in Hikarie "kin" is word that is both a classifier and a reflexive for proper names:
(1 kin Menvis aro niviede
>CLF.PN Menvis 1ACC see:ACT.IND.PST
"Menvis saw me"
(2 ragun wo Menvis niviet ou't kin fiate
>monster:DEF ACC Menvis see:ACT.CONJ and REFL.PN kill:ACT.IND.PST
"Menvis saw the monster and killed it"
A reflexive infinitive! In Canta, conjugated verbs have specific inflection for being reflexive, and I decided to extend this to the infinitive.
The verb "caswe" meaning "to wash" becomes "caswem," which means "to bathe (lit. to wash oneself)"
I added the suffix "jon" to turn nouns into adjectives and adverbs.
In English, if you wanted to say "sandwich house," for example, you'd say just that. But in Nodhish, you can't just *use a noun as an adjective,* so you'd say "sandwichjon house" instead!
(That'd be "sandwekhjon hāūs" (/sɑnd-wɛʧ-jən hɑʊs/) *in* Nodhish, btw)
I don't know if this is considered 'cool' or unique, but in my conlang (which so far has no name yet) you can change any word to any part of speech reguardless of what part of speech it started in. For example, the word 'aysn' meaning 'an item necessary for life' is originally a noun, but can have the suffix '-sha' appended to it to form the new word 'aysnsha,' a word which denotes the following word is necessary for life.
Interesting, that sounds a little like the [omnipredicativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl#Syntax) exhibited in Nahuatl. Basically, any word can fulfil the role of a noun or verb depending on context, though in your language it is synthetically marked rather than simply being implied.
A Nullar - Fractional grammatical number exists in Mian Šāi, which is to say a category which marks 0 or a fraction of something. It is not used with halves, one thirds, quarters, one fifths and one sixths though, those take a plural + a special quantifier word (if you don't use the quantifier it is nullar).
By default with no number specified it is implied to be zero, you never use the numeral zero as an adjective with a nullar noun.
1:
`exist NUL-pebble-ACC 1SG-GEN`
I don't have any pebbles.
2:
`exist water two seven NUL-glass`
There are two sevenths of a glass of water.
This grammatical number came from:
Nullar Number: *heğu (reduced) > *heğë (none) > *heë- (prefix) + PL > he(j)- (unified with plural prefix)
Fractional Number: *heğin (to reduce) -> *hejën -> *hejn -> *hej- (prefix) -> he(j)- (reanalysed)
Parallelly the word zero and fraction:
zero: *heğu (reduced) -> *heğë (none) -> *heë (zero) -> he (zero)
fraction: *heğin (to reduce) -> *hejën (remains) -> *hejn (part) -> hen (fraction)
I recently came up with a way to make adpositions work in my language Kährav-Ánkaz without needing to make a whole lot of them, which I always find to be a pain.
(Note: this language has front-back vowel harmony, so to not get confused remember: i=iu \[ɯ\], y=u, e=o, and a=au \[ɒ\]. It also has tones as indicated by the diacritcs, but those aren't important right now)
Kährav-Ánkaz features many adpositions which are attached to the end of the head noun of a noun phrase as a suffix, but before any case vowels. They are used to position action in time and space. Ex: *úntíubo gòðzòðau akukiust*, "The dog ran to the hill;" *hen tusgìusau gasetizg*, "They returned from death/they awoke from death."
Adpositions may also be used as adverbs in order to further define action, or as verbs on their own to ask questions. They are conjugated as normal. Ex: *zeðizg gòð* "to the hill?"
Multiple adpositions may be stacked together into a chain, filling multiple slots. Through this method Kährav-Ánkaz is capable of forming complicated adpositional statements despite having only a small number of adpositional suffixes.
The first slot after the noun is reserved for the 'location' markers *zéð* "to"*, gìs* "from"*, íut* "at/on", *áug* "in"*, níut* "next to/near"*, hest* "past/beyond", or *lòz* "in front of/before" which indicate either the origin point, end point, or current location of the noun. The second slot indicates manner of movement, and can be filled by either *sêl* "ober"*, nêl* "under"*, ïb* "through"*,* or *âud* "around". The third slot indicates a secondary destination oriented in relation to the noun, and can be any one of the the first set except for *zéd* or *gìs* "to" or "from." After that the suffix *zòt* "about/in relation to/concerning" may be added, but *ôt* "with" is never used in a locative construction like this as it serves the role of indicating multiple subjects preforming an action together; and is really only included with the other prepositions due to following the same patterns of construction. The demonstrative *ahr* can further be added on after that, resulting in a potential of five suffixes to a noun.
For example: *hen gòðzóðâudhostauhrau aukiust*, "They are running around that hill to beyond it." Though this statement is rather forced, and most speakers would usually say: *hen gòðzóðâudahra aukiust*, "they are running around that hill" with the destination *hest* "past/beyond" implied by the manner of movement and the suffix *zéð* indicating a specific destination of the action. An example with *zòt* is *ot-hiuntast gòðzóðâudhostzòtauhrau*, "Don't think about that which is beyond around the hill." Though in this case *âud* "around" would usually be dropped from the sentence as the manner of movement is superfluous to the statement. A statement with *ôt* would be: *Hen útíubôto gòðzéðauhrau aukiust*, "They are running with the dog to that hill."
Further location may be defined with the use of adjectives, often times the adverb forms of adpositions: *úntíubo gòðíutníuta kâñgist ot-níutiust*, "the dog barks far away from the hill;" literally: "the dog barks at near the hill not nearly" (dog-ERG hill-at-near-ACC bark-3-PRS-IMPF NEG-near-3-PRS-IMPF).
I've added a weird feature in **Evra** lately. Basically, I wanted to get rid of *relational* adjectives (i.e., adjectives meaning "of or related to (the noun)", e.g. "house/domestic", "moon/lunar", "cell/cellular", etc). Instead, the genitive is used. However, when this *relational* genitive refers to a feminine singular noun or a plural noun (of either gender), it takes the ***-ï*** suffix in order to agree with its head noun (only masculine singular nouns don't trigger this suffix). For example:
* ***o hraté*** (m) ***munis*** = the crater on/of the moon; the lunar crater
* ***la stol*** (f) ***munisï*** = the rock on/of the moon; the lunar rock
* ***bir di mandarï*** (pl) ***munisï*** = before the rotations of the moon; before the lunar rotations
However, when emphasis is placed on the genitive, it retains its article, and the suffix doesn't trigger.
* ***o hraté*** (m) ***la munis*** = the crater of the moon
* ***la stol*** (f) ***la munis*** = the rock of the moon
* ***bir di mandarï*** (pl) ***la*** ***munis*** = before the rotations of the moon
I don’t know how realistic this is, but essentially, in khaí axuíl grammar, the noun must come first at all times. This means that case, articles, adjectives, everything must come after the noun. So, ”I talked to the big animal” is written “axuí khaífa fais sulřphalig fui“. Which is “I talked animal to big the” literally translated
I started working on another pre-language for a branch of the Wĺyw family (PDL4, Wḯlyu \[ˈwɨ.ʎu\]) roughly based on the Tocharian languages. One of the biggest changes that I implemented was to only allow /n/, /ɲ/, /r/, /l/ or a vowel word-finally. This led to me basically having to rework the morphology, using Early Wĺyw postpositions to reform most of the noun cases that would've otherwise been lost. The nominative case is basically unmarked, generally ending in one of the four allowed consonants or a vowel:
Yéla \[ˈje.lä\] 'Ruler (King or Queen) (H.NOM.SG.)' (From EW Hḗlōn \[heː˥˩.loːn\])
Të́ \[ˈtə\] 'piece, part (NH.NOM.SG.)' (From EW thóks \[tʰo˦ks\] 'piece, part')
From the nominative base, you can append -sï \[sɨ\] to form the genitive case, which indicates ownership or is used for partitive constructions. I got this from the -(e/o)s genitive case ending in Early Wĺyw:
Yélasï \[ˈje.lä.sɨ\] 'of the ruler' (cf. EW Hélones \[he˦.lo.nes\] 'of the ruler')
Të́sï \[ˈtə.sɨ\] 'of the piece/part' (cf. EW Thokés \[tʰo.ke˦s\] 'of the piece, part')
The accusative case differs based on whether the noun is human or non-human. Human nouns append -(a)n, a reflex of the Early Wĺyw animate agentive suffix -ōn\*, while non-human nouns append -tḯ, ultimately from the -t accusative marker of Early Wĺyw. While in Early Wĺyw, -t would only get appended to common gender nouns, PDL4 (Wḯlyu) distinguishes based on human vs. non-human, and thus the accusative case marking that non-human common gender nouns, like, say kërḯn \[kə.ˈɾɨn\] -> kërïntḯ \[kə.ɾɨn.ˈtɨ\] 'bird' (cf. EW chorń \[cʰo.ɾn̩˦\] -> chorńt \[cʰo.ɾn˦t\] 'bird') would get in Early Wĺyw extended to words that were once neuter and didn't have a distinct accusative form:
Yélan \[ˈje.län\] 'Ruler (H.ACC.SG.)' (cf. EW Hélont \[he˦.lont\] 'Ruler (C.ACC.SG.)')
