#394

The gender of nouns and pronouns in the sentence is relative to the gender of the verb. So if “to be” is a feminine verb, only women can say “I am” and have the statement be grammatically correct.

I'm already doing this one with Oksirapho, which is partly a radical investigation into sexism gone deeply mad. But I think I outdid the submitter: the feminine/natural verbs use an ergative syntax, literally enshrining passivity in grammar. Normally I hate Shitpost-Whorf theory but this one was too good to pass up.

#383

Create a conlang for academia, in which the unmarked form of a verb means that the action is happening in theory, and verbs receive an extra marking to indicate that they happen in practice.

Wait, isn't that how infinitives already work? Shit. I've been bad-conlanging my whole life.

#326

Screw discrete vowel systems. All possible vowel sounds are used. You can continuously vary the meaning of any word by continuously varying the vowels within it. Perhaps /kin/ means “large”, /kɒn/ means “small”, /kun/ means “tall but narrow”, /kan/ means “short but wide”, /ken/ means “large but not much taller than average”, and /kən/ means “of neutral size”.

This one's so depressingly obvious I might as well use it for Paligu. Contriving a writing system for it will be tough, though. I foresee infinite potential for language drift caused by hyperbole. Possibly with the occasional sarcastic inversion, like a planet's magnetic field?