DOWN WITH THE ENGLISH (LANGUAGE)!
This paper I write practically anew in English and its contents is obvious — we, all the world, have to cease using this language so widely because it is simply ... vulgar, many grammatical categories are not well qualified, it is not exact enough to be used so massively, it was, in a way, a miscarriage, it seems simple and good for the pubs and stadiums, but not for official conversations in it. Yet because the topic is more or less clear, and I have touched it in the previous materials in this folder, I will speak a bit more frivolously and comical in some places, what has to make the work more palatable. The sections here are: some preliminaries and explanations why I write this anew and don't use the Russian variant, then some try to excuse the ancient Englishmen who have made this super-simplified language, then what is so bad with this language in comparison with the others European (at least) languages, and in the end will mark out some important places where something has to be done in order to better the language if the people want to better it (because it, in spite of all its drawbacks, sounds good, nearly like singing). Only I have to warn the readers that, being third material in the sequence, this one has to be read after the others, it is not good to skip them.
Surely, it does not deserve to be so widely spread, this is very good language to, hmm, curse in it, or sing songs, speak in the pub, but not as official language for nearly the whole world. It is contemporary Latin, yet the ancient Latin was very precise and this one isn't. So that I intend to ruin it totally here, if not for other reasons, than at least for to ... spur the people using it to take measures for its bettering. Yeah, but, my dear Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus, don't skip the previous materials in this folder because I use many things from them, also many shortenings, at least those for the langs, and don't intend to explain them also here (for nobody pays me to do this, right?).
I write this material anew because in the Rus. folder is as third material one small letter to all CIS citizens about the very name of this Union, which is not suitable for Ars etc. (though I gave there very interesting propositions, like the one variant is to call their countries ... Bear Lands). And you can well see that there just have to be at least three things, this is pretty old tradition for to break it here. Then there emerged in 2015 one more material in Rus., an Angry Continuation
, where I began nearly to call them names for not giving a damn (not that to give a damn is such a good thing, but still) to my brilliant ideas, where I explain to the Russ that for the last 25 years the number of people outside CIS speaking Rus. has diminished with roughly (though quite precisely, I am mathematician, I can make approximate
calculations) 100 mln, and those in the CIS speaking Rus. have diminished with nearly another 100 mln (this time not so precisely calculated) or are ready to give it up at once if there is another alternative (at least the Ukrs are utterly malcontented, and the non-Sl. countries are about 90 mln). And I checked for them in the Internet that there is no other Sl. lang. without cases, the Bul. is just unique. And so on, but this is not for the present auditory. Ah, and in the end I have put some poetical jokes with their Putin, and threatened them to call him for help and beg him to whack them on the heads, figuratively said, what I don't think to do because I don't try to impose my views, I try to make the people think alone because the situation with their lang. is serious.
Yet, my dear Arabs etc., don't cry, I will find about what to speak here. For example, just now I will try to exonerate a bit the old Engs for their so drastic spoiling of the lang., although in my view, what means that the good may sometimes change place with the bad and v.v., but such is the life, really, neither good nor bad, simply has to be lived.
1. Why the ancient English have spoiled their language?
Surely with good intentions, you may bet it, but have overdone the things (like, for example, the communists, or Catholics, etc.). And why have overdone them then, ah? Well, because of the major desire of everything alive, which is ... And what is it, according to you, this first and unavoidable aspiration of everything alive, animal or vegetation? But I will not play hide and seek with you because this is not the point in this paper, it is clear that everything alive wants to live and procreate, what means chiefly that it has to oppose the nature, which does not allow it to do this so easy. But when the people try to oppose something they usually forget about whatever moderation and begin simply to oppose the circumstances, or to act just in spite of
something. That's it. So that when the ancient Engs simplified up to illiteracy their lang. they have done this in spite of something. If you think that such desire is attenuating circumstance then I exonerate them, but if you think that this is aggravating circumstance then I accuse them even more. It depends. Yet I don't think that they have done this because were more uneducated than the other nations — all common people, peasants, especially before about a millennium were uneducated simpletons, like the Engs, so the Frs, or the old Teutons. It remains only to look what exactly they opposed and why were so ... pissed off by it.
