So I just completed the course myself. I have to say the quality is far below what I observed in the German course.
Inconsistency: Use of articles is much more common in Portuguese, before proper names, some abstract nouns. But you’ll find cases where “A Rafael” is absolutely not accepted and in other cases it’s part of the correct answer.
Dialect: it is a Brazilian Portuguese course and that’s fine. The pronunciations aren’t what you will experience in Europe and there are certainly some different words. But, they should make some effort to use both dialects vis a vis the correct answers. Estou a estudar is an entirely valid construction and should be accepted.
Length: I didn’t realize going into practice that I was almost done. I’m sure there has to be a point where they spend a little more effort on the subjunctive.
Grammar: common complaint that duo doesn’t focus on explaining grammar but that’s not what this is about. It only lightly touches the subjunctive and is missing a lot of context on the little bit that it introduces. That’s a pretty meaningful part of Portuguese. It’s possible that in Brasil they use it less, but the lack of context just ends up repeating the same sentences over and over because they can’t be easily divined.
I still used the course for drilling and practice and it continues to help. The lack of European Portuguese courses anywhere forces you to make do. So it’s better than nothing but clearly is a vestige of the old pre-professional Duo courses.

Hi all
I’m currently doing my grammar module and working through the noun unit. So far got 100% on both quizzes, first time.
Now I did the quiz on abstract nouns and failed with a 50%. I looked through my answers and I still stand by them. I’ve even googled them and Google agrees with me.
Even the quiz seems to agree with me as it has now labelled the nouns by what they are (I.e idea, concept, feeling etc.) and these match the definition the course itself gave of abstract nouns. One of the nouns it is saying I was wrong about is belief, which is literally in the definition of abstract noun the course provided. Another was an example the course gave itself previously but is saying I’m wrong about.
It’s making me feel really annoyed and kinda stupid because surely I’m just missing something right?
They’re all true false and I can see my previous answer so I could easily just change it and get 100% but I don’t want to without knowing if I’m actually right or not.
Has anyone else had this trouble with TEFL.org? Am I misunderstanding what it’s asking and how to answer correctly? I don’t see how I would be because the question is “is the word an abstract noun” and I’m clicking “true”, as in it is an abstract noun. Am I just wrong about these certain nouns?
Here are the nouns it’s telling me are not abstract: Belief Luck Education Trust Beauty (this one I’m actually unsure about, I didn’t realise how philosophical I could get over nouns 😅)
Thanks if you’ve read all this 😅

The Arabic definite article (ال)

• In Arabic, indefinite use of nouns—whether in the singular or plural—is very straightforward and follows one general rule: first mention of a specific entity or entities in the discourse, such as:(ثعلب) a fox (غابة) a forest, (شجرة) a tree (صوت عظيم) great sound”.
• Once nouns are re-introduced into the discourse, they become defined as old or already known information. Therefore, when such nouns are re-introduced, they exhibit definite use, such as the three nouns used again (الشجرة) The tree (الثعلب) a fox.
• By the same token, nouns that involve shared knowledge among speakers (i.e., nounsthat are easily/uniquely identifiable by speakers and hearer or writer and reader)exhibit definite use within a certain context. Such nouns include (المنزل) The House (المبنى) the building (الجامعه) university.

The above rule does not apply to unique nouns such as :

• ( الريح) the wind Such nouns are instead used with the definite article even if they are introduced for the first time in the discourse. Similar nouns include:(الشمس) the sun (القمر) the moon (الشتاء) the winter ,
• Other nouns include: days of the (الخميس) Thursday”),
• ordinal numbers (السادس عشر) the sixteenth
• time and hour (الساعة) the hour (الثامنة) the eighth hour
• and time period (الظهر) the noon.

Similarly, Nouns:

Similarly, nouns (whether concrete or abstract and whether singular or plural) having a generic meaning/reference (i.e., not referring to any specific entity/entities but rather to all members of the class/set or category of such entities in general) are expressed in the definite. For example, consider the following examples:
أحب السباحة – I like [the] swimming.”
أحب اللحم – I like [the] meat.”
where “swimming” (which is a verbal nounمصدر ) and “meat” are used with the definite article, since both are used to refer to “swimming” and to “meat” in general. Hence, (اللحم) the meat.

To avoid confusion:

To avoid confusion, in part due to the complexity with which the concept is expressed in English, consider the following four sentences expressing a general statement about foxes (i.e., with no particular reference to any particular fox or foxes) being smart animals, where only the first two are grammatical (the ungrammatical sentences are marked by an asterisk):
​
he last two sentences are ungrammatical, since a statement is made about all foxes in general, but “fox” and “foxes” are used in the indefinite. (Note, in addition, MSA does not allow indefinite subjects.) On the other hand, consider the following four sentences expressing the same general statements about foxes, but only the first three are grammatical, and the fourth is not, since definiteness use in English is not as transparent and straightforward:
the fox is a smart animal. A fox is a smart animal. Foxes are smart animals. The foxes are smart animals.
​

I was going through energy of destruction, and it says this
"Nobody who's been hit with this energy can escape its devastating toll, no matter who they are. They won't even pass to Other World. Their very essence will be eliminated."
This should be enough for soul destruction imo, but the essence part...
Essence is a noun that means the basic, real, or most important quality of something.
the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, which determines its character.
And definition is the nature of something, and the nature is something's features/qualities/characteristics/attributes
so, is conceptual erasure good for this?

I want to provide a snapshot of my experience, and I hope it is helpful:
1 - I graduated in 2021 with my MS; I opted to wait until the end of my residency to take the test (today).
2 - I used CounselingExam based off this reddit thread and from others have said at my clinic. Thought on CE:

• When I logged into to CE, I won't lie, I was like "How the hell am I supposed navigate this."
• Using reddit as a guide, here is what I did with CE: I clicked on the DSM section, reviewed and studied all the "trees", if there was anything that I felt rusty on I watched the examples or review part of that disorder, and then took the questions at the end of that DSM section.
• Narratives on the ACTUAL TEST were mostly adolescents, but a few adults. I saw ODD, CD, MDD, BPD, Antisocial, Prolonged Grief, Hoarding, Excoriation.
  • On the ACTUAL TEST, one of the things that I noticed was asking question that asked why you thought the original diagnosis was correct or what in the narrative showed why another diagnosis was not the best fit i.e. why conduct disorder was better than ADHD (easy answer - violence)
• Theories Study on CE: I did the same thing, I looked here on reddit, I clicked the Trees, if I felt rusty on a theory, I clicked on the review, then took the questions on each of the theories to review.
  • On the actual test, there was SFBT, Narrative, CBT (lots of it), REBT, DBT, Psydynamic, ACT, MI.
  • Most questions would ask how you would respond to the client if you were using one of these theories, or what homework you would give, or how you would focus on a treatment goal or what homework you give for therapy i.e. REBT = ABC worksheet.
  • Most of the time these answers can be figure out because they have to use a major verb or noun from the technique i.e. DBT & Mindfulness or REBT & Activating, Solution Focus & Magic Wand
• CE - I never looked at anything else other than what was above because it was too overwhelming or just odd. The narrative and the exams are way harder on CE than the actual test. What do I mean by that. The CE exams / Narratives, are bloated with information, seem a bit disjointed, and the questions just seem to open ended. For Example, CE would say read all this, now what is the most helpful therapeutic skill in the situation (and I am like how the hell should I know). But ON THE TEST, they are way more specific, like "if you were to to use reflection of meaning with this client you would say...." So I stopped using CE Narratives/Exams after week 1 of studying. It just made me feel like a giant dumb dumb, and my scores were all over the place 80, 45, 77, 66. So I did what I did above.

3 - Test Day:

• I took from home.
• The check in is a bit wonky. The instruction don't match. If you sign in, you have to wait until exactly 30 minutes before test time before the button is even visible.
• You can use your phone to take pictures of room. I saw on reddit that some poor soul had to pick up their monitor and spin it around. I actually reached out to Pearson like 3 weeks ago about and NEVER got an answer, lol - and that is because the support team at pearson is divorced from the specific test you take. It is weird, but once you start the check in phase - the instructions are pretty easy to understand and much better than all of the instructions than they actually send you.
• I felt like I passed the test when I was done, but wasn't sure. My biggest takeaway is that the NCMHCE is not trying to trick you, and I felt like the CE questions were. For the most part, you can kind of deduce what the answer is - and if you are clever, certain sections actually give you the answers in later questions, so you during the review section you can make sure your answers are streamlined. Biggest example I saw of this was how they asked which of the following Diagnosis you could exclude...then 3 questions later they were like, since you excluded this diagnosis...

4 - Overall thoughts,

• I got a one month subscription of CE. I probably studied 4-5 days at max of 1.5 hours.
• I have a 5 month old who hasn't sleep at night in 5 months, lol and a two year old. So I had to fit it in, which is why i really only utilized my strat above.
• I got a 77 with a passing score of 66.
• I took this on a big MAC - so to my MAC family, you have to turn on off the dock bar at the bottom or it will hover over the test. It's not a big deal because I obviously did not do this, lol, but in hindsight I would have.
• I did not feel rushed - I had about an hour of extra time.
• It was easier than I thought but still required a ton of read.
• I haven't seen anyone say this but the Narratives are hilarious. I had a antiper narrative where the client constantly called co-works "weak-bitches" so KUDOZ for not making the test boring.
• **HERE IS MY MAIN INSIGHT**: In the narratives, you will see the narratives say something like "You responded or you assigned homework and then the sentence ends. I deduced that this is where they would ask a question and they did. Many of the questions will have you insert reponses or skills at that moment in the narrative, so IF YOU ARE IN session 3 don't select an answer that reflects something at the initial. In other words, be Gestaltian and stay in the moment, but realize there might be a bit of unfinished business.

I really hope this help someone prepare, but also be more relaxed.

Getting my thoughts straight on the things I keep track of/tools while playing solo. If you get something out of this, great!
Types of locations

1. Settings (Usually on the scale of the entire premise; a zombie apocalypse, a space ship, etc)
2. Maps (Commonly Settlements, Wilderness, Roads and Dungeons. They contain multiple rooms)
3. Rooms (Each room often will contain dialogue scenes, combat/trap encounters, puzzle encounters, a challenge (ie a non-puzzle that implies some skill check like strength, dex, agility, etc. Running away from a boulder, a tightrope, a wall to climb...)
4. Interactables(?) (Choices in terms of clues & forks; A or B. A has dry air while B has a lot of croaking sounds. Opportunities; maybe there's a loose stalactite during an encounter to drop. Objects; A glowing obelisk, a small hill, walls & voids, a lone red button)

Types of ways to derive plots

1. Plot device chain (Plot devices force desire or reactions from players. Creates conflict. Chandler's law, a threatening person suddenly shows up. Being Hunted; bounty hunters, sheriff, vengeful individual keep the players on the move. Macguffin; valuable object that many characters want, ideal is protecting/delivering the macguffin as it establishes the hunted plot device. Significant Injury/Condition; Low resources/HP can force players to take risks to resolve this. Opportunity; to obtain A, must do B or Obtain A now, but pay price B)
2. Location Chain (Ie in adventurer, you start at some location (map), then draw a card for another location, then face encounters as you travel and arrive. Then draw for the next location. Its on you to make up the why)
3. Challenge Chain (Basically a set of obstacles which you must face, typically used with plot devices and desires. They often imply skill check and combat encounters. Combat scene, chase scene, travel scene, convincing scene...)
4. Desire Chain (You are basically a tourist, you find something you want to do. Go after it in however many stages, experience it then see the next thing and chase after that)

Types of Beats:

1. Exposition beat (Oftentimes description, also Q&A about what the fleshing out the nature of what something is,
2. Action-by-action beat (combat, skill checks, anything where you have to think about physical actions or immediate moves)
3. Montage/Narrative beat (The realm of yes, and. But therefore. Also anything that is more abstract than action-by-action. Nir thought that X would work, but then Y happens, so therefore Nir must choose between 3 choices. Nir walked from the village to the head of the bandit camp)
4. Dialogue beat (chit chat, skill-checks, gathering information/knowledge)

Types of generating content/exposition:

1. Evocative names (You approach a cave; the cave of the nightspill, the putrid split, the place of the fall of the elves... Maybe this means its like, corrupted, evil and dark with so-and-so details, monsters, and xyz. Helps with themeing)
2. The classic adjective/verb/noun oracles
3. Collage (For this cave, it will be based on darth vader crossed with a dwarven city crossed with a minecraft mineshaft. So it has these ancient wooden walkways above this giant drop, littered with these mysterious unmined red crystals...)
4. Purpose (This cave was made to create the ancient talisman of the enchirideon, but then xyz happened therefore this huge battle happened and yadda yadda)

Here, Order means to Command. If it's a verb, it should have a abstract noun form. But can't find. Help Please!

What Makes Japanese-to-English Translation and Localization So Challenging?