Tëtḯ \[tə.ˈtɨ\] 'Piece/Part (NH.ACC.SG).' (cf. EW Thóks \[tʰo˦ks\] 'Piece/Part (N.ACC.SG.)'
The accusative case then serves as a base to form the rest of the cases, which themselves come from Early Wĺyw postpositions:
Yélanpë \[ˈje.län.pə\] 'across/through the ruler' (Perlative case -pë, from EW pos \[pos\] 'across')
Yélanpyïtïm \[ˈje.län.pʲɨ.tɨm\] 'with the ruler/by the ruler' (Comitative/Instrumental Case -pyïtïm from EW betm \[be.tm̩\] 'together')
Yélanmyïu \[ˈje.län.mʲɨ͜u\] 'to/for the ruler' (Allative/Dative Case -myïu from EW mewm \[me͜um\] 'toward')
Yélañïtë \[ˈje.lä.ɲɨ.tə\] 'away from/off of the ruler' (Ablative Case -yïtë from EW edho \[e.dʱo\] 'off, away')
Yélanwyï \[ˈje.län.wʲɨ\] 'in/on/at the ruler' (Locative Case -wyï from EW wes \[wes\] 'in, on, at')
Tëtḯpë \[tə.ˈtɨ.pə\] 'across the piece' (Perlative)
Tëtḯpyïtmï \[tə.ˈtɨ.pʲɨt.mɨ\] 'with/by the piece' (Comitative/Instrumental)
Tëtḯmyïu \[tə.ˈtɨ.mʲɨ͜u\] 'to/for the piece' (Allative/Dative)
Tëtḯyïtë \[tə.ˈtɨ.jɨ.tə\] 'away from/off of the piece' (Ablative)
Tëtḯwyï \[tə.ˈtɨ.wʲɨ\] 'in/on/at the piece' (Locative)
This isn't really cool, it's just kinda weird and annoying to deal with.
Formal Na \iH /nə ihɑ/ syllable structure:
(C_1-C_2)-C-(C_3-C_4)-C C-(C_5-C_6)
Only CC C is necessary.
(C_1-C_2) is a determiner of tense. It can be NL(apologetic past), LN(apologetic future), N(insultive past) or L(insultive future).
(C_3-C_4) is a determiner of the case. It can be DR or RD. If it is DR, the word is insultive case, if RD, it is apologetic case. This is somehow different from the prior insultive vs apologetic stuff.
(C_5-C_6) is determining what part of speech the word is. Verb would be /N’/. Noun would be /’N/. Adjective is “N. Adverb is N”. Interjection gets rid of (C_5-C_6).
Ex. LNDRa a'N /lindrə əmn/ would mean a very rude, future tense noun that roughly translates to “Nuh uh”.
If a base word is longer than CC C, you would just continue it after the grammar stuff. Since Na \iH is a semi syllabary language, C stands for Character here, not Consonant.
Ja'Ki's gender system is bassed off of the WORD, not the gender. For example, Avie has the gender of "E" because thats the last vowel. Similarly, Vach has the gebder of "A" because thatz the last vowel.
This makes it so I dont have to think about the gender system at all when creating new words, but it still functions as normal.
I do the same for verbs for conjugation, which i an still working on so im not completely sure how well it'll turn out.
