Let's create a language!

[Schiaparelliorbust]

A vowel harmony system might be interesting. As far as I can tell, a simple height harmony system (each word uses either /aɪiu/ or /aɛeo/) would add that kind of variation to many affixes without causing any existing words to clash. One possible special feature would be declining nouns for intentionality (for example, "I eat" would most likely be intentional, but "We will die" would not be), although this is fairly similar to one factor in Ithkuil's case system, so it might be too unoriginal for your liking. However, I'm not aware of a system like this in any natural language. If we have a case system, this could be limited to only apply for some cases (eg nominative and accusative but not others).

Perhaps some sort of consonant-vowel harmony between the last consonant and first vowel of a suffix or vice versa. What's a declining noun? Also, how many suffixes can we add to a word? For the special property, maybe a version evidentiality could be interesting. Some languages (including Turkish) make it mandatory that you specify whether you personally experienced something in the past or indirectly knew that it happened. Turkish has only two degrees of evidence (that's what I'm going to call them) but some other languages distinguish between whether you heard it, saw it, inferred it or learned it. Maybe we could generalize it to other tenses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYlVJlm ... &index=102
2:42

[fluffykitty]

What's a declining noun?

Decline/declension=inflect/inflection but specifically for nouns

Also, how many suffixes can we add to a word? For the special property, maybe a version evidentiality could be interesting. Some languages (including Turkish) make it mandatory that you specify whether you personally experienced something in the past or indirectly knew that it happened. Turkish has only two degrees of evidence (that's what I'm going to call them) but some other languages distinguish between whether you heard it, saw it, inferred it or learned it. Maybe we could generalize it to other tenses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYlVJlm ... &index=102
2:42

If included, evidentiality would most likely apply to all tenses since tense information is encoded independently of the final verb suffix (in my new verb system). While including mandatory evidentiality for all aspect/mood combinations would probably overcomplicate the verbal inflection system, having it only for the indicative suffixes (which are the ones it's most relevant for anyway) would not have such problems, as long as there aren't too many degrees. Another possibility is having different choices of degrees for the perfective aspect and the imperfective aspect.

Another thought I just had is that we should probably distinguish between perfective and imperfective in the participle, for example <-un> for the perfective and <-il> for the imperfective, so "dying" would be <cakil> or <cakadil>.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

If included, evidentiality would most likely apply to all tenses since tense information is encoded independently of the final verb suffix (in my new verb system). While including mandatory evidentiality for all aspect/mood combinations would probably overcomplicate the verbal inflection system, having it only for the indicative suffixes (which are the ones it's most relevant for anyway) would not have such problems, as long as there aren't too many degrees. Another possibility is having different choices of degrees for the perfective aspect and the imperfective aspect.

Another thought I just had is that we should probably distinguish between perfective and imperfective in the participle, for example <-un> for the perfective and <-il> for the imperfective, so "dying" would be <cakil> or <cakadil>.

Yes, I agree that making evidentiality mandatory for everything would be too complex. What degrees should there be? What are perfective and imperfective? Sorry, I don't know much about grammar.

[fluffykitty]

Yes, I agree that making evidentiality mandatory for everything would be too complex. What degrees should there be?

I'd suggest direct observation and not for the imperfective, and hearsay and not for the perfective. Maybe the not-direct-observation and hearsay categories could be indicated by an <-ar-> infix between the tense infix and the aspect-mood suffix, and the other categories could be the defaults. The infix would be ungrammatical outside the indicative mood, since other moods don't indicate aspect. However, participles do, and I'm not sure if they should have evidentiality. Does Turkish indicate evidentiality on anything like a participle?

What are perfective and imperfective? Sorry, I don't know much about grammar.

Perfective aspect views an action as atomic, while imperfective aspect looks into the interior of an action. For example, "While it was raining (imperfective), I bought a pineapple (perfective)". You can find more details about grammatical concepts like aspect on Wikipedia or other sites.

Edit (2:58): I just realized that my proposed vowel harmony system from the previous page causes -eo and -eu to merge. If we implement vowel harmony, we'll need to change one of them (probably -eu).

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I'd suggest direct observation and not for the imperfective, and hearsay and not for the perfective. Maybe the not-direct-observation and hearsay categories could be indicated by an <-ar-> infix between the tense infix and the aspect-mood suffix, and the other categories could be the defaults. The infix would be ungrammatical outside the indicative mood, since other moods don't indicate aspect. However, participles do, and I'm not sure if they should have evidentiality. Does Turkish indicate evidentiality on anything like a participle?

What are perfective and imperfective? Sorry, I don't know much about grammar.

Perfective aspect views an action as atomic, while imperfective aspect looks into the interior of an action. For example, "While it was raining (imperfective), I bought a pineapple (perfective)". You can find more details about grammatical concepts like aspect on Wikipedia or other sites.

Turkish indicates evidentiality with two different types of past suffixes (they again change according to preceding consonants and vowels). Yap-mış=heard that he/she//it did (it). Gör-düm=I saw. We can also add present like "gel-i-yor-muş=heard that he/she/it is coming" and "sil-i-yor-du= was wiping", though it doesn't indicate evidentiality for the second one. We indicate past perfect by combining the two, too. I think that evidentiality should happen for all indicative verbs.

[fluffykitty]

So are you saying participles should not be marked for evidentiality? Also, it's getting late, so I'm going to go now. See you tomorrow.

[BokaBB]

Just present, perfect, future and potential, please.
I want for the language to be relatively easy to learn.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

Maybe for some tenses we can have separate words analogous to "will" in English? Tell me if that's a good idea. Also, in Turkish we have a suffix -imsi meaning "similar to" but we don't really use it for concepts that deserve their own word/word group.

Existent. We have them for perfect and potential.
Urgent! Adjectives end with - ni,but we don't use it. I planned it to be like that just in cases like She is big.,but I am thinking we should remove -ni.Should we discard it,add it or have irregular adjectives?
I deny changing time endings. My ones fit well.
Beo and rat won't be suffixes.
Akeo (to be) is only used in situations like I am BokaBB and not in those like I am walking.
Please repost the spreadsheet,I want it to be closer.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

[Moosey]

My ones fit well.

that sounds highly biased

Please repost the spreadsheet,I want it to be closer.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1126530732

[Schiaparelliorbust]

My ones fit well.

that sounds highly biased

Please repost the spreadsheet,I want it to be closer.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1126530732

What do you think about evidentiality? Yes it is highly biased. You can't make subjective changes, especially if most everyone disagrees.

[BokaBB]

My ones fit well.

that sounds highly biased

Please repost the spreadsheet,I want it to be closer.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1126530732

What do you think about evidentiality? Yes it is highly biased. You can't make subjective changes, especially if most everyone disagrees.

Oki - doki. I just don't desire much complexity.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

[Schiaparelliorbust]

So are you saying participles should not be marked for evidentiality? Also, it's getting late, so I'm going to go now. See you tomorrow.

I guess participles should be marked too. I don't see any reason why.

Oki - doki. I just don't desire much complexity.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

Could you look at your fancy CAs please?

[BokaBB]

A bunch of a new vocabulary.
-me - the creator of something, a preffix in the case if it means ,,creating" (as an adjective)
Nap - world
Nai - rule,law
Menai - principle
- op - a man with a some profession
Bornet - hug
-et - some job done with
Gal - game, also a preffix that indicates that something is used for games
Seon - card,map
Galseonral - playing cards
Dek - geometrical object
Ki - regular
Kidek - ball
(please make cube and similar yourself)
Ung - absent,missing,also a preffix with the same use
Ter - gluing
Tereo - to glue
Tere - glue
Ask - reform,reformation
I have noticed w a few times in a spreadsheet. I don't want it and all words with it will instead have v on w's place.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

[fluffykitty]

Existent. We have them for perfect and potential.

The current system uses auxiliaries for those tenses, but my proposed system does not. Also, by "potential" do you mean conditional? Wikipedia gives a different meaning for those two.