ByFrancesca PaolucciOctober 7, 2022

Key takeaways:

• Japanese translation can take longer than expected
• The Japanese language has 3 alphabets
• There are a variety of grammatical inconsistencies
• Context is crucial in the Japanese language
• Honorifics are important even for web localization
• Transcreation is the re-engineering of a brand message for a specific audience

Translation from Japanese to English is infamously challenging. The act of translating can be tedious. It’s very difficult to faithfully translate a document while also making it readable and culturally appropriate for the target audience.
It is an art form in and of itself and not just a work of word substitution. A difficult balancing act that requires a translator to have knowledge of not just the source and destination languages but also of society and culture.
John Dryden, an English poet and translator, said that it would be absurd to confine a translator to the limited scope of his author’s words: “What is lovely in one language is frequently vulgar, and even gibberish, in another.”
What transpires then in translation projects if the target languages are utterly dissimilar?
Japanese is a challenging language for Westerners to learn. A totally different alphabet, the context-heavy character of Japanese, the usage of honorifics, as well as significant variations in syntax and sentence structure, are all challenges. The fact that translating Japanese can take a translator twice as long or more is therefore not surprising.
Therefore, using machine translation from Japanese to English is never a wise idea. Although technology has advanced rapidly, the complexity of translation means that you will still end up with a text that is entirely useless.
Here are some of the factors that make translating from Japanese to English so challenging:

Japanese has Three Alphabets!

📷
The English and Japanese alphabets both have troubled histories that are unrelated. Not only are the languages themselves quite diverse, but the alphabets that are employed to write them are sometimes incomprehensible to native speakers.
Kanji, the Japanese alphabet, uses ideograms similar to those used in Chinese. Symbols used to convey ideas in ideograms are quite intricate. The individual strokes, their arrangement inside a character, and the many interpretations of those characters all contribute to the overall meaning.
Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana are the three writing systems used by the Japanese. The 46 symbols that make up the Hiragana and Katakana phonetic alphabets of Japan are used to represent every sound in the Japanese language. Words taken from other languages are written in Katakana. When Kanji characters can’t be utilized, Hiragana is the next best thing. Kanji and Hiragana are frequently used to make a single word in Japanese. To put it simply, the number of Kanji characters is staggering.
Unfortunately, this distinction also implies that the way a Japanese writer structures a phrase has no direct parallel in the English language. It is impossible to demonstrate comprehension without first mastering the Japanese language.

Grammatical inconsistency

The lack of grammatical parallels between English and Japanese presents another difficulty. Among the grammatical variations are some of the following:

• There are no plural nouns; Japanese does not distinguish between plural and singular nouns. Even with pronouns and adjectives, the method of counting varies constantly.
• SOV rather than SVO - In English, the words are arranged subject, verb, and object. Japanese sentences always conclude with a verb. Therefore, before modifying the word order of a phrase, the translator must comprehend the full text.
• No topics - The subject is usually left out in Japanese. Sometimes the thing itself is.
• There is no future tense in Japanese.
• Pronouns are uncommon - Because language denotes social status in Japanese, pronouns like "I," "you," or "me" are seldom needed.
• No items that are definitive or definite.
• Because there is no counterpart in English, honorifics, or keigo, are challenging to interpret. Below, we'll go into further detail on this idea.
• Many words and phrases simply cannot be translated literally, so abstract notions are challenging to communicate.

The importance of context

Japanese is really effective at communicating so much since it is a high-context language. One sentence can reveal a lot about the context, including the time of day, the season, the speaker’s age, gender, and social standing, the listener’s age, gender, and social standing, the age, gender, and social status of a referenced third party, the speaker and listener’s social connections to the mentioned third party, and whether the situation is formal or informal.
English, on the other hand, is quite the reverse. It is a low-context language without social hierarchy indicators.

The issue of honorifics

📷
It’s doubtful that you would speak to your employer the same way you would a friend or brother; there is undoubtedly a more professional manner to speak English. But generally speaking, we are more concerned with what is said than with how what we are saying will make another person feel.
However, Japanese society has a strong tradition of formality. The Japanese language reflects the many various degrees of respect that exist.
It is crucial to utilize language to express the differences in social standing. It’s also important to consider the circumstances in which both speakers find themselves. As a result, one of the biggest difficulties in translating Japanese into English is the usage of honorifics, or keigo, in Japanese.
It is regarded as being crucial to avoid using words that might offend or degrade others.
Because of this, Japanese could occasionally come across as indirect. You wouldn’t say “I don’t like this” in Japanese. Instead, you may reply, “This may not be to my taste but it’s ok” You may choose to express the first option, but it can come out as impolite or unnecessarily direct.
When speaking to someone who is more senior to you, your tone should be one of humility while elevating the addressee. You may choose what terms to use if you are the superior or the older.
The medium also very important. The more informal approach may be appropriate if you’re translating books or news items. A formal or courteous version is more frequently used when translating government papers. When translating websites a hybrid approach is necessary depending on the product or service.

Important Definitions:

Translation: The process of converting text from one language into another while maintaining the same meaning.
Localization: When adapting a product or service for another nation or region, “localization” is a more thorough process that covers cultural and non-textual components as well as language concerns.
Transcreation: is the process of re-engineering your brand promise to connect emotionally with a new market.

Conclusion

We’ve hopefully given you a glimpse of how difficult the Japanese language can be. If you’re picking a translator, you can now appreciate how important it is for them to be well-versed in Japanese culture because it is directly related to the language.
An excellent translator should be well-versed in both English with all of its alphabets, rules, and quirks as well as Japanese ideograms, as well as that language’s syntax, context rules, and usage of honorifics.
As a business, it’s crucial to remember that while maintaining authenticity to the original text is vital, a successful translation typically focuses more on keeping the tone and spirit of the original than matching words exactly.

How we can help

At Medusa Japan with our full localization and transcreation services, your content is localized by a professional team of native, in-house Japanese translators.
We address cultural and non-textual components of your content and re-engineer your brand value proposition to engage the Japanese consumer on an emotional level.

When I was a teen I had a friend of a friend named Amnesty. She hated this name and went by some other name - Rachel or Ashley or something like that. She said her parents were drug addicts or something like that and came up with that name when they were high. She was raised by her grandmother and didn't have a good relationship with them so I think that was another reason she hated the name.
Am I crazy... or is it actually kind of a good name tho? Like the meaning not really. I don't think it would be appropriate to name your kid "pardon" but it is kind of an abstract noun like "liberty" or "freedom" that sounds kind of pretty? I asked my mom if she thought it was a good name and she said "only if her last name is International" so I think I'm probably crazy.
Is Amnesty a Tragedeigh?

Agyharo hit the 300 word mark last night, my lexical benchmark for a conlang that's survived the sketch phase, so I figured I'd celebrate with a little deep-dive. Last year I already wrote about its morphophonological mutation system, which I consider one of its more unique features, another being the focus on today's post: the number system.

Core Numerals

Agyharo has 6 core numerals, all derived from body part words. This isn't dissimilar to having 'thumb' mean 'one' and 'index' 'two', etc., but the speakers of Agyharo are derived pterosaurs, and only have 4 digits. The other 2 are for 'half' and 'zero' using body part words along the arm. These 6 numerals are as follows:

• 0 - Yho /ʝɤ/ - This is the word for 'shoulder', the point from which the arm with its digits, and thereby positive numbers, extend.
• 0.5 - Gcu /ɢɯ/ - This is the word for 'pteroid', a small bone pterosaurs had on their wrists to control their propatagia that also happens to be about halfway between the digits and the shoulder.
• 1- Hal /ɦaʎ/ - This is the word for the first digit, and it was stolen from hallux, the technical term for the big toe. (Although, it does just now occur to me, years after the fact, that pollex may have been the more accurate term to use...)
• 2 - Ubr /ɯʙ/ - This is the word for the second digit. It was derived by putting *aʟba through some sound changes. I believe this was originaly borrowed from Arabic, like many other of the number words as soon you'll see, but the origin of this one's been lost to time.
• 3 - Ugv /ɯgβ/ - This is the word for the third digit but also refers to the hand as a whole, or rather, all 3 non-wing digits as a set. It descends from *ɢaβ, a borrowing of Arabic كف 'palm', albeit with some errant metathesis.
• 4 - Elnyo /eʎɲɤ/ - This is the word for the fourth digit or the wing as a whole. It descends from *ɟ͡ʝanaʁ, a borrowing of Arabic جناح 'wing'.

Numeral Nouns

Before getting stuck into more complex numerals, let's first go over how these basic 6 numerals are used to count. Whilst the lexical origins of the numerals are not so weird, they act more like nouns than true numerals, hence "Numeral Nouns": rather than simply being in juxtaposition with the nouns they quantify, they are instead used as the head of the noun phrase with the rest of the noun phrase being genitivised. To illustrate, compare "eggs" → "three eggs":

engyeny → ugv engyeyo eggs hand eggs.GEN "eggs" "a hand of eggs" 

Quantifying nouns with genitives by themselves aren't so weird, take for example English "a handful of rice", but what makes this unique for Agyharo is the fact that nearly all nouns are treated as collective or mass nouns, bar the numeral nouns, and that the count nouns themselves carry specific integer values and are not semantically related to the nouns they quantify. It'd be like if besides a handful of rice in English, you could also have a handful of bears, or mountains, and that a handful of bears or mountains is specifically 5 bears or mountains. There are 2 other features that make numbers in Agyharo unique, though: base-2 and numeral verbs.

Further Binary Numeral Nouns

After counting to the 4th digit, one logical step might be to start counting on the opposite hand, and this could then conceivably extrapolate into a base-4 system. This is not what I elected to do, though; instead, I chose to continue in an exponential fashion using unique body terms. If elnyo refers to a single wing, then the next step would be to refer to both wings: a wingspan or fathom. Rather than a fathom meaning 5, however, it instead means 8, because a wingspan is naturally worth two wings or two 4s. This extended into a binary system where rather than only having basic numerals for 0 and 1, each order of magnitude gets its own basic numeral, at least to a point: Agyharo only has basic numerals up to 4096¹⁰ or 1000000000000². These further binary numerals are as follows:

• 8 En /eŋ/ - This is the word 'fathom' as described above. It descends from *ɛɴɑ, ultimately borrowed from Arabic أَجْنِحَة 'wings'.
• 16 Ellom /eʎʎɤm/ - This is the word for ‘body’ in the sense that doubling the area of the wings roughly gets you the area of the entire body (nevermind that pterosaurs are way more wing than anything else). It descends from *aʎɟ͡ʝɯma, ultimately borrowed from Arabic الجسم 'the body'.
• 32 Yhal /ʝaʎ/ - This is the word for ‘pair’: doubling a body, or an individual, gets us a pair of individuals. This descends from *ʝaɰaɟ͡ʝ, a borrowing of Arabic زوج 'pair'.
• 64 Var /βaʀ/ - This is the word for ‘team’. A team is comprised of 2 pairs working together, similar to a detail or crew in (para)military organisation. The rest of the terms I used for the count nouns are loosely based on unit names in military organisation. Var is descended from *βaʀɛɢ, borrowed from Arabic فريق 'team'.
• 128 Yhob /ʝɤb/ - This is the word for ‘squadron’. It's descended from *ʝiʀab, borrowed from Arabic سرب 'squadron'.
• 256 Er /eʀ/ - This is the word for ‘flock’, based on Italian stormo. It originally descends from *ig͡ʟ̝aβ̞. I don't have any note on the original source for this one, but I think I generated it when testing to see much my historical sound changes could erode a word down.
• 512 Gyeyar /ɟejaʀ/ - This is the word for ‘group’. It descends from *ɟajaʀ, a borrowing of Arabic طيران 'flight'.
• 1024 Gyub /ɟɯb/ - This is the word for ‘division’. It descends *ɟiba, borrowed from a clipping of Arabic كتيبة 'battalion.
• 2048 Gyel /ɟeʎ/ - This is the word for command ‘command’. It's descended from *ɯɟ͡ʝɯʟ, borrowed from Arabic أسطول 'fleet'.
• 4096 Ugyh /ɯɟʝ/ - This is the word for ‘force’, descended from *ɟɛʝ, borrowed from Arabic جيش 'army'.

These are all used in the same way as the first few core numerals. If you wanted an entire air force's worth of over four thousand eggs, you'd say:

ugyh engyeyo moyh lanov force eggs.GEN desire EA\1s.ERG "I desire a force of eggs." 

​

Indefinite Numerals

Besides the binary numeral nouns, there's also a small class of indefinite numeral nouns. This class of indefinites accomplishes the same function as indefinite articles in other languages. Unlike the other numeral nouns, though, these are all verbal nouns, which has a few morphosyntactic ramifications. The indefinite numeral nouns are all descended from the various verbs for 'to pluck', and each is used in semantic agreement with the content noun they're paired with:

• Cerral /k͡ǂeʀʀaʎ/ - This is used with abstract concepts and it derives from gerral ‘to pluck from debris’.
• Brobv /ʙɤbβ/ - This is used with concrete aerial nouns and it derives from robv ‘to pluck from the air’.
• Gcel. /ɢeʎ/ - This is used with concrete terrestrial nouns and it derives from lel ‘to pluck from the ground’.
• Yha. /ʝa/ - This is used with concrete aquatic nouns and it derives from nya ‘pluck from the water’.

These indefinite numerals and their semantic divisions are a reflex of generation 2 of the noun class system I use in Varamm, if any readers are at all familiar with anything I've written therefor.
Let's compare the last example, which uses a definite numeral, with one of the indefinite numerals, and maybe count something besides eggs whilst we're at, too (never mind the aforementioned morphosyntactic shenanigans beyond the scope of this post):

ugyh engyeyo moyh lanov force eggs.GEN desire EA\1s.ERG "I desire a force of eggs." "I want thousands of eggs." yhan moyh gcelegy engyeyo 1s desire [TR]plucking.ACC [TR]eggs.GEN "I desire a plucking of eggs." "I want some eggs." yhan moyh yhagy negyyo 1s desire [AQ]plucking.ACC [AQ]shellfish.GEN "I desire a plucking of shellfish." "I want some shellfish." 

​

Numeral Verbs

Because numeral nouns weren't enough, I also included a system of ternary-ish numeral verbs: ternary-ish in that it's based on 3, but each order of magnitude is a double, like with the binary nouns, rather than a triple. Conceptually, the verbs I chose have a progression of doubling like in the numeral nouns, starting with the verb 'to wave':

• 3 Lalgyer /ʎaʎɟeʀ/ - 'To wave' is equivalent to three because it's an action done with just the one ugv or 'hand'. It descends from *ʎiʎɟalβ̞iɦ, which I believe is a borrowing of Arabic للتلويه 'to twist'.
• 6 Log /ʎɤg/ - This is the word for 'to flap'. In the case of pterosaurs, waving only really means moving the arm half-extended; a wave with a full extended wing finger is a flap. Log is descended from *ɟ͡ʝag, though its Arabic origins have been lost to time.
• 12 Yanyyar /jaɲjaʀ/ - This is the word for 'to fly': you need pairs of flaps to fly. It's not ultimately borrowed from Arabic and is instead an original coinage from when I was testing grammar. It also has the distinction of being, I believe, the only word entirely unchanged from its proto-form.
• 24 Bonyh /bɤɲʝ/ - This is the word for 'to whirl'. 'To whirl' here refers to nuptial or courtship flights, that is, a flight display involving a pair of individuals, hence the double of yanyyar. And like yanyyar, bonyh is also an original coinage descended from *bɤɲɟa.
• 48 Gen /geŋ/ - This is the word for 'to mate' in the sense that mating is the logical next step after a courtship flight. It's descended from *ɢɯŋ and may be borrowed as a clipping of Arabic يَكُونُ 'to be'.
• 96 Yhal /ʝaʎ/ - This is the word for 'to spawn', continuing the trend from mating. This one's particularly fun because its modern root is homonymous with the numeral noun for 'pair'. In actual use this doesn't lead to any confusion because these verbs never appear in their lemma form when used as numerals, never mind the different syntactic and morphophonological mutation patterns. This yhal descends from *g͡βag͡ʟ̝, ultimately borrowed from Arabic يكون a form of 'to bring forth'.
• 192 Robay /ʀɤbaj/ - This is the word for 'to raise', the logical conclusion to the progression of the previous 2 short of dying after rearing all the children. It's descended from *ʀabaj and is ultimately borrowed from Arabic ربى 'to raise'.

Where the numeral nouns take on the role of head nouns with what it's quantifying being made adjectival, numeral verbs work the opposite: numeral verbs quantify nouns by being relativised. If you were to lay a spawning's worth of nearly 100 eggs, you'd say:

yhagv ceny bal lanov spawn.REL EA\eggs PFV.spawn EA\1s.ERG "I laid eggs that are laying." "I laid 96 eggs." 

The numeral verbs can also be nominalised and function just like the indefinite numeral nouns. Using a verbal noun, the above example would look like:

yhan bal balagy engyeyo 1s PFV.spawn EA\spawn.ACC eggs.GEN "I laid a laying of eggs." "I laid 96 eggs." 

​

Compound Numerals

Numerals for binary orders of magnitude are all well and good, but how do the numerals between the orders of magnitude work? There's a couple ways the numeral nouns can interact to produce both multiplicative and additive constructions. Additive constructions are formed through conjunction and compounding, whilst multiplicative constructions are formed through genitive relationships of numeral nouns. Verbal numerals, meanwhile, always function multiplicatively.
For additive constructions using conjunction, the largest numeral always appears first with the quantified noun in the genitive following it, exactly as I've illustrated above; any further numerals appear compounded together highest to lowest with an interceding 'r 'and' clitic after the quantified noun. For example:

elnyo engyeyo 'r ugv wing eggs.GEN and hand "a wing of eggs and a hand" "four eggs and three" "seven eggs" en engyeyo 'r elnyo-ugv body eggs.GEN and wing-hand "a body of eggs and a wing hand" "eight eggs and four three" "fifteen eggs" 

Multiplicative numeral noun constructions appear similar to additive constructions, at least the compounded part following the quantified noun, but they appear in a lowest-to-highest order and always preceding what they quantify. Nominally such a construction is a multi-genitive construction, but only the last noun in a genitive complex actually gets marked in the genitive. Compare simply just saying "twelve" and counting "twelve eggs":

ugv elyo hand wing.GEN "a hand of wings" "three by four" "twelve" ugv elnyo engyeyo hand wing[GEN] eggs.GEN "a hand of wings of eggs" "three by four eggs" "twelve eggs" 

Additive and multiplicative numeral nouns can co-occur:

ugv elnyo engyeyo 'r ugv hand wing[GEN] eggs.GEN and hand "a hand of wings of eggs and a hand" "three by four eggs and three" "fifteen eggs" 

Numeral verbs modify the entire noun phrase:

elnyo engyeyo yanyyanv wing eggs.GEN fly.REL "a wing of eggs flying" "four eggs by six" "twenty-four eggs" yanyyanv yho engyeyo fly.REL EA\wing eggs.GEN "a flying hand of eggs" "six by three eggs" "eighteen eggs" 

Now Let's Count to Ten

Some of the above examples are more illustrative than anything else--you'd sooner use the numeral verb for 24 instead of saying 4 by 6--but it should be clear to see that there's no one set way to say each number. With this in mind, let's count to 10! I'll offer a few options for each value, but I won't be maximally exhaustive:

1. Hal first_digit, gcu uro pteroid second_digit.GEN
2. Ubr second_digit, gcu elyo pteroid wing.GEN
3. Ugv hand, nalgyer VN.wave, lalgyenv wave.REL, gcu gyolo pteroid VN.flap.GEN, gcu logv pteroid flap.REL
4. Elnyo wing, gcu ero pteroid body.GEN
5. Elnyo 'r hal wing and first_digit
6. Elnyo 'r ubr wing and second_digit, logv flap.REL, gyog VN.flap, ubr lalgyenv second_digit flap.REL
7. Elnyo 'r ugv wing and hand, gyog r hal VN.flap and first_digit
8. En body, gcu ellobro pteroid pair.GEN
9. En 'r hal body and first_digit, ugv nalgyelo hand VN.flap.GEN, ugv lalgyenv hand flap.REL
10. En 'r ubr body and second_digit

Janko, I already gave you the early stages of this, but update your list however you please with this information!
All the variation in even just the sampling above, as well as some of the illustrative examples further above, would come down to three things: poeticisms, regional variation, and context. Some of the most esoteric constructions, like the ones with gcu, would realistically only be used for poetic effect. Some of the options that in strong contestation, like which of the two roots for 3 to use, would likely just come down to regional variation. Meanwhile, context might invite all of these to be used as amendments on what's already been said: a vendor might charge a flapful (6) and you retort with an offer of a half flapful (3) rather than saying a handful (3); you might tell someone to get a wingful (4) before saying they ought to get three wingfuls (12) instead, rather than a fathomful (8) and a wingful (4); etc.
​

Comments or Questions?

I'm happy to answer any below! I glossed over some of the grammatical rules but I hope that doesn't detract from showing off how the number words go together; if it does, let me know and I can amend as necessary.
If you were kind enough to read this all the way through and make it to the end, I hope it was an enjoyable read and that you maybe learned something or felt inspired. If Agyharo's numbers remind you of a system in another language, natural or constructed, please let me know, I'd live to read up on it.
Do any of your conlangs not strictly use numerals for its number system? Can you think of any numbers you think might be challenging to say in Agyharo? Let me know down below!
​
​
​
Nyayh ger lanov!
/ɲaʝ geʀ ʎaŋɤβ/

nyayh ger lanov 2s defer_to EA\1s.ERG 

"You are deferred to by me!" ~ "Thanks (for reading)!"

UPDATE: I solved my issue. See replies for solution.
Hi there! I am looking for a way to remove the material descriptor while a custom item of mine gets made (in this case "steel" in brain shock lance; see picture).
I have already tried to figure out an answer by asking on the RimWorld Discord, but so far haven't been able to turn the advice I got into a workable solution. The advice I got was to to delete and from my item XML and if necessary to chase that all the way up the inheritance tree.
That does make sense, however I have discovered that my item does not have these entries and neither does the XML-code it inherits from (I have attached both to this post). IA_Apparel_BrainShockLance inherits from ApparelMakeableLances, which in turn does not have any parent I can discover. I have tried looking at other items and to add to my confusion my variation of a minigun works perfectly fine. The only explanation I can come up with is that the issue is caused by my simply adding a recipe to a psychic shock lance from the main game, to make it makeable. However, my knowledge so far is insufficient to identify how to fix this. At this point I have been pulling my hair out for two days and would be thankful for any advice!
XML for my brain shock lance and inheritance:

   GeneralLaborSpeed Crafting Smith Recipe_Smith  
FabricationBench
  UnfinishedApparel Fabrication  Apparel Item MapMeshOnly True 14 True Spacer  35  true  100 1.0 2 -3  Item True Never true true  
 
 CompColorable 
    IA_Apparel_BrainShockLance brain shock lance A limited-use psychic effector. It crudely mimics a psychic shock lance, by delivering a blunt psychic wave to cause psychic shock. Brain damage is all but guaranteed and other side effects may occur. It has a long range but requires line of sight.  Things/Item/Artifact/BrainShockLance Graphic_Single  Spacer  
ExoticMisc
   
RewardStandardHighFreq
   30000 0.5 1 250 40   20 50 2    8  400  Normal  
ApparelUtility
   false 4 false false true 0  
Waist
   
Belt
  Things/Item/Artifact/BrainShockLance  true  (0.7,0.7)   (0,0.4) (0.7,0.7)   (-0.35,0) (0.85,0.85)  (0,0.1)   (-0.15,0)   (-0.15,0)   (0,0.1)    (0.35,0) (0.85,0.85)  (0,0.1)   (0.15,0)   (0.15,0)   (0,0.1)     Middle true false false false  
 Verb_CastTargetEffectLances brain shock lance true true True 20.0 2.2 psychic shock immune  false false  PsychicShockLanceCast PsychicArtifactWarmupSustained 
   
 2 true Misc4 charge false 
 
 CompTargetEffect_PsychicShock 
 
 0.9 
 
 0.05 Sterilized 
 
 0.05 Carcinoma 
 
 -200 
 
 PsycastPsychicEffect 
 
 PsycastPsychicLine 
 
   

https://preview.redd.it/wldiwmmx7dwc1.png?width=1002&format=png&auto=webp&s=a651b64b1796cd49df8a1df4218854a8d5625a1d

📚✨ Embark on a grammatical journey with our "Kinds of Nouns" lesson! Perfect for 5th graders looking to master their noun knowledge. 🏫
🔍 What you'll learn:
- The difference between common and proper nouns
- Identifying concrete vs. abstract nouns
- Fun activities to solidify understanding
Let's turn grammar into a game! #5thGradeGrammar #Nouns101 #GrammarGames #LanguageArts
https://www.elafree.com/2022/07/kinds-of-nouns-5th-grade-grammar.html

TL;DR

Great community. Excellent at expressing "math". Very fast language. Almost great REPL. Immature ecosystem. Inconvenient debugging. Bad code organization.

Background

Recently I finished a decently sized Julia project (~3100 LoC), and I'd like to share my experience of using the language. It's mostly about developer experience, so I hope these will provide insights for language developers and users.
Before this project, I've already used Julia plenty of times, mostly to analyze some experiment data generated by other programs. They are generally fairly clean, because I want the data to be as easily usable in as many languages as possible, but they can be very large. I would generally implement some sort of streaming analysis, then generate various summary tables or plots.
I think Julia is pretty good in this kind of tasks (with some caveats, see later section on IO), but this project is different. All data are generated within Julia and analyzed in Julia, requiring more careful planning.

