Re: Future English Jam

Steven Williams wrote:

>--- Joe <joe@...> schrieb:
>
>
>
>>Peter Bleackley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Let's improvise a Future English by throwing sound
>>>
>>>
>>and grammar changes
>>
>>
>>>into an ongoing conversation. If you wanna join
>>>
>>>
>>in, reply to this
>>
>>
>>>thread obeying the previously proposed changes.
>>>
>>>
>>Every so often,
>>
>>
>>>somebody shouts out "Change!" and the next person
>>>
>>>
>>to reply gets to
>>
>>
>>>propose a new change. The first change is
>>>
>>>All possible cliticisations become mandatory.
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not really sure what you mean by that-  could
>>you elaborate?
>>
>>
>
>I think what he means is that all pronouns and other
>such function words that _can_ be jammed together,
>must. My dialect (standard American English with
>strong Southern elements) has pretty much a full set
>of object clitics, in the most informal registers:
>
>
Mmm.  Of course, the problem with applying this universally is that all
dialects of English have different things that they cliticise. For
example, my dialect (Southeast England) would have something resembling
subject clitics, in the present progressive.

So,

'I'm going' > [m=g@uIn]
'You're going' > [y@g@uIn]
'he's going' > [izg@uIn]
'she's going' > [Sizg@uIn] (She and he are very weakly cliticised, if at
all)
'it's going' > [Isg@uin]
'we're going' > [wIg@uin]
they're going > [D@g@uin]/[DEg@uin]

Of course, that only applies to the present progressive.  Incidentally,
'work at it' would be [w3:k@?I?], while 'I'm working at it' would be
[mw3:kIn@?I?].

If I were to make a change, I suggest generalising those present
progressive clitics from my dialect into the rest of the tenses/aspects,
etc.  So, "I used to go there" would become "'m-used to go there".