Urgent! Adjectives end with - ni,but we don't use it. I planned it to be like that just in cases like She is big.,but I am thinking we should remove -ni.Should we discard it,add it or have irregular adjectives?

I suggest we keep it as a derivational affix for converting nouns to adjectives (<kop>=tiredness, <kopni>=tired), but don't include it on primitive adjectives like <beo>. If we do that, I suggest that <-ni>+<-eo> (or other verbal suffixes) eliminate the <i>, since I think that words like <kopneo> "to be tired" could be useful and <ieo> is a somewhat awkward series of vowels.

I deny changing time endings. My ones fit well.

If we introduce a vowel harmony system (where words can either use vowels from /a(ɛ)eo/ or /a(ɪ)iu/, but not both), then <-eo> and <-eu> both become -/eo/ or -/iu/. With my proposed vowel changes, they instead become -/(j)o/ or -/(j)u/ and -/e(w)/ or -/i(w)/, so there's no conflict in that case.

Beo and rat won't be suffixes.

I just realized that I accidentally reused <-rat> for the "in general" suffix, so I'm going to assume you meant the "scary version of" suffix. If we're removing those two, we should probably remove the other "x version of y" suffixes. However, I think it might be interesting to keep <-beo> and <-ven> (and possibly more) to indicate how you view something, rather than how it actually is (eg <beo nag> "good food", <nagbeo> "food I like"). It might be a good idea to change <-beo> to something else to avoid potential conflicts with <-eo>.

Akeo (to be) is only used in situations like I am BokaBB and not in those like I am walking.

In my proposed system, all basic meanings are expressed on the verb itself, and not with auxiliaries. Thus, <akeo> is not used for forming the continuous aspect.

A bunch of a new vocabulary.

Added to the sheet. However, many of these new words violate the restrictions on consonant clusters in my proposed phonotactics. Please tell us what you think of it. (It's in the "mess around here" sheet.)

-me - the creator of something, a preffix in the case if it means ,,creating" (as an adjective)

I don't understand what you mean by "'creating' (as an adjective)". If you mean something like <meog>->"making bread", then I think we should use something like <(create)eoni og> (or, with my revised verb system, <-il> instead of <-eoni>). If you mean <meog>->"baker", then I would use something similar to the other case, but with a suffix analogous to English "-er".

- op - a man with a some profession

Like <og>->"bread", <ogop>->"baker"? I'm assuming this suffix does not include gender (if so, then you should use "person", not "man").

I have noticed w a few times in a spreadsheet. I don't want it and all words with it will instead have v on w's place.

My proposed phonology also eliminates the existing use of /w/ (<derwo>). However, with the simplify-diphthongs version of the vowel changes, new /w/s would appear as part of diphthongs. However, these would never appear in the onset except as part of consonant clusters (since no existing syllable starts with <ue>, <ua>, or <uo>).

If we choose to have a case system, we could express passive meanings by omitting the subject of a verb (eg invalid Esperanto *"min manĝas", which would mean "I am being eaten")

[Schiaparelliorbust]

A bunch of a new vocabulary.
-me - the creator of something, a preffix in the case if it means ,,creating" (as an adjective)
Nap - world
Nai - rule,law
Menai - principle
- op - a man with a some profession
Bornet - hug
-et - some job done with
Gal - game, also a preffix that indicates that something is used for games
Seon - card,map
Galseonral - playing cards
Dek - geometrical object
Ki - regular
Kidek - ball
(please make cube and similar yourself)
Ung - absent,missing,also a preffix with the same use
Ter - gluing
Tereo - to glue
Tere - glue
Ask - reform,reformation
I have noticed w a few times in a spreadsheet. I don't want it and all words with it will instead have v on w's place.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

1)You are creating affixes with ultra-specific meanings that could make adjectives redundant.
2)You are making much too simple words for complex non-natural concepts like "dek".
3)Unless we vote w out, you can't declare it out of this language.
Edit: The profession suffix is a good idea as far as I'm concerned, but as fluffykitty noted it should be gender neutral.

[BokaBB]

Existent. We have them for perfect and potential.

The current system uses auxiliaries for those tenses, but my proposed system does not. Also, by "potential" do you mean conditional? Wikipedia gives a different meaning for those two.

Urgent! Adjectives end with - ni,but we don't use it. I planned it to be like that just in cases like She is big.,but I am thinking we should remove -ni.Should we discard it,add it or have irregular adjectives?

I suggest we keep it as a derivational affix for converting nouns to adjectives (<kop>=tiredness, <kopni>=tired), but don't include it on primitive adjectives like <beo>. If we do that, I suggest that <-ni>+<-eo> (or other verbal suffixes) eliminate the <i>, since I think that words like <kopneo> "to be tired" could be useful and <ieo> is a somewhat awkward series of vowels.

I deny changing time endings. My ones fit well.

If we introduce a vowel harmony system (where words can either use vowels from /a(ɛ)eo/ or /a(ɪ)iu/, but not both), then <-eo> and <-eu> both become -/eo/ or -/iu/. With my proposed vowel changes, they instead become -/(j)o/ or -/(j)u/ and -/e(w)/ or -/i(w)/, so there's no conflict in that case.

Beo and rat won't be suffixes.

I just realized that I accidentally reused <-rat> for the "in general" suffix, so I'm going to assume you meant the "scary version of" suffix. If we're removing those two, we should probably remove the other "x version of y" suffixes. However, I think it might be interesting to keep <-beo> and <-ven> (and possibly more) to indicate how you view something, rather than how it actually is (eg <beo nag> "good food", <nagbeo> "food I like"). It might be a good idea to change <-beo> to something else to avoid potential conflicts with <-eo>.

Akeo (to be) is only used in situations like I am BokaBB and not in those like I am walking.

In my proposed system, all basic meanings are expressed on the verb itself, and not with auxiliaries. Thus, <akeo> is not used for forming the continuous aspect.

A bunch of a new vocabulary.

Added to the sheet. However, many of these new words violate the restrictions on consonant clusters in my proposed phonotactics. Please tell us what you think of it. (It's in the "mess around here" sheet.)

-me - the creator of something, a preffix in the case if it means ,,creating" (as an adjective)

I don't understand what you mean by "'creating' (as an adjective)". If you mean something like <meog>->"making bread", then I think we should use something like <(create)eoni og> (or, with my revised verb system, <-il> instead of <-eoni>). If you mean <meog>->"baker", then I would use something similar to the other case, but with a suffix analogous to English "-er".

- op - a man with a some profession

Like <og>->"bread", <ogop>->"baker"? I'm assuming this suffix does not include gender (if so, then you should use "person", not "man").

I have noticed w a few times in a spreadsheet. I don't want it and all words with it will instead have v on w's place.

My proposed phonology also eliminates the existing use of /w/ (<derwo>). However, with the simplify-diphthongs version of the vowel changes, new /w/s would appear as part of diphthongs. However, these would never appear in the onset except as part of consonant clusters (since no existing syllable starts with <ue>, <ua>, or <uo>).

If we choose to have a case system, we could express passive meanings by omitting the subject of a verb (eg invalid Esperanto *"min manĝas", which would mean "I am being eaten")

Me is used as a preffix in the case like ,,a creating principle". It is not a verb,but can be made with -eo.
I don't want the language to have the case system since we haven't mentioned it.
Vowel harmony is not easy to do since we already made tons of vocabulary.
Schaparelio,please calm your tone. W is somewhat sinonimous with v.
Potential is I would like to do something.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Me is used as a preffix in the case like ,,a creating principle". It is not a verb,but can be made with -eo.
I don't want the language to have the case system since we haven't mentioned it.
Vowel harmony is not easy to do since we already made tons of vocabulary.
Schaparelio,please calm your tone. W is somewhat sinonimous with v.
Potential is I would like to do something.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

Ok sorry if I was kind of harsh though I really do think that some of your affixes are making adjectives useless. W and v don't actaully sound to similar if you ask me. Hunting said that they wanted w. Also, please rethink vocabulary for words that I call "complex non-natural" concepts like "dek" for geometrical object or "ask" for reformation. You can simplify those concepts into smaller morphemes (units of meaning) in the language or the language it came from (eg. Latin).