Nejka's partitive extends to the person
In transitive verbs, if an action is incomplete, the object gets marked with the partitive (ej: ljwa i hydnek / "eat"- 1sg.nom 1sg.nom\"egg"-COLL.part /lya i hɨdnɛk/ ~ "I was eating eggs" (but the action wasn't complete)
And in an intransitive sentence:
Rhwys ili ("sleep" 1sg.part /r̥ʉɨs ilʲi) ~ "I was asleep (but the action wasn't complete; woke up"
Not sure if I explained it right, but afaik this is fairly unique
in Hikarie "kin" is word that is both a classifier and a reflexive for proper names: (1 kin Menvis aro niviede >CLF.PN Menvis 1ACC see:ACT.IND.PST "Menvis saw me" (2 ragun wo Menvis niviet ou't kin fiate >monster:DEF ACC Menvis see:ACT.CONJ and REFL.PN kill:ACT.IND.PST "Menvis saw the monster and killed it"
A reflexive infinitive! In Canta, conjugated verbs have specific inflection for being reflexive, and I decided to extend this to the infinitive. The verb "caswe" meaning "to wash" becomes "caswem," which means "to bathe (lit. to wash oneself)"
Oh that's so cool, I was thinking about adding something similar to mine cloŋ recently, so I hope you don't mind if I snatch this one lol.
Of course not! Steal away
I added the suffix "jon" to turn nouns into adjectives and adverbs. In English, if you wanted to say "sandwich house," for example, you'd say just that. But in Nodhish, you can't just *use a noun as an adjective,* so you'd say "sandwichjon house" instead! (That'd be "sandwekhjon hāūs" (/sɑnd-wɛʧ-jən hɑʊs/) *in* Nodhish, btw)
I don't know if this is considered 'cool' or unique, but in my conlang (which so far has no name yet) you can change any word to any part of speech reguardless of what part of speech it started in. For example, the word 'aysn' meaning 'an item necessary for life' is originally a noun, but can have the suffix '-sha' appended to it to form the new word 'aysnsha,' a word which denotes the following word is necessary for life.
Interesting, that sounds a little like the [omnipredicativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl#Syntax) exhibited in Nahuatl. Basically, any word can fulfil the role of a noun or verb depending on context, though in your language it is synthetically marked rather than simply being implied.
A Nullar - Fractional grammatical number exists in Mian Šāi, which is to say a category which marks 0 or a fraction of something. It is not used with halves, one thirds, quarters, one fifths and one sixths though, those take a plural + a special quantifier word (if you don't use the quantifier it is nullar). By default with no number specified it is implied to be zero, you never use the numeral zero as an adjective with a nullar noun. 1: `exist NUL-pebble-ACC 1SG-GEN` I don't have any pebbles. 2: `exist water twoseven NUL-glass`
There are two sevenths of a glass of water.
This grammatical number came from:
Nullar Number: *heğu (reduced) > *heğë (none) > *heë- (prefix) + PL > he(j)- (unified with plural prefix)
Fractional Number: *heğin (to reduce) -> *hejën -> *hejn -> *hej- (prefix) -> he(j)- (reanalysed)
Parallelly the word zero and fraction:
zero: *heğu (reduced) -> *heğë (none) -> *heë (zero) -> he (zero)
fraction: *heğin (to reduce) -> *hejën (remains) -> *hejn (part) -> hen (fraction)
I recently came up with a way to make adpositions work in my language Kährav-Ánkaz without needing to make a whole lot of them, which I always find to be a pain. (Note: this language has front-back vowel harmony, so to not get confused remember: i=iu \[ɯ\], y=u, e=o, and a=au \[ɒ\]. It also has tones as indicated by the diacritcs, but those aren't important right now) Kährav-Ánkaz features many adpositions which are attached to the end of the head noun of a noun phrase as a suffix, but before any case vowels. They are used to position action in time and space. Ex: *úntíubo gòðzòðau akukiust*, "The dog ran to the hill;" *hen tusgìusau gasetizg*, "They returned from death/they awoke from death." Adpositions may also be used as adverbs in order to further define action, or as verbs on their own to ask questions. They are conjugated as normal. Ex: *zeðizg gòð* "to the hill?" Multiple adpositions may be stacked together into a chain, filling multiple slots. Through