Future of English (was Re: Degrees of volition in activelanguages (was Re: Chevraqis: asketch)

Jim Grossmann wrote:
> 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.
In my con future English, those contractions have become restricted to
pronouns, which have therefore become used in all situations, and fused
to the verb, so, "The buffalo it'd've-gone".  That it's part of the verb
can be seen in the fact that adverbs can never follow the "auxiliary",
so, "The buffalo it'd've-gone never", or something like that, as opposed
to the "Old Anglo-American" "The buffalo would've never gone".

--
"Their bodies did not age, but they became afeared of everything and
anything.  For partaking in any activity at all could threaten their
precious and ageless bodies! ... Their victory over death was a hollow
one."
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor