On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:37:22 +1100, Tristan McLeay
<conlang@...> wrote:
>Sure they do. Like e.g. Caesar. Pronounced /kaisar/ in the time of the
>romans, hence the German word _Kaiser_. Now it's pronounced \SEE-zer\.
>In French it's even spelt _César_, I believe (no doubt /se'zaR/). And
>'Julius' has changed too. Various historical figures whose names ended
>in particular Latin endings were even changed like regular vocabulary
>borrowed from Latin to English. Not even mentioning the people who
>weren't Latin whose names were latinised and then anglicised, no doubt
>leaving them totally incomprehensible to the person concerned.
>
>Historical figures, in fact, are *much* more likely to be changed than
>present figures. John Howard (Aussie PM) is 'John Howard' even if the
>native name for John in the language discussing him is _Jean_ and the
>language has no <w>.
Ok, noted. I'll regard that in the next version.
>> Other than that, any comments?
>
>It looks very Germanised. I don't expect English to develop in that
>manner, unless the Germans take over the world.
Bound to happen anyway :D (well at least in this future)
>It also has absolutely
>no change to the grammar, but the changes in grammar will be the most
>interesting aspect. How will the clitics develop? Will we see some
>reanalysed into case markers? Will they become verbal prefixes?
I know... I left that out yet to try out the sound changes.
You'll find that also in the next version.
>I propose, distant enough in the future, that:
>
> s~z~@z will be reanalysed as, ironically, a singular subject marker
>(from 'is', 'has')
This far, the singular isn't marked - I have no idea why that should change?
> if retained, the plural would be s@~z@~@
> the distinction between him ('im) and them ('em) will finally
>collapse, perhaps taking with it the entire pronominal gender system (a
>regular plural is easily created with the current s~z~@z, as in
>'youse').
Sounds likely... the entire plural forms may get shafted, replaced by
singular+s.
> the derivative of 'us' or 'to us' will develop into a 1sg dative,
>perhaps eventually objective---with 'me' replacing 'I' in the
>subjective.
Somewhat like in "me thinks..."
> perhaps a distinction between active and stative verbs deriving from
>the simple present and the present progressive.
Not very probably, I'd say...
>But I mean to be radical and I'm looking far into the future, so we'll
>all be dead before my predictions can come true---so I can always live
>safe in the knowledge that I'm not wrong yet :)
It could also be that the many current dialects of English develop into
separate languages... not unlikely at all I'd say.
--
Pascal A. Kramm, author of:
Intergermansk: http://www.choton.org/ig/
Chatiga: http://www.choton.org/chatiga/
Choton: http://www.choton.org
Ichwara Prana: http://www.choton.org/ichwara/
Skälansk: http://www.choton.org/sk/
Advanced English: http://www.choton.org/ae/