Project Overview

What I am building is a "one-off" racing game simulator. I have pre-made a set of rules, a definition of the racing track, two characters, and their skills. I have a fairly peculiar goal for this game: I will roll up some sort of AI for each character, then iterate through a set of random seeds, and I will see if Player A beats Player B, ever. Then I visualize the results and shelf the project. Therefore, I am writing code that only needs to be generic enough for this one specific match, and I don't intend it to be usable in any other situation.
There are four significant tasks of the project. First, I must import data of race tracks and characters into Julia. Second, I need to implement the rule sets of the game. Third, I need to implement AI for each player. Fourth, I need to visualize a finished game. Each of these tasks gave unique challenges and stresses different Julia features.
The race track is defined as a triangle outer bound, and Bezier curves on each corner. I did not use any existing Bezier libraries, but implemented the Quadratic Bezier formulae directly. To make it usable in a game, I must implement several data conversions: track position to world coordinates (i.e. arc-length parameterize), altitude, gradient, and curvature. Due to Bezier curves don't really have a closed-form solution of arc-length parameterization, I ended up using a numerical solution and just cached the results at 0.1mm precision and lerp in game (which turns out to be a bit bugged if the input is exactly on top of a sampled point... but thankfully it didn't happen in game). Resulting "acceleration structure" took about 760MB in memory.
The rule set of the game is implemented in a large Game structure with several layers of state machines, not unlike any other game. There are two tricky parts in this process: the game must take snapshots every turn for replay, and there must be an extensible API to code the interaction between players, their AI, and their skills, all of which are stateful. Everything in the rule set is implemented in base Julia. Sanity check is provided by having the same methods on each structure meant to represent the same thing (e.g. track definition, bezier representation, and acceleration structure), and overlay them on the same plot. Not the most robust method, but for a one-off program it's fine.
The AI is a substantial part of the project. An early attempt was to use ReinforcementLearning.jl to train the AI, but it was too complicated for the project scope, and thus I ended up tailoring hard coded AIs for each player. These hard coded AI command nearly 20 different skills, and themselves have multiple stages, feedback loops, and "mind-reading" (i.e. accessing another AI's internal state due to... narrative reasons). At the end, each AI is its own finite state machine, using various algorithms, closed-form formulae, heuristics, and PID control to make decision about what speed and what lane it wants to go in this turn. It's only two outputs and the code is already very complicated! Thankfully I decided against allowing the AI to decide which skills to fire... For something so entangled, I want Julia to catch as much mistakes as possible. I used abstract classes to implement AI and their skills.
The visualization has multiple purpose. It plots the track to show if there's any data import errors. It shows how each state variable change during a race. It generates an animation as if we are actually watching the game in real time. This tool is indispensable not only because it helps debugging, but also keeps me motivated as I see each milestone is reached, the data shows. I used CairoMakie extensively for visualization.
This is not all the details of the project, but those are not important. Let's start talking about Julia!

TTFX

Time-to-first-X, an ancient problem in Julia due to its JIT compilation. With Julia 1.9 and 1.10 (I started with 1.9, and later 1.10 released and I upgraded), TTFX is not a big problem. It will still take a few seconds to recompile the package or when plotting the first figure, but long gone are the days when I needed to wait for minutes to start the REPL. I'd say, TTFX is not a big issue now.

Community

The community is awesome. I received so many help from Discord channel and Discourse that without them, I would have never... actually, I would still have finished the project, but with a lot more hurdles. Counterintuitively, questions on Discourse get responses much quicker than Discord, so I recommend using that. The forum format also allows any questions to persist so others can find an answer later.

Code Organization

Ok...
Code organization needs to be explained in much, much more detail by official documentation. Whatever that's in there is nowhere near enough, as it took me a long time just to figure out how to have both a package and a top-level script. I also disagree with some of the advice in official documents:

• I advice against using include. Use single-file modules and Reexport.jl instead.
• I strongly advice against using nocase naming. Please use snake_case instead.

Read these methods generated by Makie's @recipe:
julia trackbounds!(ax, track) trackcornerhandles!(ax, track) trackdefinitionvisual!(ax, track)
You get the idea.
For those interested, I use VSCode. I have a package set up, whose source file are under src/, and top-level scripts under scripts/. During development, I activate the environment of the package and evaluate code cells in these top level script. It served me well so far, except for one issue: I cannot specify development-time dependencies and required dependencies. Therefore, the package's Project.toml gets littered with unnecessary deps like benchmark tools.
That's only the first problem.

Code Structure

The official recommendation of organizing modules, is to have a module file include multiple "sub-files":
```julia

ModuleA.jl

module ModuleA include("./a.jl") include("./b.jl") end ```
In my opinion, this is just not a good idea. I use it in this project because it's the most convenient, but if this of all things is the most convenient organization method in Julia, the language can use some better module system.
The main problem is that, Julia code can break due to the order of definition. With this scheme of direct include, the order of inclusion critical. In fact, plenty of errors I encountered were due to seemingly unrelated code in another file. Especially if somewhere there's an unmatched end, I could have to go through every single file, spotting line by line, manually, to fix an error that's reported nowhere close to its origin. Due to how include works, the scope of an unclosed end could leek beyond file boundary, and cause problem somewhere completely unexpected.
Another problem is that when reading another person's code, especially on Github or other places where an LSP is not available, it's very difficult to find where a symbol is defined: if I am reading b.jl, anything there could be defined in ModuleA.jl or a.jl.
I'll just straight up say that it's worse that #include in C. In C, there's at least forward declaration that allows me to break cycles without shuffling stuff between files. Unfortunately, Julia doesn't have that.
An alternative is to use one module per file and import by using. I think this is better, as it keeps related definition close to each other, and while using doesn't show what symbols are imported, at least I know that something is being imported from a specific module. Unmatched end also tend to get caught at module boundary. However, when using small modules, Reexport.jl is pretty much mandatory, otherwise it'd be extremely tedious to specify everything that needs to be exported on every level of imports.
Another alternative is to break up code into separate packages. It might be a me problem, but I find this very tedious to set up. This is especially true because this is a one-off program: I don't know the best structure of the code beforehand. This is also similar to research code: I won't even know what code to write until I run some experiments. Packages are quite inflexible due to how manifests work. I can't safely rename packages without breaking not just the current project, but the entire local cached registry, due to duplicate UUID and such. It might be a good idea for a large library, but for something in early development, I don't think packages are a good idea.

Naming

Naming is hard [citation needed]. Let me reiterate: use snake_case for functions and PascalCase for types. Please don't use nocase, even though the official docs recommend it.
One of Julia's most powerful tools is multimethods. Multimethods that natively supports auto-vectorization. I use these extensively, from defining formal (i.e. abstract class) or informal (i.e. a collection of methods) interfaces. I enjoy the ability to just vectorize a function I wrote, such as:
julia curves = curvature.(Ref(t), xs)
There are a few caveats related to naming. That is, it is quite easy to accidentally not just shadow, but also change a global definition, if I don't name stuff right.
Take the following example:
```julia

