Vowel inventories with /a, e, i, o/ but no /u/ are pretty common in the Americas. Consider merging /u/ with one of the other vowels diachronically.

I would, but there's actually a few problems. For one, the star that the dragons' planet orbits is called "Letuaf." They also call aliens/foreigners "telusha"—derived somewhat from "Tellusian."

Nonetheless, I still like the five-vowel system. While it is somewhat boring, it seems to be pretty easy to learn in most circumstances.

How would one go about making a singulative form, such as that of "water," "fire," or "smoke?"

The mass noun in this case would be unmarked—i.e. treated as singular.

I'm not sure where singulatives are likely to come from. Welsh uses -yn, but I don't know the etymology.

I think it could be a prefix coming from the word for "part" (adjectives precede nouns).

I've been fooling around with an alternate history language that would've been what common slavic became if it were picked up and spoken by a tribe of anglo saxons. Easier to use existing systemns of language evolution because conlangers come off way out of touch with how languages actually develop

so here's how my noun case system works

• nom = unmarked
• acc = add -l if ends in vowel, -a if ends in consonant
• dat = add -m if ends in vowel, -u if ends in consonant
• gen = add -g if ends in vowel, -i if ends in consonant

• sg = unmarked
• du = add pu- if begins in consonant, p if begins in vowel or liquid (l, j, v)
• pl = add he- if begins in consonant, h if begins in vowel or liquid (l, j, v)

so essentially here's a word that begins and ends in consonants:

vag (pronounced "vahng"), meaning man

vag = the man (nom)
vaga = the man (acc)
vagu = to the man
vagi = the man's

pvag = the two men (nom)
pvaga = the two men (acc)
pvagu = to the two men
pvagi = the two men's

hvag = the many men (nom)
hvaga = the many men (acc)
hvagu = to the many men
hvagi = the many men's

I'm wondering how to handle verb conjugations, if I even should. I was considering adding affixes for subject, object, and tense (habitual and preterite), but my current system only conjugates for tense and mood (indicative, subjunctive, and imperative). I feel the latter system is simpler and easier to write, but the former system is more interesting.

You all know how the Nominative, Accusative, Dative, Genitive, and Ablative cases work...

But do you know how else they are used in Alfeme?

Other uses for cases

Nominative (subject) uses

• Static copula: <Lu melai>; I am blue.
• Voluntary: <Lu himu mapil>; I fall (voluntarily) on the rock.

Accusative (object) uses

• Dynamic copula: <Law melai>; I become blue.
• Involuntary: <Law himu mapil>; I trip on the rock.
• Allative: <Lu lacoxana wol>; I go to the kitchen.

Dative (beneficiary) uses

• Locative: <Lu lacoxanu>; I am in the kitchen.
• Comitative: <Lu mam letolpa panli>; I see the volcano with them (singular).
• Instrumental: <Lu tuñem owal tuñil>; I cut the egg with a knife.

Genitive (possessive) uses

• Vocative: <Econg!>; Eco('s name)!
• Inessive: <Lu lacoxani wol>; I enter the kitchen.

Ablative (leaving) uses

• Discussion: <Law hisman pasi>; Tell me about the (many) spider-snake-thingies.

So literally "the rock trips me"?

Is there a reason for saying it this way?

Yes. To trip is to literally be caused to fall to the ground, and the rock causes one to fall if you trip on it.

Ok, but is it not possible to say "I tripped on the rock" literally? I know languages do similar stuff based on animacy, but a first person pronoun is universally more animate than a rock.

Of course, you don't have to change it just because there's no human language that does it. It is a language for dragons after all.

I feel this is somewhat of a logical choice considering that Alfeme is, as shown, a split-ergative language. If somebody were to fall because their grip slipped, it would be "Mal mapixa," but if they intentionally let go it would be "Me mapixa."

Oh, I get it now!

I made two conlangs in my youth, but neither got beyond a list of words and some syntactical concepts I couldn't even spell out. But something I am more interested in now is variants on real languages. Like what will happen to sexed grammar as non-binary genders become more recognised, then with artificial intelligences and aliens on top of that (even though some identify as men or women).

My idea for English is that singular "they" will become more common, along with its associated verb tense. The sexed pronouns are displaced by it over time. This creates a conflict between the different tenses used for people when referred to by name or pronoun. The long term trend (talking about centuries here) is for the former plural tense to take over for anything sentient, so they say "John are here".

By complementary effects, "they" falls into disuse for objects and "it" takes over the plural, and the verb forms follow, so they say "the houses is".

Meanwhile a register appears for non-sapient computers to talk in: by default, they never use first person or greet their user, as it comes to be seen as artificial and out of place. They speak in the voice of the programmer ("This robot will clean up") and with a vocabulary restricted to their functions.

In short, language evolves to mark sentient and non-sentient, which is the only distinction society wants to make. Does this sound plausible? What I find harder is thinking of how French and Italian would change, with their deeper grammatical genders.

It kinda seems weird to me to not have "they" be both singular and plural as "you" is. It would get rid of a verb form, I'm sure.

I just had a language-changing revelation.

My absolutive case also functions as an allative—motion toward something. My dative also functions as a locative and an instrumentocomitative—being at someplace, with someone, or using something. My genitive also functions as an ablative—motion away from something.

I could use these suffixes for tenses.

The future tense could be derived from absolutive, and the future copula could be made by using an absolutive noun/adjective. The habitual aspect could be derived from dative, and habitual copula from dative nouns/adjectives. The past tense could be from the genitive, same with the copula as nouns/adjectives.

I may have accidentally made a very interesting verb system, but it may not be without confusion.

How would someone tell the difference between the two meanings of "Lu lacosjanu"^note 1SG eat.place.DAT? "I am at/in the kitchen" vs. "I am often at/in the kitchen?" I was considering using this to get rid of the verb "fi" (to go), but then I realized it could be used as a non-stative marker. Therefore, "Lu lacosjanu vaw"^note "fi" is irregular would mean "I am at/in the kitchen," whereas simply "Lu lacosjanu" would be "I am often at/in the kitchen."

Explanation:

My proto-lang could have had a major case system or something. Something like having a nominative (agent, voluntary experiencer), absolutive (patient, involuntary experiencer), dative (beneficiary, indirect object), genitive (possessor), ablative (motion away), allative (motion toward), instrumental (performed with something), comitative (performed with someone), locative (placed at something), and a vocative (O you!).

First, the instrumental and comitative would have merged to form an instrumentocomitative. The vocative would have merged with the nominative, and then the allative with the absolutive. The instrumentocomitative would have merged into the dative, and the ablative into the genitive. Then, the locative would have merged with the dative, thus forming a system where one case performs four functions, and the others get two.

I've started working on an analytic conlang since I'm in a rut, and I usually make agglutinative languages, so it's something different.

I've just made an account on Conworkshop. I have two conlangs, both playing large parts in my published novels, so this is a great way to flesh them out! Thank you for the link

No problem. My name is "Eco Palimu," if you were interested—my conlang code is AFM.

So basically I've kind of gotten a phonological table down pat (for) now.

CONSONANTS

VOWELS

Quick question.

Is it better to have a complex verb system or a simple one? Right now, I mark for subject, object, number, tense, and aspect.

Want to read up on some of the features of Alfeme? I have three lessons written so far!

1. Phonology
2. Nouns and Determiners
3. Verbs

I don't think either is inherently better. It depends on what you want to do with the language as well as experience.

For newish conlangers, I generally advise to keep it simple.