I fear this article has not a clear base, no reference at all is listed. The source is possibly the website www.glosa.org, yet it is listed as a mere external link, not as a reference. --Xabadiar (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability

2ndary link dump:

• Conlangs and International Auxiliary Languages Paul O. Bartlett:

Glosa is interesting among conlangs in that it is a completely analytic language: there are no inflections for noun plurals, verb tenses, genders, and what-not

• Flags of constructed languages António Martins,
• Bibliography of Planned Languages (excluding Esperanto) Richard K. Harrison:

Glosa is distinctively isolating

• Critiques of individual planned languages Ken Caviness (Esperantist)
• omniglot.com

Etc.. The template doubting the notability seems to regard only that the article doesn't establish notability by 2ndary links. ...2B inserted... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Improvement

Now the "History behind Glosa" from www.glosa.org is clearly listed as the main reference of the article. In addition, I have added a new section with criticism. So, I consider this article to be sufficiently balanced, and I think the notability alert may be removed. Xabadiar (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702021454/http://www.englishtexts.org/praying.pdf to http://www.englishtexts.org/praying.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

an / fe

These are given different meanings in the pronoun table vs. the compound words section... AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)