Now, the old Engs were genetically or ethnically Teus, but they lived under the strong influence of the Fr. in social area, so that they opposed both
, the Teus and the French. What means that they were pissed by both nations and to stay on such cross-pissing isn't easy, in my view to the things. More concrete, the Teus, judging by the contemporary Ger. lang., were excessively strict in what they said, they even now write all Nouns with capital Letter, and I hope you see pretty well that such Thing is boring, right? Then they count till hundred
in the reverse order and connect all numbers till one million
in one single word, e.g. the Great French revolution has begun in onethousandsevenhundrednineandeighty and this is even more boring. Then they have four cases what is not so strange, the Lat. has seven. But they the bad habit, when some compound sentence to build want, in the subjugated clause everything in reversed order to put, have. Did you get it? And when the sentence contains a pair of subjugated clauses and takes normally half of the page, and when they also like not to insert new paragraphs and usually write the whole chapter
in one paragraph (till about two century they still have written in this way), you can well imagine that one begins to feel very bored. This their ordering of the words in the sentence they call not exactly erection, sorry, but Rektion
, yet one can as well have an erection and also finish with it until they finish their long sentence with their long words. And when, in literary works, the noun has 3-4 adjectives, including some subjugated clause, and you have to take extreme care about the endings of every word and in the necessary case (with definite articles in one way and with indefinite ones in another), and remember the not yet said verbs till you come at last to the end of the sentence, then you can become even extremely bored, what I called, with your silent permission, pissing off.
And the Engs are Teus, there must be no doubts about this, but if you want we can prove it with a tiny set of words for everyday use and compare with their Ger. variants. For example the following: bread, milk, egg, water, sea, tree, grass, bird, stone, home (and in Ger.: Brot, Milch, Ei, Wasser, Meer, Baum, Gras, Vogel, Stein, Hause
, where the sea is different but die See
is a lake, the tree is different but the der Forst
is a forest, and only Baum
seem Teu. words), or also some verbs: read, learn, sleep, go, fly, eat, drink, swim, work, f##k (and in Ger.: lesen, lernen, schlafen, gehen, fliegen, essen, trinken, schwimmen, arbeiten, ficken
, where as if only lesen
is Teu. and arbeiten
is around the letter "r" where is the robot and our Bul. 'rabotja'), and so on. And there are other problems with the Gers, like that one can rarely guess the right gender (where I usually give the example with del Löffel
as spoon and die Gabel
as fork, which have equal endings).
And one pretty strange thing, they read always "ei" as 'aj' (like Einstein
), what is as if motivated with nothing because they can pretty well write it with "ai", while in this way they simply restrict their lang., for they can never write 'ej'. So I have thought about this and wondered for a long time until once occasionally saw in one dictionary (with directions for reading in Eng.) that the Hebs have nearly (up to, maybe, 80%) the same words and where there is "ei" they read it like 'ej'. And then I said to myself, maybe the Gers on the purpose read all words in this way, to have something to differ from the "nasty" Hebs, and that this was introduced somewhere around 17th century; in short, the Ger. were also pissed off by something and have worsened a bit their language for that reason.
And being on the pi..., well. let us say "extremely boring" wave, I can give you another similar example with the Buls, which is still a big puzzle for our linguists, I suppose, but never more for your Myrski. We almost always when are saying "yes", what is 'da' (quite similar with Ger. ja
meaning the same, by the way), are shaking
our heads, while when are saying "no", what is 'ne', we nick with our heads, and this, surely, is not Sl. ... perversity but local, Bul. one. The enlightening came to me when I heard that the Grs say exactly 'ne' for "yes", where "no" for them is 'ohi' (i.e. ah /oh how bad the thing is), and for their 'ne' can be found some relations in Lat. (there is the note
as something important that we don't deny, I suppose, or there is also the Eng. "now", or Ger. na
, meant as "look, hark"). So that we also can act in spite of something and this is quite spread and natural
(though silly, of course) reaction.