[BokaBB]

Me is used as a preffix in the case like ,,a creating principle". It is not a verb,but can be made with -eo.
I don't want the language to have the case system since we haven't mentioned it.
Vowel harmony is not easy to do since we already made tons of vocabulary.
Schaparelio,please calm your tone. W is somewhat sinonimous with v.
Potential is I would like to do something.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

Ok sorry if I was kind of harsh though I really do think that some of your affixes are making adjectives useless. W and v don't actaully sound to similar if you ask me. Hunting said that they wanted w. Also, please rethink vocabulary for words that I call "complex non-natural" concepts like "dek" for geometrical object or "ask" for reformation. You can simplify those concepts into smaller morphemes (units of meaning) in the language or the language it came from (eg. Latin).

I am open for proposals.
Dek can also mean any shape,including 2D ones and maybe also can mean rock.
Profession suffix is indeed gender - neutral.
fluffykitty,please remove bese- from the sheet since we don't use that number system anymore. Invent a word in that place freely.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I am open for proposals.
Profession suffix is indeed gender - neutral.
fluffykitty,please remove bese- from the sheet since we don't use that number system anymore. Invent a word in that place freely.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

I think we should have a system for compounding words into single words for certain concepts. If there's a concept which is more than the sum of its parts, it should be a single word and there should be phonological rules for how the two words stick together. That way we can make interesting new concepts in an intuitive way in stead of having to make a new word for new stuff every time. The words I mentioned in my earlier post are like that. I need to go to bed, goodbye until tomorrow morning.

[BokaBB]

I am open for proposals.
Profession suffix is indeed gender - neutral.
fluffykitty,please remove bese- from the sheet since we don't use that number system anymore. Invent a word in that place freely.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

I think we should have a system for compounding words into single words for certain concepts. If there's a concept which is more than the sum of its parts, it should be a single word and there should be phonological rules for how the two words stick together. That way we can make interesting new concepts in an intuitive way in stead of having to make a new word for new stuff every time. The words I mentioned in my earlier post are like that. I need to go to bed, goodbye until tomorrow morning.

Interesting thought. My earlier words were super logical and we must have a continuity.
fluffykitty,object is dek,not pek.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

[fluffykitty]

1)You are creating affixes with ultra-specific meanings that could make adjectives redundant.

Affixes that provide exactly the same meaning as an adjective or compound should not be used. Did you see my proposal for <-beo> and <-ven> above?

2)You are making much too simple words for complex non-natural concepts like "dek".

I think the bigger problem here is that we don't have enough verbs. For example, we don't have "go", "make" as in "create", or "make" as in "cause".

3)Unless we vote w out, you can't declare it out of this language.

True, although I do support changing <derwo> to <dervo>. However, I think /w/ should be allowed in diphthongs like <rigeu> /rɪgew/ if we accept my phonology changes. Speaking of that, I added rows to the opinion sheet for my proposed changes. Please write your thoughts there (and/or here).

Me is used as a preffix in the case like ,,a creating principle". It is not a verb,but can be made with -eo.

I don't understand. Can you provide more examples?

I don't want the language to have the case system since we haven't mentioned it.

Second and third person plural pronouns already have two cases, for some reason. We should either expand that to all pronouns or all nouns, or eliminate it entirely. I think we should indicate case on all nouns, using a suffix similar to the existing <-(e)m>.

Vowel harmony is not easy to do since we already made tons of vocabulary.

The modifications for vowel harmony are not very complicated (<rigeu>-><rigiu>). If we include it, I could easily write a program to fix existing vocabulary.

Potential is I would like to do something.

I believe that type of meaning would be included in the subjunctive in my verb reform.

I think we should have a system for compounding words into single words for certain concepts. If there's a concept which is more than the sum of its parts, it should be a single word and there should be phonological rules for how the two words stick together. That way we can make interesting new concepts in an intuitive way in stead of having to make a new word for new stuff every time. The words I mentioned in my earlier post are like that. I need to go to bed, goodbye until tomorrow morning.

