NYRLANG: a loglang for the rest of us

\( S \to A \ X \) — an adjective with a pronoun (its subject) is a sentence.

\( A \to X \ V \) — a pronoun (the object) with a verb is an adjective. In Nyrlang, verbs are always transitive; an intransitive verb is called an adjective. The general term for both is predicate.

\( X \to N \ [Det] \) — a noun with or without a determiner is a pronoun. Without, the kind of reference is taken to be existential with definiteness left up to context.

\( N \to N \ A \) — a noun with an adjective is a noun, modifying it.

\( A \to A \ A \ Adv \) — to modify predicates, you need the adverbial particle t. Otherwise, it works like noun modification, except the thing modified is the action or state of the predicate itself.

You might be wondering where all the adpositions are (such as at), as they weren't in the list of parts of speech. This is because they're verbs—for example, d (to be at X). To use them as adpositions is simply to use them adverbially.

\( V \to A \ T \) — an adjective with a transitivizer is a verb. Here, ta (want, wish, desire) transforms good into something like wants [X] to be good.

\( A \to D \ V \) — a detransitivizer with a verb is an adjective. Here, the antipassive detransitivizer a removes the need for an object.

In fact, the word àh (be, exist) has really been the antipassive with the copula this entire time.

\( N \to A \ Inf \) — the infinitive particle n allows you to talk about an instance, the state, or a result of an event, as if it were a noun.

\( A \to A \ Inf \ T \) — a purely syntactic convenience that would otherwise need a reflexive detransitivizer (to specify the subject and object of desire are the same) and the adverbial particle.

\( D \to X \ Rel \) — the relative particle ı lets you bind a verb to its subject first instead of its object. It's often able to be directly translated as English by, same word order and all (if you read backwards).

Later, you'll find it to serve a multitude of functions, but its primary use is to introduce relative clauses (as is its namesake).

Hey, look! The relative particle can be translated as by here too!

\( V \to Rel \ T \) — like with verbs, the relative particle lets you attach a transitivizer to its subject first. Somewhat unintuitively, the happening that is desired here is a normal pronoun, not 'segmented' into a subject and predicate.

This is mainly used adverbially to play with word order in interesting ways...

\( T \to V \ Inf \ Adv \) — going backwards, you can also make arbitrary transitivizers from verbs, the object being segmented into a subject and predicate. It can usually be translated with that.

\( N \to A \ Rel \ Inf \) — the standard way to nominalize adjectives, being the archetypical subject of their descriptor. It's like the infinitive in that it makes adjectives into nouns, but like the relative in that it deals with the subject... or something. I don't know.

\( X \to Det \ Inf \) — determiners can also be nominalized, quantifying the most general thing.

In fact, the third-person pronoun èn has really been a nominalized demonstrative this entire time.

\( S \to [(A/V) \ \{A\}] \ [X] \) — for the sake of pragmatics, you can leave most parts of a sentence out if you want to.

Because I'm kind and generous, instead of all those pesky adverbial particles, you can put adjectives directly next to each other and it'll be taken as a chain of adverbs. (Note that you can only do this for the main predicate of a sentence.)

Compare with rà-yô-t-ù-t-va.

\( C \to V \ Conj \) — a verb with the conjunctive particle ve is a conjunction.

We now have to modify every rule to include conjunctions:

\[ S \to [(A/V) \ \{\{A \ C\} \ A\}] \ [\{X \ C\} \ X] \]

\[ N \to N \ \{A \ C\} \ A \]

\[ N \to A \ \{A \ C\} \ Inf \]

\[ N \to A \ \{A \ C\} \ Rel \ Inf \]

\[ A \to X \ \{X \ C\} \ V \]

\[ V \to A \ \{A \ C\} \ T \]

\[ D \to X \ \{X \ C\} \ Rel \]

Cases ↑

Although any verb can be used as an adposition when adverbial, there are six essential ones that are important enough to be given their own name: cases. They are all intentionally vague to be able to accomodate lots of possible uses.

In fact, the possessive 'verb' ìs (have) has been the genitive case with the relative particle this entire time. An excerise for the reader is to think about why I used quotes for 'verb'. Yes, you have homework.

Clauses ↑

A (content) clause is a complete sentence (subject and predicate) used as a noun to talk about the event happening itself. The infinitive particle was introduced for this purpose, but its subject was left implicit. We can say that when modifying an infinitive phrase with the genitive, the possessor is inferred to specifcally mean the subject of the predicate.

Useful when paired with adpositions.

Names ↑

If the phonology implies a root has multiple syllables, which is impossible, it's taken as a name. Names are simply determiners.

Remember the special use of the infinitive particle for determiners? Usually, it's tiresome to keep repeating what kind of thing the name is of.

Manner ↑

Sometimes adverbial modification is inappropriate. If you want to express that you gayly walk, it's not really correct to say that the walking itself is happy—actions cannot have feelings. Instead, use the infinitive particle and instrumental-comitative case: if you do something utilizing or along with joy, you happily do it.

Comparison ↑

Comparisons are made using the verb f that says its subject is more than its object, in some regard.

Unlike concrete objects, the metric of comparison between clauses is inferred to be so-ness.

Illocution ↑

When the last tone is smooth, it's a normal declarative sentence: the thing I'm saying is a description of the world. Otherwise, something else happens depending on the part of speech. Full sentences become commands: do something to make my description true.

Mere predicates are still commands with implicit subjects and objects.

When just a subject, it's a question asking about the thing.

This can form yes/no questions with a clause in most contexts.