But to return to the old Eng., who were p..., extremely bored, by the old Gers and decided to act on the contrary; which contrariness may be coming also from the Celts or the Irish (I have the feeling that the latter are taken as proverbial .. donkeys by the Engs). But there were also the Frs, who since many centuries have (not well deserved, if you ask me) high self-esteem or pride (like the cocks, in fact) and have tried to teach (I suppose) the old Engs how to live and how to love and how to build society and whatnot (or, then, the old Engs have taken them for examples and in this case despised them as really better in some way — you have to know that nobody likes the paragons for the simple reason that he can also be one of them but has not sufficient strength of character, prefers to behave wildly and naturally). And the Frs have shown that there can be two genders (all Lat. nations have now only mas. and fem.), and that they can be bold enough to read the Lat. words in their own way (say, to write "oi" but read 'ua', though neither of the Vs is the same; or also to use three kinds of stressings neither
of which is real stressing; or mark some V. with two dots above not
in order to modify it but on the contrary, not to modify it). And they have also invented such wild sounds which one can never hear in another civilized country, only in the jungle. And they use widely nasal Vs and insist that this is only a V., with no C. after it (like, say, Ger "-ung" what is as if prototype for the Eng. "-ing").
So that the old Engs have decided to oppose the difficult Ger. lang. how only they can, and also to surpass the Frs and made them feel ashamed (seeing their ideas in absurd dimensions)! And the curious thing was that they succeeded
, they have made pretty good sounding and easy to speak it (only not to write) lang., I can't deny this! As experiment
(like also the Fr. revolution, or, then, the communism, etc.) this is great achievement (as I said, for the pub, for cursing, for everyday use from uneducated peasants), only not as world-wide spread lang. with pretensions of exactness, like the good old Latin. These are the reasons for no genders in the Eng. (because one such means nothing, there is no distinction, there can't be "unary" arithmetic system, it has to be at least binary), for equalizing of the verbs and the nouns (say, if a stone or earth are indisputably nouns then they can also became verbs in some sense), for making of almost no derivative words, like adjectives (say: man clothes, car park, tourist industry, etc.), for almost no forms of the verbs (like: I can, you can, etc.), for no distinction between people (say, he is a professor, and she is a professor), for no diminutives, etc. etc., and for reading of the words just how they like
and giving reasons for as much as you want cases of confusion (e.g., "sure" and not "shure", or "I read now" and "I already read this book", or I and eye, or man and men, and many others). I, for my part, as former scientist, agree that the negative contribution is
a contribution, but I insist that it is negative. Yet enough for now, because we will chew this issue also in the next sections, from a bit different aspects.
2. What is so bad in the English and needs strong measures for bettering, if at all possible?
Let us begin from the beginning, and in the beginning was the alphabet (shortened to alph.). Already in my "IllitW" I have been interested about the common sounds in all world langs, and have made my decision and invented one standard alph. for the whole world so that there is at least one better variant. Yet recently I came to the idea to use better the good old Lat. alph. in my "EngTrlit", which is also quite suitable, but there is also our Sl. Cyrillic which is perfect for the Buls but can be used also relatively good for any language. You see, as much our alph. is good to such extent the Lat. alph. is bad for the Engs; it is bad also for the Frs, but the Engs have surpassed the badness of the French. To learn Eng. as uneducated people do, only to speak it but without writing, how it was in the past centuries, this is not so big a drawback, but nowadays everybody learns reading and writing and here begin the problems, especially for the foreigners. So that here something has to be done, at least can be used the transcription or words like it is given in the dictionaries, though there are more than 40 sounds in the Eng. and this isn't so easy, neither these characters are good enough for writing, but nobody wants to learn anew and the situation continues to be the same. Transliteration of a lang. sometimes happens (for example the Turks have done this using Lat. alph.) and somebody has to think about this, but the changes have to be made on a large scale, only writhing "color" instead of "colour" is not sufficient.