Many of the existing affixes are equivalent to compounds. I've added a column to the affixes sheet for my thoughts on the matter, and I suggest that others do the same.

fluffykitty,object is dek,not pek.

<dek> already means "wheat". I've changed "shape/rock" to <pek> to prevent conflicts, as well as <kibek>/<kipek>. If you wish to do something else, feel free to change those rows of the sheet.

[BokaBB]

1)You are creating affixes with ultra-specific meanings that could make adjectives redundant.

Affixes that provide exactly the same meaning as an adjective or compound should not be used. Did you see my proposal for <-beo> and <-ven> above?

2)You are making much too simple words for complex non-natural concepts like "dek".

I think the bigger problem here is that we don't have enough verbs. For example, we don't have "go", "make" as in "create", or "make" as in "cause".

3)Unless we vote w out, you can't declare it out of this language.

True, although I do support changing <derwo> to <dervo>. However, I think /w/ should be allowed in diphthongs like <rigeu> /rɪgew/ if we accept my phonology changes. Speaking of that, I added rows to the opinion sheet for my proposed changes. Please write your thoughts there (and/or here).

Me is used as a preffix in the case like ,,a creating principle". It is not a verb,but can be made with -eo.

I don't understand. Can you provide more examples?

I don't want the language to have the case system since we haven't mentioned it.

Second and third person plural pronouns already have two cases, for some reason. We should either expand that to all pronouns or all nouns, or eliminate it entirely. I think we should indicate case on all nouns, using a suffix similar to the existing <-(e)m>.

Vowel harmony is not easy to do since we already made tons of vocabulary.

The modifications for vowel harmony are not very complicated (<rigeu>-><rigiu>). If we include it, I could easily write a program to fix existing vocabulary.

Potential is I would like to do something.

I believe that type of meaning would be included in the subjunctive in my verb reform.

I think we should have a system for compounding words into single words for certain concepts. If there's a concept which is more than the sum of its parts, it should be a single word and there should be phonological rules for how the two words stick together. That way we can make interesting new concepts in an intuitive way in stead of having to make a new word for new stuff every time. The words I mentioned in my earlier post are like that. I need to go to bed, goodbye until tomorrow morning.

Many of the existing affixes are equivalent to compounds. I've added a column to the affixes sheet for my thoughts on the matter, and I suggest that others do the same.

fluffykitty,object is dek,not pek.

<dek> already means "wheat". I've changed "shape/rock" to <pek> to prevent conflicts, as well as <kibek>/<kipek>. If you wish to do something else, feel free to change those rows of the sheet.

English also have her and him.
Change: Meneo - to make,it is more logical.
Person that is a maker won't be neither -un or -og.
Lereo - to move,to go
I will think about your system. Say some advantages of it,please.
My language has got its own sound and I am trying to defend it as good as I can,altrough I may change my mind.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

[BokaBB]

Existent. We have them for perfect and potential.

The current system uses auxiliaries for those tenses, but my proposed system does not. Also, by "potential" do you mean conditional? Wikipedia gives a different meaning for those two.

Urgent! Adjectives end with - ni,but we don't use it. I planned it to be like that just in cases like She is big.,but I am thinking we should remove -ni.Should we discard it,add it or have irregular adjectives?

I suggest we keep it as a derivational affix for converting nouns to adjectives (<kop>=tiredness, <kopni>=tired), but don't include it on primitive adjectives like <beo>. If we do that, I suggest that <-ni>+<-eo> (or other verbal suffixes) eliminate the <i>, since I think that words like <kopneo> "to be tired" could be useful and <ieo> is a somewhat awkward series of vowels.

I deny changing time endings. My ones fit well.

If we introduce a vowel harmony system (where words can either use vowels from /a(ɛ)eo/ or /a(ɪ)iu/, but not both), then <-eo> and <-eu> both become -/eo/ or -/iu/. With my proposed vowel changes, they instead become -/(j)o/ or -/(j)u/ and -/e(w)/ or -/i(w)/, so there's no conflict in that case.

