What do you think of this?

I am currently developing a language designed for easy learning and to be cool-sounding. Tell me what you think about this:

All sentences have the following order:
Adjective, (Number of) (Each/per/etc quantifiers) Noun (possesive particle) (Noun belonging to previous noun), Time particle, Adjective for object, Object, Adverb, Verb, Question particle.

There are no articles.
There are 6 time particles that decide the sentence time. You add a particle before this one to make it negative:
present
present and still going on
past
past and still going on
future
future and still going on

There are 5 pronouns:
We
I
You
He/she/they
It

The numeric system has numbers 0-9, 10, 100, 1000, and 1000000 at the moment, and three counter particles for things, living beings (plants, animals, people), and for ordinal numbers.

For example 15 keyboards would be: ten-five things keyboard
1st day: one ordinal day
24 people: two-ten-four living-beings person

That, plus around 130 words is what I have developed at the moment. I won't tell the words right now, just tell me what you think about it.

So basically it's Japanese? Don't know why you'd rip off the counters though, as it's one of the most useless features of Japanese.

>>2
Japanese with two future tenses, two present tenses and two past tenses? You best be joking bro.

8=======================D

>>3
Still very similar though.

>All sentences have the following order:
What about subordinate clauses?

What if the verb involves three things?

>>5
verb at the end, complicated time tenses, pronouns... looks far more similar to udmurt than japanese for me
however, op hasn't revealed the info on how verbs look and how much cases the language is going to have

>>7
>how much cases
it's how many you fucktard

>>2
The counters are actually ripped off from Nahuatl (animated and inanimated things counters)
>>5
I FORGOT THAT, FUCK.
"Not yet implemented!"
>>6
3 verbs? verb and verb and verb
3 nouns? noun and noun and noun
(yes, and goes every time)
>>7
Verbs only have 1 form, the time particle makes it a different time.
Cases? >>1 "we, I, you, he/she/they, it", for "our, my, his...":
we possesive-particle item
me possesive-particle item
etc.

subjective and objective are the same


so I should go ahead and implement subordinate clauses

The subordinate clauses are in the process of being integrated,

fully implemented: particle for sentence linking. This particle goes after the verb and before the question particle. After this, the subordinate sentence is inserted, and the question particle is moved until the end of the whole sentence. Examples from wikipedia into the grammar:
"Wherever she goes, she leaves a piece of luggage behind."
she present piece possesive-particle luggage behind sentence-linker she wherever goes
the first set of the sentence concludes, the sentence linking particle is added and the sentence is continued with the subordinate clause.
"Bob enjoyed the movie more than I did."
bob past movie more enjoy sentence-linker I than did
than is an adverb here modifying the previous one, more.

That's for adverbial clauses, now for the relative clauses:

"The only one of the seven dwarfs who does not have a beard is Dopey."
without beard dwarf possesive-particle seven-living-beings dwarfs present dopey be
Here, we do not use a sentence linker, but instead a big noun. Beard is an adjective, without is an adjective modifier, then we get dwarf, and then the possesive makes it property of the seven dwarfs, where we use a counter. Then the time particle makes it present, Dopey is the object and then the copula.
"No one understands why experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."
zero-living-being persons present understand sentence-linker experience negative-present thing get sentence-linker you present it until need
Here, in contrast, we do use TWO sentence-linkers to link 3 sentences together. no one is represented by "0 people" then understand in present tense. This then is linked with the part that says experience is not a gettable thing, which is linked to "you it until is needed". So the sentence all together brings the same idea as the original.



Some other things haven't been added, but they will soon.
Does /lang/ have any opinion?

I think such a strict word order is going to get old fast.

>>9
An indirect object, I mean. You don't seem to have provided for this in the sentence structure.

op here
>>11 strict word order was the only thing i could do to avoid misunderstandings, since the language has only 79 different moras (yes, it uses moraic writing systems)

anything else

op here
>>11 strict word order was the only thing i could do to avoid misunderstandings, since the language has only 79 different moras (yes, it uses moraic writing systems)

anything else

op here
>>11 strict word order was the only thing i could do to avoid misunderstandings, since the language has only 79 different moras (yes, it uses moraic writing systems)

anything else

>>15
fuck you wapanese

>>15
ahh, I'm currently studying the language of the beaners on my own.

>>13,14,15
Yeah, but verbs with only two places are going to suck.

Hey there OP.
I think what you're doing is really awesome and don't give up, speaking a constructed language is the best thing, especially when you know you've made it.

Not to imply that I know what you are doing, but here are some tips you may want to take;
The thing to remember when making a conlang is to associate it with something. For example, already we have French, the language of romance, German, the language of philosophy and politics, Italian, the language of fucking, Portuguese is for geography (they have tons and tons of different words for hill etc) the Icelandic languages have long been associated with science and English is the best business language that exists because of the way that sentences are structured and the laws governing politeness.

So maybe try and bring your language into something else. You should seriously get it out there. I tried to make a conlang a while ago but lost motivation because of the requirements of my schoolwork. However, I associated my language strongly with nature, so I made most of my initial vocabulary out of that and I constructed my own alphabet and syllabary which used symbols in nature.

To practice speaking your language, try taping yourself giving conversational cues ("Hello. How are you?" etc) and play them back, responding to them. This will get you used to speaking and listening to your language.

Anyway, good luck man and let me know how it goes. If you want a hand give me an email. deiteas@googlemail.com

I dont know why people mention counters being exclusive to japanese when we use counters in English.

Cup of tea?

Loaf of bread?

Sheaf (or) sheets of paper?

Blade of grass?

We have far more counters than the japs do and we use them exclusively to each thing. Whereas japs have counters for groups of things (I.E. a counter for long, thin things, like trees and pencils). So don't compare them.

They even change as you use them.

Load of bread.

Slice of bread.

Hunk of bread.

Chunk of bread.

>>20
The English words (cup, blade, loaf, etc.) you've mentioned aren't really the same thing as counters (i.e. measure words). It is true that they are analogous to the Japanese counter words in both their use and meaning, but a more proper term for them would be mass noun.