Then there come the sounds. Again, as Bul. phonetics is pure and contains all basic sounds, in such extent the Eng. sounds are complicated (if not more, then at least as much as the Fr. ones). Yet this is irreparable, I think, because if there is some sense in learning of Eng. this is because of its sounds, they are just beautiful; difficult for the foreigners but good to the ear. My remarks can regard only the triphthongs, which can be thought for two syllables (say, "tire" can be taken for 'taj-y' in my writing here).
And now we come to the grammar and here almost everything is botched. First there are the genders, which are simply necessary, I have not heard about a lang. with no genders for non-living things, they are necessary because there exists category of pronouns and they diminish the repeating if we want to make the things clear, and, please, don't tell me that we are all equal, both sexes, because we are not, there are tiny
differences, this is how God has created us, He has not made us equal, equal are the amoebas and the worms, even the vegetation needs different sexual organs. Though I have discussed this somewhere in the previous materials, the point is not to have no genders, but to distinguish them easy, or to have (and to use) suitable suffixes (like -ess for fem.). I will dwell in this area in the next section, more.
Then what is this, that 2nd person sing. and pl. have to be exactly equal, in what other lang. this exists? I sympathize with the ancient Engs that it is difficult to use 3 or 4 polite forms (like in Ger. there is Sie
with capital letter from 3rd person pl., then Du
with capital letter from 2nd person sing., then in old times was used some Er
again with such letter from 3rd person sing., and there can also be used Ihr
again with such letter from 2nd person pl.), and the politeness of capital letter can not be seen when speaking, but this does not mean that there must not at all exist pl. for 2nd person (or, then, sing.), this is not childish, this is vulgar (and I don't say that to be vulgar is a bad thing — everything on this world is necessary, at least to distinguish the things — but it is nonetheless vulgar). In Bul. we have 'ti' for 2nd person sing. and 'vie' for 2nd person pl., which form we make with capital letter if this is polite form. And here also exist obvious decision — how the Engs have run away from the Teus in the old times, so they can move closer to them now and retain their "you" only for pl., with or not capital letter, and for sing. use Ger. du
(or also 'tu').
Then we come to the verbs where exist this so brilliant that even stunning decision to make no difference between verb and noun, and in this case I also don't know to exist precedents around the world — so that one can quietly state that the Eng. is almost in all aspects unprecedented lang., only not in the good sense (because there are unprecedented fools, or cruelty, or naivety, and so on). When the forms are equal then one has to add something and these are the pronouns, but they are unnecessary otherwise, I have shown in my "BulLes" that there can be quite simple but still different forms, so that here also we will chew the things in the next section (the Its, by the way, not only miss the pronoun of the doer, but begin with the pronoun of the object, like for "I have done this", what in Bul
. will be 'az go napravih', they usually say, again in Bul., 'go napravih', where we would have said 'napravih go').
Further we come to the tenses where, thanks God, I find everything OK. I mean that no matter that the tenses are given as 16, half of them are continuous and built easy from the non-continuous, and from the 8 are used usually 4-5 tenses, and as tables with forms for each person there are only two tables, what is nearly the same as in Bulgarian. There are also not big differences with the transitive or not verbs, the perfect is built only with "have" (not like in Ger., and similar to Bul.). Yet there are strong or irregular verbs in the Eng. (which don't exist in Bul.), but I think that this is not so difficult moment, one learns, after all only two more forms, where are analogies, and in all Lat. langs the things are much more difficult.