a.jl

function curvature(...) end

b.jl

function some_other_function() ... curvature = ... end ```
Well, apparently after this executes, curvature's definition is overwritten and every other code is broken. The LSP doesn't catch this very often (see later section: LSP), but if you see that a variable's color is strange, check immediately. Also for this reason, I start to think that get_something() is a better method name than something. Or maybe something_of() and verb_noun().
Related, it is pretty easy to make a mistake when defining multimethods:
```julia module A method_a(a::AbstactA) = error("method_a() is not defined for $(typeof(a))") end
struct ConcreteA <: AbstractA end method_a(a: ConcreteA) = ... ```
This method_a is not the same as the one in the module, because the correct way is to define A.method_a. LSP will not catch this error. I do not really have a solution for the this problem, because the ability to define such multimethods is a major feature of Julia. The best suggestion I have, is to write clear runtime error messages like the one above, so if I encounter an error, I know immediately which method and which type is the culprit.
Finding symbols in Julia is... hard. The ? command will show every method with the same name, and I haven't found a way around it. VSCode's LSP also doesn't reliably find the correct definition. For a dynamic language, it is probably inevitable. I wouldn't say that it is more difficult than, say, Python, unless you deal with a mess of include.

Enums

I used the @enum macros a few times in my code.
Don't use them, really. They are not namespaced, there's no multi dispatch, and there's no pattern match. Abstract classes are more powerful.

Ecosystem

It's not very mature. The package manager is pretty good, especially when coming to native libraries (*_jll). However, pretty much in every aspect I attempted in this project, I have to use some half-dead semi-documented packages. They are so prevalent that there are only a few packages that I would say are not half-dead and are adequately documented:

• Base
• Makie
• DataStructures
• Random
• JSON3
• DataFrames

And... that's about it. Reading code is absolutely required, and good luck with all the include messing with scopes. Julia is surprisingly lacking in the more basic mathematics department. The first open source numerical software I used was Octave, and it had many packages implementing features of Matlab. Then there's Scipy and Sympy that almost reach feature parity to both of them. And then Julia's equivalent are consist of a bunch of zombie packages, with nowhere near their feature sets. I am talking about basic stuff like statistics, distributions, symbolics, signal processing, etc.
When I was implementing the first version with reinforced learning, I had to dig through 10 different packages and locating symbols that cross using, include, native code, and Pycall. Later, I encountered a bug in Makie, and its code is no easier to navigate due to the proliferation of macros and kwargs. For lower-level packages, I can probably work around by implementing parts with my own code, but Julia packages tend to be overabstracted. If there's a problem in a package, that's it: it has to be fixed in that package. There's no way to circumvent them, only hoping that either I can learn the package enough to fix them, or hope that a fix will be provided soon. These are the experience that made me want to never use Julia again (don't worry, I'll still use it).
I might sound harsh here, and I shouldn't be. Julia is mainly a community project, with many contributors donating their free time maintaining the ecosystem that allows me to just ]add Package. However, I really do not feel safe using many libraries, especially when basic functionality isn't endorsed by some core team that guarantees their stability.
This is especially true for IO.

IO

Being a math language, Julia needs to work with data a lot. Unfortunately, I think the I/O landscape is a mess. There is no official implementation of CSV or JSON, which are pretty much lingua franca of data exchange. Well, there's DelimitedFiles in standard library, but it doesn't work with anything slightly more complicated. There's TOML, but it's limited to simply parsing and printing, plus TOML is not a good data exchange format anyways. Tar, while it exists, is nowhere close to Python's equivalent.
The two libraries that I end up using, were CSV.jl and JSON3.jl. They are pretty much universally recommended, so for these particular formats, Julia's IO is good. I still think something like these need to be in stdlib.
For other formats, Julia significantly lags behind other languages like R or Python. Recently popular are Parquet and Arrow IPC, which provide efficient binary formats for exchanging large amount of data. However, Julia's support for either is terrible. Despite being under JuliaIO organization, these important (I think) libraries remain unmaintained and unfinished. This really tanks my confidence on the organization, honestly.
I know better to not use Arrow or Parquet in this project, because I know how bad their support are in Julia, but the primary reason I got rid of Julia from all my research code, was that it cannot work with these files properly. Even then, there are some minor issues, such as JSON3 + StrucTypes clashing with ProtoStruct.

LSP

LSP is slow to update definitions and can't reliably find definitions. This is to be expected from a dynamic language. Sometimes I just have to wait or poke around. The LSP won't show any information if there's any type ambiguity. However, there are some places where type annotation is impossible (like loop variables), meaning that the LSP will leave some black holes that require manual tracing. Symbol finding in VSCode is also limited, as it only shows which file each symbol is from, but not their type signatures.
Again, this cannot always be avoided for a dynamic language. Try to annotate as much as possible to alleviate. Otherwise, the vscode plugin is decent.

REPL

REPL is almost great and lisp-like. Evaluating code cells, redefining functions, etc. are part of my workflow. It is always nice to see immediate effect after change, keeping some application state around. For research code, REPL is great.
...except for struct redefinitions. ProtoStruct and the like cannot always be used, as it causes problems if I have custom constructors, @kwdef, or StructTypes (which is needed for JSON3). This means early in development, restarting the REPL is a frequent requirement.
Another problem I have is that there is no easy way to drop into a debugger from an existing REPL session. I can't just evaluate one code cell and debug another. I can't type an expression into the REPL window and enter a debugger. I can only run an entire file. This is very annoying when I have a mysterious stack trace that involves a lot of states and corner cases, because accessing a debugger is inconvenient. I either rerun the whole script, which removes the REPL all together, or litter the functions with print statements. Thankfully both approach work for this project, but I doubt they will be scalable.
I can dream of something like "Debug Code Cell in REPL". Or even better: have something like the Common Lisp language, where a sub-REPL is provided on an error, where class redefinition prompts you to update existing instances. These will probably be a lot of work, though, so I don't expect much from these directions.

Revise

Revise is what makes this project possible. If I need to rerun the whole script after every single change I will die of old age before I finish this. However, there are some minor issues.

• Struct and constant redefinition, which are Julia's limitations
• Changing export list does not reflect in Revise, and require a restart

Under the limitation of Julia, Revise is doing very well. Especially helpful is that it removes stale definitions, which greatly reduces the probability of making a mistake. In fact, I think Revise is better than something like Jupyter notebook because of just this point. Less mistakes, but imperfect.

Makie

Makie is very powerful and very fast (once warmed up), but not mature. I know it well enough to navigate its documentation, but when I started out I had no idea how to read its documentation. Especially problematic is all those kwargs used in its API, which require a lot of digging to figure out. I think its documentation needs some reorganization. It is, however, a very powerful library, allowing me to make very complex plots.
I hit a bug related to RichText, which are mostly undocumented and have no workaround. I also encountered a mysterious stack overflow in one specific REPL session, but it went away after I restarted, so I never understood what happened. There was no backtrace. In more normal errors, Makie also tend to generate backtraces at strange places not helping with debugging, and using its Observable interface require quite a bit of care. In general, if Makie has a problem, it is impossible to work around, because its API is wrapped in so many layers of abstraction.
I don't think Makie is an easy API to learn, because there are just so many interconnected components. Its documentation needs to be as good as Matplotlib's to be really effective for newcomers, because the LSP and REPL will not be of any help in finding what those ; kwargs are.

Conclusion

Julia is fast, and has many features that I like, such as a powerful REPL, automatic vectorization, concise function definitions, multimethods, etc. However, I just feel like its still immature, despite having 11 stable versions. What truly worries me are the following:

• Official documentations recommending use of footgun
• Official organization (is JuliaIO official?) not exactly maintaining important packages
  • They certainly are maintaining some other packages, like a bunch of compression algorithms etc. It just happen that what I needed to use was not maintained
• Proliferation of underdocumented, unmaintained, half-finished zombie packages
• Such packages taking up canonical names, forcing the real maintained packages to use Name2.jl, etc.
• Tendency to encounter overabstracted packages

Will I continue to use Julia, then?
Before this project, I'd say, yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have attempted it.
Right now? Uh, I will use it if I have to, but no more Julia projects from me. Here's the thing:

• Python has vastly better IO support, both in stdlib and from third party support.
• Python's plotting libraries, or many other libraries I tend to use, have better documentation.
  • Although Python's package management and module loading is horrible
• Rust is as fast as the fastest type stable JIT-compiled julia, but has a much better LSP, out-of-this-world module system, much better automatically generated documentation, safer types, and just as good a package manager as Julia.
  • Of course, no REPL or interactive plotting.

Then when is Julia actually good?

• When user-defined functions are used extensively, for mathematics, and performance critical
• When Jupyter makes sense, but turns out to be too messy. Code cells + Revise beats Jupyter all day
• I suppose when macro magic is required, like autodiffing user-defined functions. I have no idea how Flux does it.

Most of what I do is just none of these things.

I am not a native speaker, so it is a little hard to understand some sentences in this book, especially words with multiple or uncommon meanings.
Sorry, this list is long, and ther might be some speculations that do not match the meanings of the words. I want to list all my doubts and ensure the accuracy of my understanding. Please check if they are correct or not.
The list is in the order of the original text.

The Monomyth

Origin text (especially bold text)	My understanding	Question part
Sithis is the Corrupting Inexpressible Action	Change by making errors or unintentional alterations.	The word "Corrupting". My understanding is taken from Google dictionary. The dict explanation surprised me because its meaning is almost completely different from the translated word in my language.

The Dragon God and the Missing God

Origin text (especially bold text)	My understanding	Question part
Others remain as concepts, ideas, or emotions.	The self-form process of others has stopped/not finished yet.	Which one is correct? "stopped" here, I mean the process is stopped by themselves, or due to external forces, like the other spirits or the universe simply doesn't support their evolution, they will remain as concepts forever. And "not finished" I mean they are still self-forming, but at this time, they are just concepts.
One of the strongest of these, a barely formed urge that the others call Lorkhan	The urge here means the desire of Lorkhan to do something. Describes his nature of change. And the barely formed means his form is unstable, or he is just born and is still the strongest.	Is my understanding of urge correct? Which meaning of barely formed is correct?
an enlightenment whereby lesser creatures can reach immortality		I don't understand. Lorkhan didn't bring any immortality to mortals. They still die.

The Myth of Aurbis

Origin text (especially bold text)	My understanding	Question part
It quietly avoided any blame or bias against the Lorkhan	The blame and bias comes from Aldmeri culture, not Psijic.	Am I correct?
For some this was an artistic transfiguratio ... (whole paragraph)	This paragraph is reviews from mortals (maybe historian/scholars). "Some" and "other" means different people.	Am I correct?

Lorkhan

Origin text (especially bold text)	My understanding	Question part
