Can VM be written in vowelless Latin?

[farmerjohn]

farmerjohn wrote:

Patratum aperium jocionum apertum partus tabelli, caudicariura aeque exec orularum bimanorus

Patratum, apertum, partus, tabelli, aeque are real words in Latin and in some its variations.
The rest, although contain correct / existed roots, have incorrect word structure, which are hardly could exist.
The word You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.is a real word, but how you can explain the suffix -urus (-ura) in the word caudicariura? If you mean that the root is caudex (caudic-), and the suffixes are -ari-, -ura, there must be general rules of that language, recorded in some existed source, for that last morpheme. For example, for the mentioned word, I could find only one rational explanation, if it would be caudicariorum (plural genitive of caudicarius).
The same with the word execorularum. If it is a noun in genitive plural, which may be translated as an adjective (meaning the ends  -arum and -orum of Latin), then the basical form of the word (noun) is execorula (non existed). For example, epistola or epistula - in genitive plural: epistolarum, epistularum, (meaning of messages). As well, there are no word bimanorus or, even, manorus, if it is not Toba-Batak, but manorum and bimanorum exist as (again) the plural genitive form of the words: manus and bimanus. Bimanus, in this case, means  bimanous (meaning a human).
There is no conjunction or preposition in the sentence. Generally, the grammar structure of the sentence is wrong. 
I think, you need to know.

Searcher, thanks for greate and very precise questions!

The meaning of word caudicariurus match meaning from another piece (I'm not sure of correctness of both, of course).

The structure in my understanding is the following. Basic word is caudec-. Then suffix ari is appended with no significant value. I think it was used sometimes to mimic some other language or to keep poetry meter. Suffix ur for this particular word is unexplainable for me. -ness? Trunkness??? The only reason can be that without ur it would be EVA-qokchy, which match some other word.

Now words bimanorus and execorus. These are got from verb plus suffix -or ("result of the verb" by WW). I believe that VMS language is simplified so, that all declensions have ending -us in Nominative (or -is, but this is not crucial, both are covered by EVA-y). The result however continues to function as verb. But. If it functions as verb why to add diminutive suffix to it? That's why I thing bimanorus is probable translation, but execorularum is very weak...


I cannot find proper translation for execorularum, but in my interpretation it's GEN-ACC (I think these cases are merged) plural and should function as adjective (there are two more similar samples in my pdf I think).

Finally I don't think there is ending -orum for nouns (replaced with -arum). Reason - problematically distinguish noun which ends -orum from noun produced from verb with suffix -or and ended with -um.

PS Yes, I think conjunctions were rare in VMS