Here is my Grammar page for Hurga ker Maja. So far, it's only got syntax, which is mostly taken up by the clusterfuck of a subordination system. I wanna know what you think of it. I also wanna know if there's any syntactical information you think is missing.

this formatting is eye cancer-inducing

H13 I have a new color scheme I would like to show you

edit: ughhhh hangover from what you did the previous night…and I wasn't even drunk or high. Sorry for randomly bursting in with this.

On the map it is okay, but coloring running text brightly like that makes it very uncomfortable to read. Underlines would be okay.

Hm, alright. I'll see what I can do.

Ok. Does my article no longer offend your delicate visual sensibilities?

Approved!

Alright, thanks. Now that the Great Colour Debacle is over, how about dat grammar?

It's kind of crazy how you jumped straight into syntax—were you ever going to give us morphology?

Overall, the word order choices seem pretty reasonable... the way your interrogative syntax is presented reminds me of how the punctuation mark "¿" was invented: to make it more obvious that a sentence was a question before you got to the end of it because the grammar gave no clues. (And this apparently required rearranging the sentence's meaning? I don't know enough about Spanish to comment. Maybe someone else can.) You might want to consider a similar way of marking questions, since I could see some examples causing that sort of trouble.

Hmm... Spanish has wh-movement and IIRC some subject-verb inversion, so it's a good deal easier to figure out a sentence is a question than in, say, Mandarin, where you basically get a sentence-final particle (no wh-movement, neither!). In general, this is probably a big problem in languages where C-level stuff (interrogatives, epistemic stuff, information focus) is on the right.

quoting Rhetorica:

It's kind of crazy how you jumped straight into syntax—were you ever going to give us morphology?

I was, but I wasn't sure how to do it so as to present new information - all the affixes and adpositions are listed in the dictionary.

quoting Rhetorica:

the way your interrogative syntax is presented reminds me of how the punctuation mark "¿" was invented: to make it more obvious that a sentence was a question before you got to the end of it because the grammar gave no clues. (And this apparently required rearranging the sentence's meaning? I don't know enough about Spanish to comment. Maybe someone else can.) You might want to consider a similar way of marking questions, since I could see some examples causing that sort of trouble.

Hmm, I'll take this into consideration.

quoting Matrix:

quoting Rhetorica:

It's kind of crazy how you jumped straight into syntax—were you ever going to give us morphology?

I was, but I wasn't sure how to do it so as to present new information - all the affixes and adpositions are listed in the dictionary.

Simple: take all of your dictionary entries, put them in an article and then elaborate. Morphosyntax is important!!!+also nobody wants to read through the dictionary for non-word stuff, why are there even affixes in there

So very important. And also mad interesting.

It's kind of crazy how you jumped straight into syntax—were you ever going to give us morphology?

morphology is for weaklings

quoting Torco:

It's kind of crazy how you jumped straight into syntax—were you ever going to give us morphology?

morphology is for weaklings

MORPHOLOGY STRONK

So, I've added a morphology section to the page. Not really sure what else to do with it.

Personally, I'd consider putting it up above the syntax, so people can actually tell what they're getting into. Y'know, like every grammar ever. But it's a great win, in my opinion!

Also, you may want to consider adding examples for the morphology. The Lilitika grammar used to be (and still somewhat is) a similarly terse list of affixes, and as I've massaged it into being more legible I've found lots of times where I've wondered "how do I say that?" or "when would I really use this?" which have led to further developments.

Here's some actual feedback instead of douchebag tangenting, Matrix:

• The two-verb thing looks like a cool serial verb construction. I'm guessing both of the verbs are in one clause since there's only one subject allowed. I'm curious what determines which verb is primary and which secondary: is there a closed class of verbs (want, go, sit, stay) that can be primary? Or is it completely productive, like you could say something like "I ate the apples to lose weight" — 'weight' 'apples' 'I' 'lose' 'ate'?
• It's very unnatlangy to change the word order in questions across the board: usually there's sensitivity to a question word or wh-word. Think of what you'd do in sentences like "What did the dog eat?" with object wh-words. You could have SOV order in yes/no questions with an extra question particle, and put the wh-word at the front of the sentence in wh-questions.

quoting kodé:

Or is it completely productive, like you could say something like "I ate the apples to lose weight" — 'weight' 'apples' 'I' 'lose' 'ate'?

Yep.

quoting kodé:

It's very unnatlangy to change the word order in questions across the board: usually there's sensitivity to a question word or wh-word. Think of what you'd do in sentences like "What did the dog eat?" with object wh-words. You could have SOV order in yes/no questions with an extra question particle, and put the wh-word at the front of the sentence in wh-questions.

Hmm, alright. I'll think about this.

So I'm reading about Dravidian on Wikipedia.

quoting Wikipedia:

In a sentence, however complex, only one finite verb occurs, normally at the end, preceded if necessary by a number of gerunds.

Apparently I came up with a very similar way of doing things all on my own.