Another good moment in the Eng. are the numbers, and I would have added the lack of double negation, which exists in Bul., what isn't correct, I admit, but the situation here can be changed only under the pressure of all Arabs etc., we alone continue to value our bad habits. Ah, I personally like the use of gerund, although here the things are also oversimplified (but one can somehow do without deep grammatical analyses). Yet there are many other bad points in the Eng., because there remain the mixing of nouns and adjectives (this glass junk, or car park, or men clothes, etc.), the possessive case is not correctly applied (because of mixture with pl.), the lack of diminutives (which exist in every self-respecting lang., so to say), and other moments. I alone have not thought these things through (no matter that nobody asks me about my meaning), but I will cast some raw ideas in the next section.
So that the Eng. is a miscarriage and has to be reformed if people like it, or then left to die naturally (after a century). This will be a bit regretfully if we continue to take as standard the symbols of the stronger, because then can as well happen that the next world-wide spread (say, in the 22nd century) lang., if my ideas will be left also to fade away, will be Chi., Hin., or Ar., which I suppose are much worse as choice than Bul., but one can not oppose millions and milliards with naked ideas (and without powerful dictator at hand). Because of this I say "Down with the English!", because at this stage, in which the Eng. lang. is now, the only way to better it, is to provide some stimulus for this, after first throwing it down in the mud, for the simple reason that such is the dialectics. If it is not so, then why the Engs, and here I mean the intelligent, the grammarians, have allowed the situation to become so grievous and have not lifted a finger, but have succeeded to convince the common people that the double negation is a bad habit?
3. Ideas for bettering of the English language
Here I will tell you some raw ideas for bettering of the Eng., yet I have again to repeat that this is as if announcing of one of my further ideas, which I intend to christen "English Myrskanto (lang.)", I have not thought seriously about the matter, these are only pieces, and I even don't want to give them all away. Still, nobody knows how long he will stay on this world, so that better I will spit something, than keep all in secret.
This time we will leave the alph. in peace and begin at once with grammatical categories. About the genders I think to make them even ... 4
, adding one for animated object but without precising of which sex exactly. Then the personal pronouns will be: io
(read as 'jo'), tu
('tu'), he, she, it, et
; we, you, they, where "tu
" can be confused sometimes, but "du
" will also be confused, and it is better to have some correspondence between tu
and you (yet maybe it has to be written as "tou" or "tue", I can't judge here, I don't know the Eng. so good). Then in objective case they will be: me ('mi'). te
('ti'), him, shim
('joum', or 'jom'), them, yet they still don't sound pretty good to me (but I object to preserving of "her", this does not correlate with "she"). In possessive case they have to be: my, ty
('taj'), his, shis
('shis'), its /tis
('jos') /yours, thes ('dhes') /theirs, and if one so much wants may use also mis
('mis' and tis
('tis'); this also doesn't sound pretty good but there is some logic. In this case the reflexive pronouns have to be a bit simplified to: myse
('youssi'), thesse ('dhessi').
Then we are going to the verbs. The infinitive has to have a bit Gr. ending, with "-ow" (read 'ou'), , and the endings for present tense, in alike to It. (as Lat.) way, are: -o
('on'); the same for imperfect will be: -edo
('(i)don'). For example: for workow
in present: worko, workey, work(a)s, workam, workat, workon
; and in past: workedo, workedy, workedas, workedam, workedat, workedon
; or for studiow
: in present: studio, studiy, studias, studiam, stydiat, studion
, and in past: studiedo, studidey, studidas, studidam, studidat, studidon
. Or let us take irregular verb, goow
in present: goo ('goo'), goey, goas, goam, goat, goon
, and in past: wento, wentey, went(a)s, wentam, wentat, wenton
. Then the main verb amow
(fo to be) will be in present: amo, amey, is, aram, arat, aron
; in past: waro, warey, was, waram, warat, waron
; in conditional form: wero, werey, wes, weram, werat, weron
; I can propose even shortened forms like in present: 'mo, 'mey, is, 'ram, 'rat, 'ron
, and in past: w'ro, w'rey, was, war'm, war't, war'n. Then havow
will be easier: havo, hevey, has, havam, havat, havon,
and respectively: hado, hadey, had, hadam, hadat, hadon
, or maybe also hedo, hedey
, et cetera. Also willow
will be willo, willey, wills, willam, willat, willon
, and then wildo, wildey
, etc., or wouldo, wouldey
, et cetera. It seems difficult, but not to the learning of the tables, they are maximally simple.