Doom Drum		The translated version of the word Doom in my language, means "the end of the world" or "the end day". And I search the English dictionary, it also means "any very bad situation that cannot be avoided", which I think this meaning probably equals "unchangable bad fate" or "predestined" in a myth context. Is the word here more of the "end" of the world, or does it tend to mean "predestined" in the sense of fate or destiny?
Lorkhan is separated from his divine center, sometimes involuntarily, and wanders the creation of the et'Ada..		I don't understand. In my understanding, the passive word "is separated" already expressed that he was forcely separated from his divine center, but why it says sometimes? Why it says involuntarily? Doesn't the passive voice already contain that meaning? Or should the sentence read "Lorkhan is sometimes involuntarily separated from his divine center"? Because of this, I can't correctly understand the next sentence. He can only wanders the creation all the time because he is eteranlly separated, or he wanders only during separations because the separation is not eternal.

Yokudan, "Satakal the Worldskin"

Origin text (especially bold text)	My understanding	Question part
Satak was First Serpent, the Snake who came Before		The Before is capitalized because it is a proper noun, or just for emphasis it is the very first of everything, or the entire "the Snake who came Before" is another title for Satak.
This practice became so easy for the spirits that it became a place, called the Far Shores, a time of waiting until the next skin.	The behavior "Walkabout" is widespread that it formed a specific realm on spiritual level. Not a location in the concept of material world. This may also imply that time and space here are not yet separated.	The hard part here is the Far Shores is created by a behavior, and it simultaneously represents a place but also time. Am I correct?
But grim Ruptga would not	The grim here means a temporary state of Ruptga, doesn't mean he is always grim.	The word is not particularly common and I can't exactly understand the emotion it expressed here. Does it mean merciless?
If they could not, then they must live on through their children, which was not the same as before.	The live here means continuing their bloodlines, it doesn't imply they can (still) have immortality by doing something to their children. not the same as before describes the loss of their immortality.	Am I correct?
a hungry void	The void describes the state of being unable to think clearly due to hunger. Or, like the previous text said, "The hunger fell out of Sep's dead mouth and was the only thing left of the Second Serpent", Sep remains nothing but hunger, implying he is actually replaced by the hunger.	My question here is, this is describing Sep himself, or the remain part of Sep - the hunger?

Cyrodilic ""Shezarr's Song""

Origin text (especially bold text)	My understanding	Question part
moved them beyond mystery and tears	The gods are touched and tears for the vision described by Shezarr, and because they now have emotions, they are no longer mysterious beings. It describes their transformation from being godly emotionless to having emotions like mortals.	My question here is "beyond mystery and tears (noun)" or "beyond mytery, (and then) tears (verb)". Actually I don't know how to understand beyond tears (noun), so I picked the verb version.
the Aedra gave free birth to the world	The free here means they didn't set any restrictions on the reproduction of creatures.	At first I didn't understand why they use the word free here since I thought all creatures were created by themselves. I once thought it might mean they create things without constraints. But I think the current version makes more sense, am I correct?
we can do is teach the Elven Races to suffer nobly, with dignity, and chastise ourselves for our folly, and avenge ourselves upon Shezarr and his allies.		Who does "ourselves" refer to here? I have two understandings. The first is that the self-chastise is also a lesson for Elven Races, where folly is a concept, meaning Elves should always remind themselves not to be complacent, stay humble and need to reflect constantly. They also need to avenge Shezarr. The second is that the teaching for Elves is only "suffer nobly with dignity". So ourselves represents Auri-El themselves, and the folly here is explicitly describes their behavior (creating the world). The self chastise and revenge are only for all gods.
the Elves ever dissatisfied with mortality	The mortality here means "being a mortal", "will eventually be death".	Given the context and background of the game, while it doesn't precisely match the dictionary definition, it seems like it could also be understood as "other mortal races", they hate all mortals because this is their revenge against Shezarr?
Men and Beast Folk great in heart for joy or suffering	Describing humans like to experience a variety of different emotions.	It seems that this can also be understood as "enjoying joy and face suffering with strength", instead of experiencing multiple emotions. And I think it is more reasonable.
we will create a new world out of ourselves	They will use something else as material.	My question is whether it refers to specific other materials (such as other unformed spirits), or purely using their own power but without cutting themselves.
Thus do the Daedra Lords court and seduce certain amusing specimens		Does these words here have any sexual connotations? Because some Daedra are just like that.

Altmeri "The Heart of the World"

I don't understand the "limitations" of this chapter.

Origin text (especially bold text)	My understanding	Question part
he might know himself he created Anuiel, his soul	His self-awareness is Anuiel, which is created by him and is his soul. Or, in order to know himself, he created "Anuiel," his soul.	Which one is correct? I prefer the second one.
who was the sum of all the limitations Anuiel would utilize to ponder himself.	Literally and neutrally expressing "cannot", "unable to". Not implying "flaw" or any other negative connotation.	I don't think this is correct. This story in my imagination, "all souls" as a bundle of threads, and Sithis representing the gaps (the void) within the threads, hence allowing the distinction between different threads. Maybe it is incorrect to understand the word "limitation" literally. It likely means the void, where Anu "can't touch", and because these voids cannot be touched by Anu, they can be described as limitations of Anu.
Anuiel, who was the soul of all things, therefore became many things, and this interplay was and is the Aurbis.		I have two understandings. The first is that this "process of interaction" itself represents Aurbis. The second is that the "result" of this (Anuiel became many things), where "many things" constitute Aurbis. I prefer the second one. At the same time, this "many things" may also imply that they are transformed from "all souls."
they might enjoy themselves a little longer outside of perfect knowledge	enjoy means self-reflection.	Am I correct? And what is perfect knowledge? Previously mentioned perfect stasis?
Aspects of the Aurbis	"Aspects" here refers to the "many things" generated by Anuiel in the previous text.	Am I correct?
began to understand their natures and limitations	As mentioned above, it represents the natural attributes of something, "forms, attributes, intellects".	Does it have an implicit "power", or represent a concept within the universe?
Lorkhan, was more of a limit than a nature, so he could never last long anywhere.		I don't understand. According to the previous text, each aspect with self-awareness (named ones) has both natures and limitations. So my understanding is that among the elements that make up Lorkhan, limitation far outweighs nature. I have several versions of the second part. The first one is that he cannot exist in any place for a long time, meaning he disappears and reappears. This understanding contradicts with the later part "he entered every aspect," so I think it's wrong. The second one is that he may subjectively not prefer to stay in one place for a long time (related to his nature). The third one is that he may passively be rejected due to being composed more of limitation, making it impossible for him to stay in one place for long. It's also possible that the second and third scenarios occur simultaneously.
he entered every aspect of Anuiel, Lorkhan would plant an idea that was almost wholly based on limitation	Lorkhan communicated with all aspects and shared with them an idea, which was entirely composed by limitation.	Due to the mention in the previous text that aspects have self-awareness, the word "enter" here may be a figurative expression, not literal enter. In my imagination, as they may not exist in physical forms, this communication might resemble the mixing of two different clouds, perhaps for this reason, the author used the word "enter". And "plant", seems to be a part of Lorkhan (composed by a lot of limitations) left in other aspects, or perhaps transforming a part of others into a form containing a lot of limitations.
their own aspects might live, and became the et'Ada		This process is somewhat like what was mentioned earlier, as if the aspects cut off a part of themselves and left it in Mundus.
this world contained more limitations than not		What is the meaning of "than not"? Does this imply that the aspects believed, or that Lorkhan deceived them into believing, Mundus would be a world without limitations?
Mundus was the House of Sithis.	Indicates that Mundus is filled with the limitations represented by Sithis.
that is why there are no limitations to magic		In this sentence, compared to the previous abstract concepts, the word "limitation" seems to become more concrete, making me feel that my understanding is incorrect (I even feel that the meaning of "limitation" here is different from the previous "limitation"). Does it literally mean "no restriction" or "can achieve anything", or is it still an abstract concept here (I actually still don't understand what "limitation" represents in this paragraph)? I still don't know why, in Mundus, a world made of limitations, magic can still exists without the magic aspect Magnus. Even then, it has no limitations. This sounds like there are only benefits and no drawbacks.
Some had to marry and make children just to last	Like in the Satak chapter, here "last" represents the continuity of their concepts or existence, or something like bloodline.
Lorkhan made armies out of the weakest souls and named them Men		What are the 'weakest souls' referred to here? Based on earlier understanding, it should be the various aspects that belong to "all souls" of Anu, and perhaps aspects of aspects will have souls. Does this mean that the et'Ada that vanished in Mundus, who had souls, reassembled to another forms with souls?
Some had already fallen, like the Chimer, who listened to tainted et'Ada, and others, like the Bosmer, had soiled Time's line by taking Mannish wives.	In this sentence, terms like "fallen" and "tainted" may be spoken from Auriel's perspective, indicating the betrayal of these et'Ada. And here "line" refers to lineage or bloodline.
This Heart is the heart of the world, for one was made to satisfy the other.	This indicates that Lorkhan once had no heart, and its heart was created to make Mundus. Or, this description is bidirectional. The Lorkhan Heart and the World Heart, are bound, closely linked, and inseparable.	I prefer the second one.

Hi there! I'm making a conlang that mixes my favorite Germanic and Semitic features together. Please give me some comments.
Phonology & Spelling Rule
https://preview.redd.it/g4xbd97lacuc1.png?width=397&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4c6840b885d886444ca58e406d12c8bc9d93d3a
https://preview.redd.it/neewg1jnacuc1.png?width=633&format=png&auto=webp&s=fb0d1a1b5cad698724b11638f0b8e1a762925ca5

• g is soft /j/ when followed by front vowel or when preceded by front vowel and followed by another consonant; and hard /ɣ/ otherwise.
• a becomes /ɐ/ on the final position and remains /ɑ/ everywhere. If /ɑ/ appears on the final position, it gets acute accent [á]
• The syllable with long vowel or diphthong gets primary stress. If a word does not contain long vowel, stress falls on the first syllable.

Verb Morphology
There are 2 tenses: past and non-past tense. Tenses are marked by change of vowels within verb roots. Verbs mainly have three forms: present form, past form, and derivative form, which is used to create nouns or adjectives. Although, verbal nouns are formed by adding suffix -ar to present form
E.g. våsn, vesn, ~vas(e)n to love
våsnar to love (as an infinitive) or loving (as a verbal noun)
myvasen a lover (my- derives agent nouns)
gevasen a beloved person (ge- derives patient nouns)
visvasen a wedding (LIT. place to love) (vis- derives place nouns)
myvasnig loving (my- -ig derives active participles)
vasnung a beloved person (ung- derives patient participles)
E.g. lhok, lhak, ~lhuk to bring; to lead; to apply
lhokar to bring; to apply; to lead; leading; application
mylhuk a leader; a bringer; a carrier
gelhuk consequence
mylhukig bringing; leading
lhukung brought; led; appiled
Verb agree with person in gender and number. In non-past tense, verbs are conjugated by both prefixes and suffixes and in past tense by suffixes. (that I copied got inspired from Arabic)
e.g våsn, vesn, ~vas(e)n to love in non-past tense
https://preview.redd.it/rtyr6mzpacuc1.png?width=792&format=png&auto=webp&s=9782306f2f77c487e545e20f296d490627e6f8b7
and in past tense
https://preview.redd.it/5jrnwgpracuc1.png?width=787&format=png&auto=webp&s=98b5cd1136205a03a253611d2a83bfbadb8f4a2a
