That's all indeed is funny, but don't think Russian could ever go so really
bureaucratic way in any future;-) AFAIK natlangs generally become simplier
with time, not more complex, as you demonstrated...

BTW,
'Masha jela kashu' - 'imeL_mesto protsess'
'Masha jest kashu' - 'imeEET_mesto protsess' ?

Poka,

Atyom.


>From: Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: The Future Language
>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:26:18 -0500
>
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:17:01 PST, Artem Kouzminykh <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
><...>
> >I was just thinking, have enyone made an attempt to imagine that will be
> >lang(s) in 21, 22, 25, 30 etc. centuries, how modern natlangs, or theirs
> >mix, can change in some centuries or even millennia? And to create such a
> >conlang?
><...>
>
>I had an idea of that kind - with no intention of actual prediction,
>simply for fun.
>
>Inspired by some fragmentary information about late Buddhist Sanskrit,
>I tried to imagine how far the official Russian could go without formally
>violating *any* rules of grammar. I haven't designed any elaborated
>conlang, though.
>
>Just one detail: that system (I named it Bubru, an abbreviation for
>'Future Bureaucratic Russian') preserved only one case in nouns, and
>it was *genetive*.
>
>It may be funnier to analyze an example. 'Masha jela kashu' becomes in
>Bubru 'So_storony Mashi imejet_mesto protsess pojedanija kashi'.
>
>'So_storony' is ergative marker.
>
>'imeet_mesto' is an auxiliary verb/sentence particle expressing tense and
>mood.
>
>'protsess' is a marker of aspect/verb class.
>
>Other possible combinations of sentence particles with verb class markers
>are e. g. 'nalitso fakt' and 'idet protsess'.
>
>'pojedanija' is the normal form of the verbal stem 'to eat', which is
>unchangeable and cannot stand alone. Verbal stems are easily
>substantivated.
>
>'Mashi' and 'kashi' are the only possible forms of these nouns in singular.
>They cannot stand alone either.
>
>All these huge constructions undergo a thorough phonetic compression.
>Most words have no more than three syllables. There is phonemic opposition
>of tones. But the orthography remains the same as in today's Russian,
>except for the rules of word separation.
>
>I doubt very much if this is what you meant ;)
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Basilius

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com