So this was the hardest part with the endings yet there are other moments, too. About the genders I think that it is almost imperative to use
widely the suffix -on
for building of mas. and -ess
for fem., like studenton & studentess
, professoron & professoress
, dogon & dogess
, caton & catess
, birdon & birdess
, and many many others; also boyon
(if some girls want to say so), or girlon
, but I suppose the latter word has simply to be rejected, it associates with some hole or else loud cries. On the other hand "man" has to remain only as human, no matter of what sex (at least because of Lat. manus
as hand, i.e. the "salt" here is not in the sex), and for men to be used machon
, and for women — femess
. In some cases one may use these genders also for things and, applying ets
(instead of his or her) associations, to bildow
(there is no need of "to" now but it can be left) nouns of desired gender, say: tableon
(if it is very big, or, maybe, rough) and tabless
(if it is pretty nice, or one just likes it), or also chairon
, et cetera.
Then there have to be added also diminutive endings, where I can propose: -chic, -ino, -ina
; as well enlargers (if I can say so), like: -chor, -ono, -ona
. In this case man
(instead of one, but also widely used in Ger.) can say also: tablechic
, as well professorino
, or professoressina
; or small pine treino
, or big oak treono
(there have to be several variants because here it doesn't sound good to say treechor
, but treechic
maybe is still possible). You see, such possibilities enliven the lang., and these things can be applied even now, without the verb forms and pronouns.
Then there is not properly solved the possessive case, because suffix "-s" not always is heard and is confused with the pl., so that I think it would be better to use also ending "-sy
", like statesy
interests (because state's interest is rarely used and here the possession is obvious. Then one can surely say mansy
clothes (or also machonsy / femessy
clothes what now sounds much more precise), or hensy eggs. Then come the problem with building of adjectives from nouns, and there as if exists only -ish and sometimes -ian (also -ist in another sense), where I think can be used also the Lat. suffix -ory
(like pulmonary, circulatory, spectrally), or sometimes only -y
, so that then can be said carory
park, or glassory
junk, or monkeyly intelligent, or ramly /bullishly stubborn (after all it is said girly behaviour, or earthly plants, so that I don't propose Martian dialect). Or to give more examples, like: spirally galaxy, pressory review, bussory or tramory tickets (or bussy and tramy, but bussic or bussist or bussish are not good, I think), or headory /stomachory aches, and others.
Or there is much simpler approach, one has just to connect the word with a hyphen, and then man-clothes, or head-aches, or buss-tickets, or glass-junk, etc., are perfectly acceptable, no matter that the hyphen is not seen when speaking but it is supposed (yet to take as uneducated writing of man clothes etc.), and the next step to be connected writing as manclothes. Also I can't understand (and not only I, a big number of foreigners, I suppose, too, yet about 50 times less then the correct variant, judging by the number of occurrences given by the browsers) while sometimes is added -al but sometimes isn't, like democratical or touristical is not correct but commercial is OK, and when there exists domestically then it has to exist also domestical, I mean that when people feel necessity to build such forms (because in the other, and Western, langs is done so, then this has to be accepted not only as exception but as more
And surely other things. At least have to be added a pair of hundred
new words (not only machon
) in order to avoid confusions in some cases, like the proverbial: I and eye (with io
this is eliminated), man and men (I don't see what is so bad with mans; yet "people" have to remain, this is nice word, like peeping of chickens), read in present with read in past (why not readed, or, then to insert one "h" as meaning nothing
, like rehad
). Also some words have to be excluded, not only "girl", also Miss /Missus /Mrs. and be used Lady instead, and there are others, too. But well, as I said, this is raw proposition, yet it is necessary, something has to be done in order to return the Eng. lang. to the "family" of other civilized lang., else it is now the prodigal son, it is lost in some thicket, from where it can hardly pull itself out alone, neither wants to do this.