Noun Morphology
Nouns have two genders: rational and irrational. Rational nouns refer to humans, spirits, gods, some abstract concepts, and some animals. Things and animals are considered irrational. Some irrational nouns, especially tools or some animals, which are derived from verbs or other nouns are explicitly marked by suffix -er.
myvalk a wanderer (From verb vålk to wander*) > myvalker a wagon
vyr a flame; fire > vyrer a torch
Nouns are pluralized by i-mutation and adding suffix -em to noun stem. By i-mutation, stress vowels become long or diphthongs, while unstressed vowels are fronted, deleted, or unchanged.
veþer a bird veiþirem birds
mhisk a fish mhyskem fish
ogal a man øgelim a man
domh a star dømhim a star
Irrational nouns with -er suffix change -er to -id- when become plural.
myvalker a wagon myvelkidem wagons
Most nouns are derived from verbs or other nouns. Compound nouns are formed by construct state, which is the archaic genitive construction. Nouns in construct state (possessed noun) add suffix -a to the stems.
domha vårh a starfish (star-CONSTRUCT ocean)
gevigra veþer a bird nest (nest-CONSTRUCT bird)
vigma khøviskim a library (house-CONSTRUCT book=PL)
-ar suffix change to -eda in construct state.
myvalkeda gajrenim a fruit wagon (wagon-CONSTRUCT fruit=PL)
There are definite articles to mark definiteness. de for singular rational, dar for singular irrational and deg for plural nouns.
Suffix -em in plural nouns change to -e when in construct state.
dømhe vårh starfishes (star=PL-CONSTRUCT ocean)
Grammar
The word order is V2-word order with verb strictly in the second position. The dominant word order is SVO. In subclauses, the word order change to VSO. All arguments except subjects are marked by preposition.
eg esegr o dar veþer.
I 1-see ACC DEF bird
I see a bird.
Adjectives follow and agree with nouns in gender and number.
ogal vøn
man good
a good man
øgelim vønim
man-PL good-PL
good men
mhisk vomrer
fish big-irrational
a big fish
There are two ways to place adjectives modifying possessed nouns in construct states:

1. Put adjectives after possessor: vigma khøviskim vomrer
2. Put adjectives after possessed noun. The possessed noun is no longer in construct form and the last adjective become construct state: vigm vomreda khøviskim

In Language

In Kurukh, gender is prominently indicated in Pronouns and in Verbs.
Gender in kurukh is distinguished in 2 categories, Masculine & Non-masculine. Just like Telugu i believe.
Masculine
These pronouns and verbs are only for masculine humans, rest all entities use the non-masculine. Commonly used pronouns are "Ās (he, distal)" and "Īs (he, proximal)". Masculine verbs often end with "-dan (1p, present)", "-dai (2p, present)", "-as (3p, present)"; "-kai (2p, past)", "-as (3p, past)"; "-ōs (3p, future)". Imperatives for masculine listeners end with "-ā", like "ba'ā (speak)".
Also, in common nouns for masculine relatives often end with "-s", like "nanūs (grandpa)", "babas (father)" and "taṅgdas (son)". Common nouns, like "jõxas (young boy)", also show the "-s" characteristic.
Although native names are quite rare these days, there was an interesting naming tradition, which went like, for example, taking the word "conhā (love)" and naming a boy child as "Conhas (beloved)". Most people have either sanskritic or european names, and if a masculine name ends in a vowel, people sometimes tend to add an extra "-s" to their name while speaking in kurukh. For example, Birendra becomes "Birendras", and Anthony becomes "Anthonis".
Non-masculine
These pronouns and verbs are for feminine humans and non-humans. Think of it like this, the words for feminine and neuter are the same. The words we will use for inanimate objects and abstract stuff will be the same as the words we will use for girls and women. Also, if we are talking about a male animal, we will still use non-masculine words for that.
Common pronouns are "Ād (she/it, distal) and "Īd (she/it, proximal). Imperatives for the non-masculine end with "-ai", like "ba'ai (speak)". Non-masc verbs often end with "-ēn (1p, present)", "-dī (2p, present)", "-ī (3p, present)"; "-kī (2p, past)", "-ā (3p, past)"; "-ō (3p, future)".
In common nouns for relatives, words for feminine relatives often end with either "-ī", "ō", like "nanī (grandma)", "ayō (mother)" and "nasgō (bro's wife)". It is speculated that the non-masculine marker "-ī" is borrowed from the Indo-Aryan feminine, and the native marker "-ā" is largely obsolete, and only appears in "taṅgdā (daughter)", and when some people tend to use "xaddā" instead of the usual "xaddī", meaning the same.
Examples
Imperatives

root = bar	( to a man ) M	( to a girl ) N-m	( to a dog ) N-m
come!	barā!	barai!	barai!

Persons & Tenses

	( from a boy ) M	( from a woman ) N-m
I am coming	ēn barāldan	ēn barālēn
I came	= ēn barckan	= ēn barckan
I will come	= ēn baron	= ēn baron

	( to a boy ) M	( to a woman ) N-m
You are coming	nīn barāldai	nīn barāldī
You came	nīn barckai	nīn barckī
You will come	= nīn baroy	= nīn baroy

He is coming	ās barālas	M
She is coming	ād barālī	N-m
It is coming	ād barālī	N-m
The young boy came	jõxas barcas	M
The young girl came	pellō barcā	N-m
Winter has come	pãiyā barcā	N-m
The old man will come	pacgīs baros	M
The old woman will come	paccō barō	N-m
The bull will come	aḍḍō barō	N-m

In society

The kurukh / oraon society is patriarchal. The head of the family is a man. Positions of power in the village councils are almost always occupied by men, even though there is no restriction to women. In arranged marriages, the bride-to-be's explicit agreement is valued as much as the groom's. The society is also patrilineal. The bride gives up her father's clan surname and takes upon the surname of her groom's clan. It is patrilocal as the bride leaves her father's house and goes to live with her groom.
Our society has great social evils. Patriarchy combined with the Alcohol addiction caused due to traditional rice beer among men, leads to their wives often being subjected to domestic violence when the men are intoxicated. This gets worse in impoverished families, where usually women tend to earn and save money for educating their children, and the money is often snatched by their husbands to spend on alcohol. Other than that, witch-hunting used to be a very prevalent practice and was only eradicated in the late 2000s.
In clothing, men wear a white turban with red stripes, along with it they traditionally wore just a loincloth a couple centuries ago, now the traditional is a dhoti with a plain white vest on top. Women wear a red and white knee length saree, we are starting to see ankle length versions of the same sometimes these days. Tattoos were exclusively worn by women, called godnā, now less seen. Also, wearing a blouse is a new concept. One can still find elderly women who don't wear blouse at all.
The good thing is there is no preference for male-babies. Parents are impartial in providing education to daughters as much as to sons.
While both men and women are migrating in large numbers from villages to work in big cities, somehow women tend to preserve the language better and men are more likely to gradually lose it.

Dear fellow Redditors,
What work has been done on constructing a universal semantic dictionary of sorts that has an entry for every unique concept that humans are capable of conceiving of? I'm referring to a list in which no two entries would have the exact same meaning. I also wonder if you could possibly decompose each entry into a list of +/- parameters (e.g. woman = +noun +female +adult +human), although I assume this would be more difficult or even impossible for abstract terms.
In any case, can someone kindly give me some information about what kind of semantic project or line of inquiry deals with such a thing?
Thanks!

I mean like when you wanna convert a noun into a verb or the other way round (e.g. "spontaneous" -- "spontaneity"), you subtract a few letters and slap on a suffix or prefix as per needed and boom!! new word!! :D
I had to look up name of the general term, but yeah just the process of forming a new word spontaneously during conversation that I've never heard before but I KNOW makes sense (or at least roughly conveys the meaning that I want it to) is so satisfying to me for some reason. :)
or like it doesn't even have to be a brand new word for you,, let's say the word you want just doesn't immediately come to mind, so your brain jerry-rigs it anyway and bulldozes on through.
it's like a little conversational puzzle for you to fiddle around with!! and yet it's a millisecond matter for your brain – that is, of course, if it turns out successful 🤭
if your lil' noggin doesn't sputter for TOO long, you can keep the flow of conversation (or thought dumping) going smoothly, and it feels like a small win :p sometimes you do have to give up tho, when it just doesn't happen, it's a bummer but you quickly move on
I read somewhere once, the neat part about language is that it allows you to express things nobody else has ever said to you before. as in, your brain doesn't just regurgitate things it has already heard,, it builds up models, lets you recognize basic underlying patterns, and then you're able to USE those basic, albeit abstract shapes construct NEW things by stacking 'em on top of each other... anddddd hoping it doesn't fall down, hahahaha
that's how we're able to communicate in the first place! it's the foundation of language. the brain truly is a monster of a generalized machine.
anyhow,, I hope you enjoyed reading this!! I had fun writing it. :] lmk your thoughts on the matter and all, hopefully I get to ramble a bit more when I check back in the morning hehehe
edit: guess not TwT should've added more line breaks, fixed now but it won't do anything anymore. oh well

1. Itself, this is not an easy problem.
2. This itself is not an easy problem.
3. This is not an easy problem itself
4. This is the loudest I have heard
5. I think of it as the loudest I have ever heard
6. I remember the loudest I have ever heard
7. Whether being happy or not, she always greets everyone with a smile.
8. Whether happy or not, she always greets everyone with a smile.
9. Whether loved or not, the old teddy bear sat on the shelf, witnessing years go by
10. While grateful for the support, he felt overwhelmed by the sudden attention
11. I want four.
12. I want the four.
13. I feel bad for him about that.
14. I feel bad about that for him.
15. The gallery featured paintings, either abstract or impressionistic, appealing to a wide range of artistic tastes.”
16. Tell Tom to put the toys in the box in the garden
17. The doctor tried hard to save him, sick with a severe headache
18. On my way home, I witnessed them doing that
19. Being on my way home, I witnessed them doing that
20. On the way home, I found my wallet I had lost.
21. I learned the world the way he taught me
22. I learned the world in the way he taught me
23. There is nothing broken with you that needs to be fixed
24. Back in formation!
25. Get back in formation!
26. He studied algebra in relation to geometry from a unique perspective by applying geometry to algebra
27. It was Tom that I met to volunteer.
28. It was them that I met just a while ago.
29. It was them that I met just before.
30. It was they that wanted to meet you.
31. It was them that wanted to meet you.

Q1) Are sentences 1-26 above all correct English or at least acceptable English?
Q2) As for 1 and 2, can itself be analyzed either as an appositive that refers to this or as an adverb?
If itself is an adverb, does itself modify the verb 'is'?
Q3) Like in 1, even though an appositive is placed before a noun that the appositive should have modified after the noun, is it acceptable and done by native English speakers to do that?
And even if the appositive is placed before the noun, whether set off by a comma or not, can the appositive still refer to the noun?
As far as I know, an appositive should be placed after a noun that the appositive modifies. That's why I ask this question.
Q4) As for
The sentence “Tell Tom to put the toys in the box in the garden” can be interpreted in two ways:

1. It could mean that Tom should take the toys and place them into a box that is already located in the garden.
2. Alternatively, it could mean that Tom should put the toys into a box and then place that box in the garden.

Without additional context, both interpretations could be considered valid. The ambiguity arises from the placement of the phrase “in the garden,” which can modify either “the box” or the action “put the toys.” To clarify the meaning, the sentence could be rephrased as either “Tell Tom to put the toys into the box that is in the garden” or “Tell Tom to put the toys in the box and then put the box in the garden.”
Tom gazed at the completed puzzle on the table, a complex image of a starry night sky. He had spent hours fitting the pieces together, and now it was complete. With a satisfied nod, he murmured to himself, “It was as this,” appreciating the perfect alignment of every single piece.

==BACKGROUND==

Valtamic, Ѣлıѣмхор /ˈæʎæmxɔ [ˈæˑʎɛm̥ˌχɔ̞ɾ̥] natively, is a naturalistic Italic language spoken in the Baltic, in the Republic of Valtamia. Itˈs primarily written in the Cyrillic Script, drawing from the early Cyrillic script specifically, yet it does have a romanization system drawing from Polish orthography.
===ETYMOLOGY OF VALTAMIC===
"Valtamic" comes from Late Latin vāltamicus ("Valtamic"), from Proto-Valtamic \βältämu, from *\βältä*** ("strange") + \ämu* ("man, human"), a theorized calque of a Finnic exonym.
