Re: Mutated English: Re: Joe Re: Conlang by Mutation

Gary Shannon wrote:

>--- Joe <joe@...> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>
>>Remember long ago, when I proposed that many of us
>>work on a seperate
>>variant of English.  And see what comes out, and see
>>if they're mutually
>>intelligible?  I still think that'd be interesting.
>>Any takers still?
>>
>>
>
>Here's my candidate for quikie mutated English:
>
>
Right, I'll model mine on your post.

Word Order:  VSO, actually.  This resulted from English becoming
pro-drop in the present tense, when pronouns merged into the verb 'to
be', which then promptly turned into a prefix.

1s: [m]
2s: [j]
3s: [z]
1pl: [w]
2pl: [j]
3pl: [D]

They become syllabic before consonants.  This got generalised to
sentences including nouns, and things got a bit unwieldy, so the noun
was put after the verb.  So, "the man walks" becomes "zwO?n m&n".

Verbs:

The rules above apply only in the present indicative.  In the present
negative, a pronoun (@, y@, i, wi, y@, D@) is addend to the prefix [yEn]
or [En], the latter only with second person pronouns. The present
interrogative is the same as the indicative, except for a rising tone.

The past, is interesting.  There are three past tenses - the preterite,
the perfect, and the (what is currently the present) historic.  They are
quite simple.  The pronouns have been affixed to the verbs, but apart
from that, all remains the same - "I went, you went, etc." [7wEn],
[j@wEn], [iwEn], [w@wEn], [j@wEn], [D@wEn].  The second takes the
descendant of our past participle, and adds the pronoun affix.  The
final one takes the descendant our present simple in the third person,
and affixes pronouns to it.  The imperfect is covered by the preterite.
The word order rules apply.

The future remains roughly the same as today, but the word order is the
same as in the present.  It may also use the auxiliary [gVnt@].

Nouns and Stuff:

Most pronouns got prepositions affixed to them(a la Irish), and have
seperate forms.  I could go into them all, but I'm lazy.