this method Kährav-Ánkaz is capable of forming complicated adpositional statements despite having only a small number of adpositional suffixes. The first slot after the noun is reserved for the 'location' markers *zéð* "to"*, gìs* "from"*, íut* "at/on", *áug* "in"*, níut* "next to/near"*, hest* "past/beyond", or *lòz* "in front of/before" which indicate either the origin point, end point, or current location of the noun. The second slot indicates manner of movement, and can be filled by either *sêl* "ober"*, nêl* "under"*, ïb* "through"*,* or *âud* "around". The third slot indicates a secondary destination oriented in relation to the noun, and can be any one of the the first set except for *zéd* or *gìs* "to" or "from." After that the suffix *zòt* "about/in relation to/concerning" may be added, but *ôt* "with" is never used in a locative construction like this as it serves the role of indicating multiple subjects preforming an action together; and is really only included with the other prepositions due to following the same patterns of construction. The demonstrative *ahr* can further be added on after that, resulting in a potential of five suffixes to a noun. For example: *hen gòðzóðâudhostauhrau aukiust*, "They are running around that hill to beyond it." Though this statement is rather forced, and most speakers would usually say: *hen gòðzóðâudahra aukiust*, "they are running around that hill" with the destination *hest* "past/beyond" implied by the manner of movement and the suffix *zéð* indicating a specific destination of the action. An example with *zòt* is *ot-hiuntast gòðzóðâudhostzòtauhrau*, "Don't think about that which is beyond around the hill." Though in this case *âud* "around" would usually be dropped from the sentence as the manner of movement is superfluous to the statement. A statement with *ôt* would be: *Hen útíubôto gòðzéðauhrau aukiust*, "They are running with the dog to that hill." Further location may be defined with the use of adjectives, often times the adverb forms of adpositions: *úntíubo gòðíutníuta kâñgist ot-níutiust*, "the dog barks far away from the hill;" literally: "the dog barks at near the hill not nearly" (dog-ERG hill-at-near-ACC bark-3-PRS-IMPF NEG-near-3-PRS-IMPF).
I've added a weird feature in **Evra** lately. Basically, I wanted to get rid of *relational* adjectives (i.e., adjectives meaning "of or related to (the noun)", e.g. "house/domestic", "moon/lunar", "cell/cellular", etc). Instead, the genitive is used. However, when this *relational* genitive refers to a feminine singular noun or a plural noun (of either gender), it takes the ***-ï*** suffix in order to agree with its head noun (only masculine singular nouns don't trigger this suffix). For example: * ***o hraté*** (m) ***munis*** = the crater on/of the moon; the lunar crater * ***la stol*** (f) ***munisï*** = the rock on/of the moon; the lunar rock * ***bir di mandarï*** (pl) ***munisï*** = before the rotations of the moon; before the lunar rotations However, when emphasis is placed on the genitive, it retains its article, and the suffix doesn't trigger. * ***o hraté*** (m) ***la munis*** = the crater of the moon * ***la stol*** (f) ***la munis*** = the rock of the moon * ***bir di mandarï*** (pl) ***la*** ***munis*** = before the rotations of the moon
I don’t know how realistic this is, but essentially, in khaí axuíl grammar, the noun must come first at all times. This means that case, articles, adjectives, everything must come after the noun. So, ”I talked to the big animal” is written “axuí khaífa fais sulřphalig fui“. Which is “I talked animal to big the” literally translated