Beo and rat won't be suffixes.

I just realized that I accidentally reused <-rat> for the "in general" suffix, so I'm going to assume you meant the "scary version of" suffix. If we're removing those two, we should probably remove the other "x version of y" suffixes. However, I think it might be interesting to keep <-beo> and <-ven> (and possibly more) to indicate how you view something, rather than how it actually is (eg <beo nag> "good food", <nagbeo> "food I like"). It might be a good idea to change <-beo> to something else to avoid potential conflicts with <-eo>.

Akeo (to be) is only used in situations like I am BokaBB and not in those like I am walking.

In my proposed system, all basic meanings are expressed on the verb itself, and not with auxiliaries. Thus, <akeo> is not used for forming the continuous aspect.

A bunch of a new vocabulary.

Added to the sheet. However, many of these new words violate the restrictions on consonant clusters in my proposed phonotactics. Please tell us what you think of it. (It's in the "mess around here" sheet.)

-me - the creator of something, a preffix in the case if it means ,,creating" (as an adjective)

I don't understand what you mean by "'creating' (as an adjective)". If you mean something like <meog>->"making bread", then I think we should use something like <(create)eoni og> (or, with my revised verb system, <-il> instead of <-eoni>). If you mean <meog>->"baker", then I would use something similar to the other case, but with a suffix analogous to English "-er".

- op - a man with a some profession

Like <og>->"bread", <ogop>->"baker"? I'm assuming this suffix does not include gender (if so, then you should use "person", not "man").

I have noticed w a few times in a spreadsheet. I don't want it and all words with it will instead have v on w's place.

My proposed phonology also eliminates the existing use of /w/ (<derwo>). However, with the simplify-diphthongs version of the vowel changes, new /w/s would appear as part of diphthongs. However, these would never appear in the onset except as part of consonant clusters (since no existing syllable starts with <ue>, <ua>, or <uo>).

If we choose to have a case system, we could express passive meanings by omitting the subject of a verb (eg invalid Esperanto *"min manĝas", which would mean "I am being eaten")

In that case we will just use kopeo.
I think we don't need things like hello and similar and that my signing can be used in that cases,just adopted to the time of a day.
Kopeo is to sleep. There should be no difference beetwen make and create.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

[fluffykitty]

In the future, please do not quote the entirety of long posts, especially if the quoted post is the one immediately before yours, and doubly so if you're double posting. I recommend only quoting the parts of posts that you're responding to, like I do.

English also have her and him.

I don't see what that has to do with this language's cases. Can you elaborate?

Change: Meneo - to make,it is more logical.

Does this cover both "to make a pillow" and "to make you read"?

I will think about your system. Say some advantages of it,please.
My language has got its own sound and I am trying to defend it as good as I can,altrough I may change my mind.

My proposed phonology changes only change the rarest consonants (except the coda devoicing, which only affects a few words), and if we choose the diphthong-breaking option, then the vowels won't change much either. The consonant changes also eliminate rare consonant clusters which often only appear in one word and its derivatives.

In that case we will just use kopeo.

I'm assuming this means "create". In that case, should it also be used for "you make/create a bottle", leaving <meneo> for "to make me sleep" only?

[BokaBB]

Read my last message. Kopeo is to sleep and meneo is to make or create. I just criticized kopneo.
I will think for some time.
What are the codas?
We can make more words with the rare clusters.
Elkeo beo rigeu!

BokaBB

[fluffykitty]

Read my last message. Kopeo is to sleep and meneo is to make or create. I just criticized kopneo.

Fixed on the sheet. However, I still think we should have separate verbs for make/create and make/cause.

What are the codas?

Sounds at the ends of syllables, eg re*d*, toa*st*.

We can make more words with the rare clusters.

That is also an option. However, unless we make a lot of words with clusters, they'll probably still sound strange, which is why I think we should remove them entirely.

You haven't commented on my verb system, vowel harmony, or evidentiality. What do you think of those? Also, is anyone here interested in a Discord server?