Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Future of English

From:Jim Grossmann <steven@...>
Date:Wednesday, August 16, 2000, 5:47
I'd like to see Spanglish be a list project.   I don't know Spanish, but I
might be able to look up enough about the grammar to make little
suggestions.   Would enough little suggestions from all the listers who
wanted to post add up to a nice big grammar?   That's an interesting

A while back, we had NGL, and before that, Folksprach (sp?), but I think
those projects are being done offlist now.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Koenig" <jlk@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: Future of English

> >From: Jim Grossmann <steven@...> > >To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU > >Hi, all, > xxx > >c) What's to prevent our English auxiliaries from contracting? It's > >already permitted in informal speech, and it's creeping into fiction.
> >long years from now, some descendent of English may become known as a > >language that marks perfective aspect, future tense, and conditional mood
> >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
> > > > 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
> >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
> >(was Re: Chevraqis: asketch) > > > > > >> In a message dated 2000/08/13 05:55:01 PM, hsteoh@QUICKFUR.YI.ORG
> >> > >> >English apparently also used to be highly inflected, but today > >> >there are only traces left (such as in who, whom, whose). And even
> >> >whom, and whose are starting to collapse into just "who" in colloquial > >> >English. > >> > > >> >My theory is that widespread acceptance of a language usually causes
> >to > >> >"degrade" or "simplify", losing a lot of old constructs in the
> >> >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 > >> > >