I did a search and replace on one of my conlangs, replacing x with ʁ, and forgetting that English sometimes uses x in words. I got some fun results
Erecutioner
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Türkiye

seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Yemen
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
I did a search and replace on one of my conlangs, replacing x with ʁ, and forgetting that English sometimes uses x in words. I got some fun results
Erecutioner
Subject Agreement in [conlang]
[Conlang year clong still has no name yet, sadly]
So, as I think we've mentioned previously, this conlang has consonant mutation. And originally, in the proto-language, verbs were uninflected for person.
Now, originally the language was also SVO, so at some point subject pronouns and noun phrases caused initial consonant mutation on a verb. So a verb like girhe [ˈɡir̥e] "to speak", would become (if we ignore later developments like the invention of the dual and word order changes):
Éḋi ngirhe "I speak" Isol ngirhe "We speak"
Ú cirhe "You (sg.) speak" Ulha ngirhe "Y'all speak"
Turher ġirhe "He/she speaks; they (sg.) speak." Turhen ġirhe "They (anim.) speak."
Turhe girhe "It speaks" Turheṅ girhe "They (inan.) speak"
Now, we can see that, except the 2nd person, the mutation is identical in the singular and plural for each person (and also gender for 3rd person). So analogy kicks in, making the 2nd plural identical to the 2nd singular, essentially meaning that verbs now inflect for person and gender, but not number. This makes it so the mutation is triggered by grammatical context now instead of the specific words used.
Later, the word order changed to VSO, and the dual number evolved, but that inherited the marking depending on person. So now, we have this in the modern language:
Ngirhe éḋi/isoṫiṅ/isol "I/We both/We speak" Cirhe ú/uthen/ulha "You/You both/You speak" Ġirhe turher/turhetiṅ/turhen "They (sg.;an.)/They both (an.)/They (pl.;an.) speak" Girhe turhe/turheṅ "It speaks/They (pl. inan.) speak"
Latin does have a bit of ergativity, e.g.
verto -are -avi -atum, i/to turn is a transitive verb, so it needs an object.
however, like in english, you dont always turn something, sometimes you just turn. the way latin expresses that is
Argus ad cenam se vertit, Argus turns towards the food, but more literally Argus turns himself towards the food.
because when you turn around, you are both doing the action, and experiencing the result of the action. which is what the sole argument of an intransitive verb does.
now, in latin, this is just to account for the languages accusative alignment, but maybe in a clong descendant of it (or in your own clong) that has more ambitransitive verbs,
Argus sē vertit becomes Argussē vertit becomes Argissē creating an ergative case
puer (nom) → puessē (erg)
puerī (nom) → puerīsse (erg)
penna (nom) → pennasē (erg)
pennae (nom) → pennaesē (erg)
flūmen (nom) → flumense
flūminēs (nom) → flūminēsse (erg)
hoc (nom) → hossē (erg)
haec (nom) → haessē (erg)
played with sound changes and I have a handful of words again
what's this? more conlang?????
WotD (won't be doing this consistently)
Samīdima means "relative" or "family", specifically people one is related to by blood (so spouses, step-siblings, in-laws etc don't count). It's a participle form of the verb samīdi ("to be blood-related"), itself made of sa-, meaning "to have", mī, meaning "blood", and the comitative suffix -di, so literally meaning "to have blood with someone" or "to share blood". Being a verbal form, it can be inflected for person (which is used to mark the possessor) and the obviate is marked with an infixed -i- before the participle suffix, instead of the usual tu- prefix, although the 3rd and 4th person possessor forms samīdima and tusmīdima are obviate by default and don't need an explicit obviate marker. It is theoretically possible to inflect it for tense as well, with the forms samichīma (< *samichutma < samichu-t-ma, where samichu is the past form of samī and -t is an allomorph of -di) and saminyandima (< saminya(n)-di-ma, where saminya is the irrealis form of samī) potentially meaning "former family" and "future/would-be family", though I don't imagine those being widely used. Here's a sample sentence:
Kismīdima ritsanyānīma turak kimunanifus ki-smīdima ri-tsanyānu-i-ma tu-rak ki-munan-ifu-s-Ø 1s-family 1p-pick.PST-4-PTC OBV-flower 1s-give.IRR-go.PST-IND.APPL-3
I brought my family the flower(s) we had picked.
okay but you know knights would absolutely just be hitting each other on the helmet with sticks all the time right. The clong is so satisfying and humans have always been humans
a mouse in the basement, part 2/?
prev | Kíkítok masterpost
(i'm estimating maybe 5 to 6ish parts? You know how it goes)
David gets a chance to speak, but there are no good conversation partners around. That doesn't stop him from trying. tagging - @whumpsday (dm/comment to be tagged please) word count: ~1500 contains: kidnapping / captivity, blood/injury, restraints, brief manhandling, fear. (everything here is nonsexual, if that's not obvious)
David didn’t know if the basement’s other occupant took advantage of the blanket or not. She wouldn’t come out of the corner while David was watching, so David had once again trudged back to the cot. At some point, he’d fallen asleep because now he woke up with someone throwing him to the floor.
Time for breakfast.
Also, lunch and dinner.