[What I want to know is how you decided on all of the "oblique cases". (Is that really what they're called? I find the term to be slightly suspicious, but I can't think of a better term.)Totally standard grammatical terminology
Thanks, I needed a push there...
It's also kinda weird, your tenses. I doubt anyone would be so specific in their verb times that they had to have a tense for each time interval of the day. Not only that, the tenses seem to be only by themselves, that is, "im" therefore implies either that it will happen this morning, it is happening this morning, or it happened this morning. If each time interval has a specific tense, I suggest you say that. If the tense ambiguity was intentional, then you have to also say that, because otherwise it isn't clear enough.
Kloiten, have a look at some native North American languages. You'll be amazed at some of the fine tense distinctions you can find in them.
I'll look into it; I knew that these kinds of tenses existed, but I found it kinda strange for them to number so many, and to be so specific.
I'm not sure I would even consider these "tense" markers as such; they look to me like incorporated
time expressions. It would be interesting to compare the corresponding freestanding forms of these markers to see how similar they are.
I was thinking the same thing... Cameron, there's a thing that you may want to add.
Well I first started with the Greenlandic case system, but then, since I want this to be a descriptive language, I decided it could use a few more cases and I added some that I thought necessary (such as Comitative), and withdrew some I thought unneccessary (such as Equative).
See, this is what I dislike about conlanging. The author of the language acts like some sort of god deciding where everything would go in the language, just like you decided that the equative is an unnecessary case, despite it being perfectly reasonably and useful. I'm not saying it's bad to be a god because, after all, it is your language and you can do whatever you want with it, but it doesn't make much sense to me to just say "it's like this and this is how it began". I used to do that, but it was always a bit unsatisfying to watch something on the grounds of Esperanto coming around: no life, no natural change. Yes, perhaps I made irregularities to liven up the scene, but they had no history behind them, nothing interesting besides the fact that the language's creator was bored.
What else can I add to the grammar? Please tell me so I can make this a Better language.
I think you need to put in more things, like questions, more on the syntax structure, word combination (referring to something like Haqapiŋua’umamux
which combines the agent [uma] and the argument [haqap], that is, explain why and how this works... someone toss me a better term than word combination, please), adjective use, a good lexicon, lexicon rules, possible morphological exceptions, derivation, common word usage, colloquial speech and all the fun things that go with it... there's a lot more than that. I know it seems overwhelming to see all of those things, but it's very fun to go through it and address everything.
Cameron, a few suggestions for future languages:
I know that you create cultures along with your languages. Try creating a culture behind a language, and make that culture intertwine with the language. Make it so that the language has a history, albeit synthetic. Think about your words. What did they mean one hundred years ago for the people who speak the language? How did these people decline their nouns, agree their adjectives, and conjugate their verbs? And, even earlier than that, how did they start to do all of that? How did they come up with conjugation? Declension? It's definitely more than a bunch of endings to be unique and convenient. Each ending has a history, which stretches back to ancient times when language was just beginning. If you add these nuances into your language, you will find that the depth and richness of the language is very satisfying.
Also, your languages will be bound to have dialects. Dialects are more profound than just "g is said here instead of ɣ in this corner of the country". Dialects are subtle but vital nuances that separate one people from another. It shows that, for some reason, people pronounce this as that. It shouldn't be just dismissed as an interesting variation, but as a cultural reason.
I know I may have made little sense... try not to go crazy analyzing what I've said! Sometimes I don't understand what I'm saying myself.