In conclusion not only of this paper but of all three things for Arabs, Hindus, and many other nations, even Chinese, I will repeat that Bul. lang. is the best possible choice for all nations in this millenium, for several reasons: alphabetical, phonetical, grammatical, political, and as to the roots of the words, too, while Am.-Eng. lang. is on the contrary the worst possible, for the same reasons (only the tenses are well thought), that's it! The only problem for its massive applying is that we are very few people, one per mille of the word population and with not very good name as being barbarous nation. Yeah, but I don't propose to begin to love and worship us, just to love and use some of the things, the artifacts, that we have done (like, folksongs, dances, alphabet, lang., our genes, if you want), because we exist for more then 13 centuries and have proved our vitality and originality in many aspects, creating this perfect, I repeat, perfect alphabet and phonetics. If you don't like the Ams and the Eng. lang., and even if you like
the lang., you have to throw it in the mud and step over it, it is high time to do this, the sooner, the better. I am joking, but you know pretty well that the mud heals from many diseases, it is healthy! If this lang will succeed after, say, a century to raise itself renewed from the mud and continue to walk around the world, then you have done good
to it, you have given it the possibility to prove that it is vital and deserves to be used (because it has various positive elements
, it sounds just nice), and if it will not succeed to stand alive from this mud-bath (in what I doubt, every language is good by itself, it is human creation), then it serves it right, because this is survival of the fittest! Bul. lang. has survived (we have been 5 centuries under Turkish, called now Ottoman, yoke, and have survived, and before this, in the 9th century, have created this now perfect for us, and for many other nations, too, alphabet), Bul. lang. is the fittest!
So that I simply appeal to you: use it, please, you will never do a mistake with this, you will only benefit from this! If you find our grammar still difficult, then help to make it simpler (this is possible, where the Eng. is almost irreparable — you have seen how I strived to do this but it isn't easy, and when I do it at last the native people will most probably not accept my propositions, because their own sh## does not smell to them), and if you find our words not sufficient, then there is nothing simpler then adding of new words, this is done all the time in all langs, but the fundament, the alphabet and the sounds are good, so that you will build on proper ground. The only problem is until the people speaking Bul. will reach a pair of hundred
millions, and then the avalanche will move further by itself. The Arab countries are more than 300 millions, this will be enough; the CIS countries are also very suitable, the Negroes in Africa will also do the thing, or the South Americans, or the Hindus (more than a milliard), or the Far East, to say nothing about the Chinese. So that there are many possibilities. If only one
out of a hundred people decides to learn Bul. then this will make some 6-7 hundred millions, more then enough for the beginning.
And don't forget that there, really, is linguistic crisis nowadays, even the very Ams, I suppose, feel this, and where there is not some ancient family lang. there the people just wonder what lang. to learn, as first, as well also as second (because they will surely not
learn, say: Ar., Heb., Hin., Chi., Rus., Ger., Fr., and so on, and there remain as if only It. and Sp., yet they will not succeed to speak in It. with the Chis, will they?). Similar is the situation in whole Europe (the Gers may study Fr. but they don't like it much, and similarly the Frs, neither will somebody there, without special reasons, that's it, learn Pol., or Ukr., or Ar., or Gr., etc.). And similarly in the vast Central Asia, or on the south there, or in Africa, an on and on. So that just ponder about, ask the specialists, ask the people living there, or just risk a bit. We are small country for to have had possibilities to have done the other nations wrong, and this argument nowadays becomes extremely important.
That is what Chris Myrski said, and to what conclusions he came in