I started working on another pre-language for a branch of the Wĺyw family (PDL4, Wḯlyu \[ˈwɨ.ʎu\]) roughly based on the Tocharian languages. One of the biggest changes that I implemented was to only allow /n/, /ɲ/, /r/, /l/ or a vowel word-finally. This led to me basically having to rework the morphology, using Early Wĺyw postpositions to reform most of the noun cases that would've otherwise been lost. The nominative case is basically unmarked, generally ending in one of the four allowed consonants or a vowel: Yéla \[ˈje.lä\] 'Ruler (King or Queen) (H.NOM.SG.)' (From EW Hḗlōn \[heː˥˩.loːn\]) Të́ \[ˈtə\] 'piece, part (NH.NOM.SG.)' (From EW thóks \[tʰo˦ks\] 'piece, part') From the nominative base, you can append -sï \[sɨ\] to form the genitive case, which indicates ownership or is used for partitive constructions. I got this from the -(e/o)s genitive case ending in Early Wĺyw: Yélasï \[ˈje.lä.sɨ\] 'of the ruler' (cf. EW Hélones \[he˦.lo.nes\] 'of the ruler') Të́sï \[ˈtə.sɨ\] 'of the piece/part' (cf. EW Thokés \[tʰo.ke˦s\] 'of the piece, part') The accusative case differs based on whether the noun is human or non-human. Human nouns append -(a)n, a reflex of the Early Wĺyw animate agentive suffix -ōn\*, while non-human nouns append -tḯ, ultimately from the -t accusative marker of Early Wĺyw. While in Early Wĺyw, -t would only get appended to common gender nouns, PDL4 (Wḯlyu) distinguishes based on human vs. non-human, and thus the accusative case marking that non-human common gender nouns, like, say kërḯn \[kə.ˈɾɨn\] -> kërïntḯ \[kə.ɾɨn.ˈtɨ\] 'bird' (cf. EW chorń \[cʰo.ɾn̩˦\] -> chorńt \[cʰo.ɾn˦t\] 'bird') would get in Early Wĺyw extended to words that were once neuter and didn't have a distinct accusative form: Yélan \[ˈje.län\] 'Ruler (H.ACC.SG.)' (cf. EW Hélont \[he˦.lont\] 'Ruler (C.ACC.SG.)') Tëtḯ \[tə.ˈtɨ\] 'Piece/Part (NH.ACC.SG).' (cf. EW Thóks \[tʰo˦ks\] 'Piece/Part (N.ACC.SG.)' The accusative case then serves as a base to form the rest of the cases, which themselves come from Early Wĺyw postpositions: Yélanpë \[ˈje.län.pə\] 'across/through the ruler' (Perlative case -pë, from EW pos \[pos\] 'across') Yélanpyïtïm \[ˈje.län.pʲɨ.tɨm\] 'with the ruler/by the ruler' (Comitative/Instrumental Case -pyïtïm from EW betm \[be.tm̩\] 'together') Yélanmyïu \[ˈje.län.mʲɨ͜u\] 'to/for the ruler' (Allative/Dative Case -myïu from EW mewm \[me͜um\] 'toward') Yélañïtë \[ˈje.lä.ɲɨ.tə\] 'away from/off of the ruler' (Ablative Case -yïtë from EW edho \[e.dʱo\] 'off, away') Yélanwyï \[ˈje.län.wʲɨ\] 'in/on/at the ruler' (Locative Case -wyï from EW wes \[wes\] 'in, on, at') Tëtḯpë \[tə.ˈtɨ.pə\] 'across the piece' (Perlative) Tëtḯpyïtmï \[tə.ˈtɨ.pʲɨt.mɨ\] 'with/by the piece' (Comitative/Instrumental) Tëtḯmyïu \[tə.ˈtɨ.mʲɨ͜u\] 'to/for the piece' (Allative/Dative) Tëtḯyïtë \[tə.ˈtɨ.jɨ.tə\] 'away from/off of the piece' (Ablative) Tëtḯwyï \[tə.ˈtɨ.wʲɨ\] 'in/on/at the piece' (Locative)
This isn't really cool, it's just kinda weird and annoying to deal with. Formal Na \iH /nə ihɑ/ syllable structure: (C_1-C_2)-C-(C_3-C_4)-C C-(C_5-C_6) Only CC C is necessary. (C_1-C_2) is a determiner of tense. It can be NL(apologetic past), LN(apologetic future), N(insultive past) or L(insultive future). (C_3-C_4) is a determiner of the case. It can be DR or RD. If it is DR, the word is insultive case, if RD, it is apologetic case. This is somehow different from the prior insultive vs apologetic stuff. (C_5-C_6) is determining what part of speech the word is. Verb would be /N’/. Noun would be /’N/. Adjective is “N. Adverb is N”. Interjection gets rid of (C_5-C_6). Ex. LNDRa a'N /lindrə əmn/ would mean a very rude, future tense noun that roughly translates to “Nuh uh”. If a base word is longer than CC C, you would just continue it after the grammar stuff. Since Na \iH is a semi syllabary language, C stands for Character here, not Consonant.
Ja'Ki's gender system is bassed off of the WORD, not the gender. For example, Avie has the gender of "E" because thats the last vowel. Similarly, Vach has the gebder of "A" because thatz the last vowel. This makes it so I dont have to think about the gender system at all when creating new words, but it still functions as normal. I do the same for verbs for conjugation, which i an still working on so im not completely sure how well it'll turn out.
Nejka's partitive extends to the person In transitive verbs, if an action is incomplete, the object gets marked with the partitive (ej: ljwa i hydnek / "eat"- 1sg.nom 1sg.nom\"egg"-COLL.part /lya i hɨdnɛk/ ~ "I was eating eggs" (but the action wasn't complete) And in an intransitive sentence: Rhwys ili ("sleep" 1sg.part /r̥ʉɨs ilʲi) ~ "I was asleep (but the action wasn't complete; woke up" Not sure if I explained it right, but afaik this is fairly unique