Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Future of English

From:Gerald Koenig <jlk@...>
Date:Monday, August 14, 2000, 5:18
>From: Jim Grossmann <steven@...> >To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU >Hi, all,
>c) What's to prevent our English auxiliaries from contracting? It's >already permitted in informal speech, and it's creeping into fiction. Many >long years from now, some descendent of English may become known as a >language that marks perfective aspect, future tense, and conditional mood by >inflecting the subject: "I'd've gone." = I would have gone. "The >buffalo'd've gone." = The buffalo would have gone. "The man I married, >that man'll've gone." = The man whom I married would have gone. & so on. >
My language Nilenga makes extensive use of contractions. At the present time there are 12 pronouns and anaphora, 27 tense particles, and 7 primary modals which can be contracted in any order. Anyone trying this will find that wo (he/she-nom) is working in a rather confined wordspace if wo limits iwo (he/she-acc) to monosyllables; not an easy task for someone like me who avoids crossword puzzles. Yet the number of combinations is vast and parsing must depend to some degree on context if the contraction-words are allowed more than one meaning. Nick (I think) attaches the contractions as suffixes with "it"; the Nilenga anaphora, which are a set of "its" loglan-style, could easily glue the contractions to nouns or nouns derived from verbs, making some interesting mega-suffixes for agglutinators. I'm an isolator myself, but it is said extremes meet. Another feature of this syntax is that the mega-suffixes can also be partially broken up and distributed anywhere close to the verb, giving a great freedom of style. My desired future English would allow more inflections as an option. Nilenga as it stands can can take over the tenses and modes of English as an overlay. I think my vision of future English is more a view of a future English and future Romance lang combined, with the emphasis on future. I'm not thinking of Spanglish. This would make a great group lang if we could keep it civilized. Maybe it should be a project for Conculture first to lay the groundwork of cooperation. Jerry Jerry
>d) It's conceivable that a language could lose cases, whose functions >would be delegated to adpositions, which in turn could be contracted to make >them and their objects into single phonological words, which could then >constitute nouns in a brand new set of cases. > >Jim > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jonathan Chang" <Zhang2323@...> >To: <CONLANG@...> >Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 2:55 PM >Subject: Future of English (was Re: Degrees of volition in active languages >(was Re: Chevraqis: asketch) > > >> In a message dated 2000/08/13 05:55:01 PM, hsteoh@QUICKFUR.YI.ORG wrote: >> >> >English apparently also used to be highly inflected, but today >> >there are only traces left (such as in who, whom, whose). And even who, >> >whom, and whose are starting to collapse into just "who" in colloquial >> >English. >> > >> >My theory is that widespread acceptance of a language usually causes it >to >> >"degrade" or "simplify", losing a lot of old constructs in the process. >> >But I've yet to come up with a plausible explanation for languages >> >becoming *more* complex as they evolve. >> >> Be interestin' to see ideas regardin' possible evolution(s) in the >> English language. >> What do others on this list think? >> >> Z >> >