It is unrelated to native Valtamic Ѣлıѣмхор (Äljämhor), the native name of the language, which comes from Proto-Valtamic \βärjämu, from *\βäre*** ("foreign") + \ämu* ("man, human"), + Modern Valtamic -кар (country-forming suffix), back-formed from Алфакар ("Germany"). It's also a theorized calque of another Finnic exonym.

==PHONOLOGY & ORTHOGRAPHY==

Consonants	Labial	Alveolar	Retroflex	Palatal	Dorsal
Nasal	/m/ ⟨м⟩	/n/ ⟨н⟩		/ɲ/ ⟨н⟩ ⟨њ⟩	(/ŋ/)
Plosive (Voiceless)	/p/ ⟨п⟩	/t/ ⟨т⟩			/k/ ⟨к⟩
Plosive (Voiced)	/b/ ⟨б⟩	/d/ ⟨д⟩			/g/ ⟨г⟩
Fricative (Voiceless)	/f/ ⟨ф⟩	(/θ/) ǀ /s/ ⟨с⟩	/ʂ/ ⟨ш⟩	/ɕ/ ⟨з⟩	/х/ ⟨х⟩ ǀ /ɦ/ ⟨һ⟩
Fricative (Voiced)	/v/ ⟨в⟩	(/z/) ⟨з⟩	/ʐ/ ⟨ж⟩
Affricate (Voiceless)		/t͡s/ ⟨ц⟩	/t͡ʂ/ ⟨ч⟩
Affricate (Voiced)		(/d͡z/) ⟨дз⟩	(/d͡ʐ/) ⟨дж⟩ ⟨ж⟩
Trill/Tap		/r/ ⟨р⟩
Lateral		/l/ ⟨л⟩		/ʎ/ ⟨л⟩ ⟨љ⟩
Approximant					/w/ ⟨ў⟩

• /d g ʐ/ are nonnative phonemes that gained phonemic status due to Russo-Finnic loans.
• /m n ɲ r l ʎ/ are devoiced [m̥ n̥ ɲ̊ r̥ l̥ ʎ̥] syllable-finally.
• /t d l/ are dental [t̪ d̪ l̪] while /n/ is true alveolar [n].
• /s/ is apical/retracted [s̺~s̠] while /t͡s/ is, like /t/, dental/laminal [t̪͡s̪~t̻͡s̻]. This gives rise to an apical/laminal distinction [s̺] [s̻] in unstressed syllables.
• /ŋ/ is an allophone of /n/ before /k g/ in nonnative words. The sequences //nk ng// do not appear natively.
• /f v/ are more accurately approximants [ʋ̊ ʋ].
• /θ/ only appears in /θr/ ⟨тр⟩.
• /z/ appears in modern loanwords but is, in practice, in free variation with /ɕ/. This also means /d͡z/ is in free variation with /d͡ʑ/.
• the pronunciation of /z/ tends to vary by speaker, ranging from [z̪] to [z̠] to even [ʑ].
• /x/ is pronounced [χ] near back vowels and [x̟] near front vowels.
• /t͡ʂ/ is in free variation with /t͡ɕ/.
• people who pronounce ⟨з⟩ as /z/ (instead of /ɕ/) may also pronounce /ʂ t͡ʂ ʐ d͡ʐ/ as /ʃ t͡ʃ ʒ d͡ʒ/.
• /r/ is pronounced as a tap [ɾ].
• /l/ is pronounced [ɫ] near back vowels
• /w/ is pronounced [ɥ] near front vowels.
• /ɲ ʎ/ are written in to waysː

1. if preceding a vowel, they're written as ⟨н л⟩ with an iotated vowel ⟨ıѣ я є ıэ ё ӥ ю юу ıъ ıь⟩.
2. otherwise they're written as ⟨њ љ⟩.

​

Vowels:	Front	Central	Back
Close	/i/ ⟨и⟩ ǀ /y/ ⟨ъı⟩	/ɨ/ ⟨ьı⟩	/ɯ/ ⟨у⟩ ǀ /u/ ⟨оу⟩
Mid	/e/ ⟨е⟩		/ɤ/ ⟨э⟩ ǀ /o/ ⟨о⟩
Open	/æ/ ⟨ѣ⟩		/ɑ/ ⟨а⟩ ǀ (/ɔ/) ⟨о⟩

• More accurately, the vowels come in pairs based on stress:

[Stressed] Vowels:	Front	Central	Back
Close	[iˑ] ⟨и⟩ ǀ [yˑ] ⟨ъı⟩	[ɨˑ] ⟨ьı⟩	[ɯˑ] ⟨у⟩ ǀ [uˑ] ⟨оу⟩
Mid	[e̞ˑ] ⟨е⟩		[ɤ̞ˑ] ⟨э⟩ ǀ [o̞ˑ] ⟨о⟩
Near-Open	[æˑ] ⟨ѣ⟩		[ɑ̝ˑ] ⟨а⟩

• [æˑ] [ɑ̝ˑ] may alternatively be pronounced as true open [æ̞ˑ] [ɑˑ]
• [ɤˑ] may be alternatively pronounced as front [ø̞ˑ], even though it messes with the harmony of inflectional endings.

[Unstressed] Vowels:	Front	Central	Back
Near-Close	[ɪ] ⟨и⟩ ǀ [ʏ] ⟨ъı⟩	[ᵻ] ⟨ьı⟩	[ω] ⟨у⟩ ǀ [ʊ] ⟨оу⟩
Open-Mid	[ɛ] ⟨е⟩		[ɜ] ⟨э⟩ ǀ [ɔ] ⟨о⟩
Open-Mid Mk.2	[ɛ] ⟨ѣ⟩		[ʌ] ⟨а⟩ ǀ ([ɔ̞]) ⟨о⟩

• In the case of true open [æ̞ˑ] [ɑˑ], [ɛ] [ʌ] are alternatively [ɛ̞] [ʌ̞].
• [ɜ] can alternatively be central [ə], merged with [ʌ], or in the case of stressed [ø̞ˑ], front [œ]
• [ᵻ] may also alternatively be central [ə].
• [ɔ̞] only exists due to vowel harmony and isn't recognized as phonetic in it's own right. Its pronunciation can range from [ɒ] to [ɔ].

===IOTATED VOWELS (+ /wɯ/)===

Cyrillic	Romanization	IPA
Я я	Ja ja	/jɑ/
Є є	Je je	/je/
Ӥ ӥ	Ji ji	/ji/
Ё ё	Jo jo	/jo/ ǀ /jɔ/
Ӱ ӱ	Uu uu	/wɯ/
Ю ю	Ju ju	/jɯ/ ǀ /ju/
Юу юу	Jou jou	/ju/
ІЪ ıъ	Jy jy	/jy/
ІЬ ıь	Jü jü	/jɨ/
ІѢ ıѣ	Jä jä	/jæ/
ІЭ ıэ	Jë jë	/jɤ/

===COGNATE CHART===

Proto-Italic	(Classical) Latin	Umbrian	Valtamic
*duō	DVO [ˈduɔ]	𐌕𐌖𐌚 (tuf)	тоу [ˈtuː]
*kʷenkʷe	QVINQVE [ˈkʷiːŋkʷɛ]	𐌐𐌖𐌌𐌐𐌄 (pumpe)	пѣмѣ [ˈpæˑmɛ]
*θēmanā	FEMINA [ˈfeːmɪnä]	⸺	семэн [ˈse̞ˑmɜn̥]
*wiros	VIR [u̯ɪr]	𐌖𐌉𐌓𐌏 (uiro)	ъıлур [ˈyˑlωɾ̥]
*agros	AGER [ˈäɡɛr]	𐌀𐌂𐌄𐌓 (ager)	клор [ˈkʟo̞ˑɾ̥]
*salawos	SALVVS [ˈsäɫu̯ʊs]	𐌔𐌀𐌋𐌖𐌏𐌔 (saluos)	ралор [ˈɾɑ̝ˑɫɔ̞ɾ̥]
*waðom	VADVM [ˈu̯ädʊ̃ˑ]	⸺	вам [ˈʋɑ̝ˑm̥]

==Grammar==

Valtamic exhibits simple vowel-height harmony:

• Low: ⟨ѣ⟩ ⟨а⟩ (⟨о⟩)
• Middle: ⟨е⟩ ⟨э⟩ ⟨о⟩
• High: ⟨и⟩ ⟨ъı⟩ ⟨ьı⟩ ⟨у⟩ ⟨оу⟩

===NOUNS & ADJECTIVES===
Nouns decline for 2 numbers and 12 cases. Grammatical gender does exist but no longer serves a grammatical role, except for pronoun agreement (even then it is no longer observed in an increasing amount of speakers)
Adjectives decline just like nouns, but not for number.
​
====Type I Paradigm====
Corresponds with the Proto-Italic o-stem & Latin 2nd declension. True-type I nouns (those being mono-syllabic none-affixes & none-generalized nouns) exhibit all 3 levels of harmony throughout the paradigm. The Chart is shown with Клор (masc, "Land, Territory"), ultimately from Proto-Italic *agros.

Type I paradigm (Dynamic-Harmony)	Singular	Plural
Nominative	Клор	Клон
Accusative	Клом	Клон
Genitive	Клош	Клом
Dative	Клоуљ	Клол
Lative	Клоуњ	Клоунюљ
Locative	Клѣљ	Клѣлıѣљ
Separative	Клот	Клодэл
Essive	Клонэ	Клоно
Translative	Клоц	Клоцэ
Privative	Клодек	Клодок
Comitative	Клонек	Клонок
Instrumental	Клоной	Клономи

​
====Type II Paradigm====
Corresponds with the Proto-Italic ā-stem & u-stem and Latin 1st & 4th declensions. Type II nouns can also be declined with the regular paradigm. The Chart is shown with Цуцу (masc, "a Prussian"), ultimately from Proto-Germanic \þeudō*.

Type II paradigm (High-Harmony)	Singular	Plural
Nominative	Цуцу	Цуцур
Accusative	Цуцум	Цуцун
Genitive	Цуцур	Цуцузум
Dative	Цуцуљ	Цуцул
Lative	Цуцуњ	Цуцунюљ
Locative	Цуцуљ	Цуцулюљ
Separative	Цуцут	Цуцудул
Essive	Цуцуну	Цуцуноу
Translative	Цуцуц	Цуцуцу
Privative	Цуцудик	Цуцудоук
Comitative	Цуцуник	Цуцуноук
Instrumental	Цуцую*	Цуцуӥми

\⟨ю⟩ here is pronounced as /jɯ*/
​
====Type III Paradigm====
Corresponds with the Proto-Italic consonant-stems & i-stem and Latin 3rd declension. Nouns that used to exhibit stem mutations in proto-Italic still do in Valtamic. Some cases also feature differing declensions that vary by region. The Chart is shown with Нъıр (fem, "thing, stuff"), ultimately from Proto-Italic \sniks*.

Type III paradigm (High-Harmony)	Singular	Plural
Nominative	Нъıр	Нъıўир
Accusative	Нъıӱм	Нъıўин
Genitive	Нъıўир	Нъıўоум
Dative	Нъıўиљ	Нъıӱһ ǀ Нъıӱл
Lative	Нъıўъıњ	Нъıўъıнюл
Locative	Нъıўъı ǀ Нъıўъıљ	Нъıўъıлюљ
Separative	Нъıӱт	Нъıӱдул
Essive	Нъıӱ ǀ Нъıўну	Нъıӱноу ǀ Нъıўноу
Translative	Нъıўц	Нъıўцу
Privative	Нъıўдик	Нъıўдоук
Comitative	Нъıўник	Нъıўноук
Instrumental	Нъıўоум	Нъıӱми ǀ Нъıўоуми

​
====Regular Paradigm====
A regularized paradigm for non-generalized loanwords (and sometimes type II nouns). The Chart is shown with all 3 vowel heights.

Regular Paradigm	Singular	Plural
Nominative	-	-ир, -ер, -ѣр
Accusative	-ум, -эм, -ам	-ун, -эн, -ан
Genitive	-ир, -ер, -ѣр	-оум, -ом, -ом
Dative	-иљ, -ељ, -ѣљ	-уљ, -эљ, -аљ
Lative	-уњ, -эњ, -ањ	-уњуљ, -эњэљ, -ањаљ
Locative	-уљ, -эљ, -аљ	-уљуљ, -эљэљ, -аљаљ
Separative	-ут, -эт, -ат	-удуљ, -эдэљ, -адаљ
Essive	-ну, -нэ, -на	-нуноу, -нэно, -нано
Translative	-ц	-цу, -цэ, -ца
Privative	-дик, -дек, -дѣк	-доук, -док, -док
Comitative	-ник, -нек, -нѣк	-ноук, -нок, -нок
Instrumental	-ю, -ё, -ё*	-ӥми, -єме, -ıѣмѣ

\⟨ю⟩ here is pronounced as /ju*/
​
===VERBS===
Weirdest thing about Valtamic is that all the Proto-Italic conjugations merged into a single paradigm, shown with Селэлё (stem селэљ-, "to perform oral sex"), ultimately from Proto-Italic \θēlājō*.
====Indicative Paradigms====

ACTIVE VOICE paradigm	Past	Present	Future
1.sg	Селэлєм	Селэлё	Селэлємбэн
2.sg	Селэлєр	Селэлıэр	Селэлєрбэн
3.sg	Селэлєт	Селэлıэс	Селэлєтэбэн
1.pl	Селэлємер	Селэлıэмэр	Селэлєсэбэн
2.pl	Селэлєсер	Селэлıэсэр	Селэлєсэбэн
3.pl	Селэлєнт	Селэлıэнс	Селэлєсэбэн

​

ACTIVE IMPERATIVE paradigm	Present
sg	Селэлє ǀ Селэлєљ
pl	Селэлєлєц

​

PASSIVE VOICE paradigm	Past	Present	Future
1.sg	Селэлєл	Селэлёл	Селэлєблэн
2.sg	Селэлєз	Селэлıэсэл	Селэлєзбэн
3.sg	Селэлєсел	Селэлıэсэл	Селэлєсэбэн
1.pl	Селэлємел	Селэлıэмэл	Селэлєрмењ
2.pl	Селэлємењ	Селэлıэнсэл	Селэлєрмењ
3.pl	Селэлєнсел	Селэлıэнсэл	Селэлєрмењ

​

PASSIVE IMPERATIVE paradigm	Present
sg	Селэлєлєз
pl	Селэлєлємењ

​
====Subjunctive Paradigms====

ACTIVE VOICE paradigm	Past	Present
1.sg	Селэлёром	Селэлём
2.sg	Селэлєрер	Селэлıэс
3.sg	Селэлєрет	Селэлıэт
pl	Селэлıэрэнт	Селэлıэмэт

​

PASSIVE VOICE paradigm	Past	Present
1.sg	Селэлёрол	Селэлёмол
2.sg	Селэлєрез	Селэлıэш
3.sg	Селэлєресел	Селэлıэрэл
pl	Селэлıэрэнсэл	Селэлёнсэр

​
====Participles====

PARTICIPLES
Present	Селэлєнєн
Past	Селэлєте

​
====To be====
The verb Рам ("to be") is suppletive irregular in the active voice, regular in the passive, and dynamic (i.e has a dynamic stem but regular endings) in the past passive specifically.

1. The infinitive, active present, past, and imperative forms are from native Proto-Italic \som*.
2. The active future is from Proto-Baltic \kļūti*, cognate with Proto-Slavic \kľuti*.
3. The Passive stems are from late Proto-Balto-Salvic \wártīˀtei*.
4. The Subjunctive stem is a regularization of the infinitive.

=====Indicative Paradigms=====

ACTIVE VOICE paradigm	Past	Present	Future
1.sg	Уљ	Ѣз	Хруш
2.sg	Ут	Ѣр	Хруш
3.sg	Ут	Ѣц	Хрур
1.pl	Умур	Ѣрѣм	Хрушум
2.pl	Утлир	Ѣтлѣр	Хрушур
3.pl	Улс	Рѣнс	Хрубун

​

ACTIVE IMPERATIVE paradigm	Present
sg	Ѣр
pl	Ѣц

​

PASSIVE VOICE paradigm	Past	Present	Future
1.sg	Уљил	Ултил	Ултиблун
2.sg	Утлиз	Ултисул	Ултизбун
3.sg	Утисил	Ултисул	Ултисубун
1.pl	Умил	Ултимул	Ултирмињ
2.pl	Утлимињ	Ултинсул	Ултирмињ
3.pl	Улсинсил	Ултинсул	Ултирмињ

​

PASSIVE IMPERATIVE paradigm	Present
sg	Ултилӥз
pl	Ултилӥмињ

=====Subjunctive Paradigms=====

ACTIVE VOICE paradigm	Past	Present
1.sg	Рамором	Рамом
2.sg	Рамѣрѣр	Рамас
3.sg	Рамѣрѣм	Рамам
pl	Рамарант	Рамамат

​

PASSIVE VOICE paradigm	Past	Present
1.sg	Раморол	Рамомол
2.sg	Рамарѣз	Рамаш
3.sg	Рамѣрѣсѣл	Рамарал
pl	Рамарансал	Рамонсар

​

==VOCABULARY==

Valtamic Vocabulary can be split into 2:

1. Native, Italic Vocabulary
2. Borrowed Vocabulary

The 2nd can be further split into:

1. Proto-Finnic loanwords (Proto-Valtamic)
2. Proto-Slavic Loanwords (Proto-Valtamic)
3. Proto-Baltic Loanwords (Proto-Valtamic)
4. Proto-Germanic/Old-Norse Loanwords (Proto-Valtamic)
5. Very late Proto-Balto-Slavic loanwords (Proto-Valtamic)
6. Low German Loanwords (Valtamic, Teutonic Period)
7. Polish Loanwords (Valtamic, Commonwealth period)
8. Lithuanian Loanwords (Valtamic, Commonwealth Period)
9. Swedish Lutheran Loanwords (Valtamic, Swedish Period)
10. Russian Loanwords (Valtamic, Russo-Soviet Period)
11. Latin Loanwords (Valtamic, Teutonic Period -> Post-Independence)
12. Modern Loanwords (Valtamic, Modern Period)

Most Proto-Valtamic -> Commonwealth Valtiamic Loans generalize to one of the 3 paradigms, Swedish -> Modern Loans take regular inflection.
===PRONOUNS===
Valtamic Pronouns are a Italo-Finno-Slavic mess, due to the acquisition of the modern Valtamic case system from a plethora of languages that donated their pronouns aswell. I guess a fun challenge is to try to figure out the origins of them!

1st Person Pronouns	Singular	Plural
Nominative	Ѣк	Ноур
Accusative	Мѣ	Ноур ǀ Һѣ ǀ Вѣ
Genitive	Мѣм	Насам
Dative	Мѣљ	Нэм
Lative	Мьıлуњ	Мѣлѣњ
Locative	Мьıнуљ	Мѣл
Separative	Мѣт	Нѣљ
Privative	Мьıнут	Мѣц
Comitative	Мьıљун	Мѣњѣх
Reflexive/Disjunctive	Мѣрѣһ	Нѣрѣһ

​

2nd Person Pronouns	Singular	Plural
Nominative	Оур	Һэ
Accusative	Оур ǀ Цѣн	Һэ ǀ Цѣт
Genitive	Ѣсѣм	Һэљэм
Dative	Һэм	Һэр
Lative	Цъıньıњ	Цѣљѣњ
Locative	Цъıньıљ	Цѣљ
Separative	Оуљ	Цѣзѣ
Privative	Цъıньıт	Цѣц
Comitative	Цъıньıх	Цѣњѣх
Reflexive/Disjunctive	Ѣрѣһ	Һэшл ǀ Һэреһ

​

3rd Person Pronouns	Masculine	Neuter	Feminine	Plural
Nominative	ЪІ	Ѣ	О	И
Accusative	Нъı	Нѣ	Но	Ни
Genitive	Љѣк	Љѣк	Љѣљ	ЪІх
Dative/Instrumental	ЪІм	ЪІм	Ѣљ	Им
Lative	Нъıм	Нъıм	Нѣљ	Нѣх
Locative	Ѣнѣл	Ѣнѣл	Ѣнѣл	Ил
Separative	Ѣнѣс	Ѣнѣс	Ѣнѣс	Ис
Privative	Ѣнѣсц	Ѣнѣсц	Ѣнѣсц	Иц
Comitative	Ѣнѣх	Ѣнѣх	Ѣнѣх	Их
Reflexive/Disjunctive	Љѣһ	Љѣһ	Љѣһ	ЪІриһ

​
===DERIVATIONAL SUFFIXES===
As of late I've developed 12 derivational suffixes for Valtamic, shown here with middle harmony:
1- ⟨-елэр⟩ dimunitive suffix (Type I)

• From Proto-Valtamic \älår, from Proto-Italic *\-elos***. Cognate with Latin -ulus.

2- ⟨-о⟩ verbal infinitve suffix

• From Proto-Valtamic \-u, a merger of proto-Italic *\-āō**, *\-ēō**, and *\-eō***. Cognate with Latin -ō and -eō.

3- ⟨-хор⟩ noun -> adjectival suffix (Type I)

• From Proto-Valtamic \-kxår, from Proto-Italic *\-kos***. Cognate with Latin -cus.

4- ⟨-ељ⟩ verb -> abstract nomial suffix (Type III)

• From Proto-Valtamic \-ɨľ(ä)*, loaned from Proto-Slavic \-ьje*.

5- ⟨-цэр⟩ adjective -> nomial suffix (Type III)

• From Proto-Valtamic \-tsa(të)r, from Proto-Italic *\-tāts***. Cognate with Latin -tās.

6- ⟨-тло⟩ verb -> concrete nomial (Type III)

• From a merger of Proto-Valtamic \-tľo* and \-tlo, from Proto-Italic *\-tjō*** and (by metathesis) \-tōr* respectively. Cognate with Latin -tiō and -tor.

7- ⟨-эр⟩ verb -> masculine agent suffix (Type I)

• From Proto-Valtamic \-ľër, from late Proto-Balto-Slavic *\-āˀjas**. Related to Latvian -ājs & Lithuanian-ojas, and technically a doublet of previous *-о**.

8- ⟨-цер⟩ general feminine suffix, verb -> feminine agent suffix (Type III)

• From Proto-Valtamic \-tsixr, from Proto-Italic *\-trīks***. Cognate with Latin -trīx.

9- ⟨-цэм⟩ general neutegender-neutral suffix, verb -> neutegender-neutral agent suffix (Type III)

• From Proto-Valtamic \-tsåm, from Proto-Italic *\-trom***. Cognate with Latin -trum.

10- ⟨-онэр⟩ adverbial suffix

• From Proto-Valtamic \-onrår, from Proto-Italic *\-owonssos***. Cognate with Latin -ōsus.

11- ⟨-цэх⟩ ordinal number suffix

• Backformed from Фрэлцэх ("first"), Фацах ("second"), Тръıцух ("third"), and Пѣцах ("fourth"). Specifically from the Proto-Valtamic \-cakx, from earlier *\-cakxår**, part of their Proto-Valtamic forms, a fusion of Proto-Italic *\-tāts*** + \-kos*.

12- ⟨-фрэ⟩ adverbial number suffix

• Backformed from Рѣнһѣфра ("once"), Тѣлафра ("twice"), Тръıлоуфру ("thrice"), and Пѣцафра ("four times"). Specifically from the Proto-Valtamic \-uloɸrår* part of their Proto-Valtamic forms, a fusion of Proto-Italic \-elos* + \-plos*.