From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Constructed languages (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

pre-merged comments[edit]


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. (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Copyright Notice[edit]

I am currently rewriting this article to avoid copyright violation/disputes. Help is appreciated. (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. (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Date change[edit]

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[edit]

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


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?[edit]

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)


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

No reference?[edit]

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


2ndary link dump:

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
Glosa is distinctively isolating

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)


Now the "History behind Glosa" from 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)