> From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

> Hi all. Over the past 5 years I've been trying to start a language - not merely 
> construct one, but teach it to family members and see if it has the ability to 
> survive and grow.

It would help to understand the purpose. Is this intended ultimately to be an auxlang (i.e., a language that's meant to be easy to learn, with universal appeal across languages), an engelang (i.e., a language that's meant to be designed with some specific language philosophies in mind -- from your notes below, this seems least likely), an artlang that resembles a natlang (i.e., a language designed for artistic or aesthetic reasons, but which might be used by humans and which therefore ought to be restricted by universal or near-universal characteristics of human languages), or an artlang of your own parameters? It seems to me that you're targeting the third type, an artlang that resembles a natlang but which isn't strictly speaking an auxlang, but if your target is something else, you may want to clarify so that people can adjust their comments.

In other words, one reason why there's not a coherent guide on what makes a good conlang is that there are disparate and even conflicting goals in conlang construction, just as there are conflicts in natural human languages.

> The language so far uses:
> 
> * Agglutinative word construction
> 
> * SOV word order (since this is very common in natlangs)

These features are common enough in natlangs, but foreign to Anglophones. I would think that agglutination in particular might be odd for people not used to it.

> * generic modifiers which follow nouns and verbs

Reasonable enough.

> * plural (indicated by the prefix /s/)

Why use the English morpheme for plural and then put it in a different place? That seems more confusing to me than just using a different morpheme would be.

> * definite article, but no indefinite article

Reasonable enough. Your use of the singular here implies that the article won't be modified for number or case (i.e., that it doesn't agree with the noun); this isn't a problem, just an observation. Do adjectives likewise not have noun agreement? Also, do article precede or follow the noun? 

> * 2 cases: 1. nominative/accusative vs 2. dative/lative

Subject and direct object are the most commonly used noun roles. Why not distinguish them and yet distinguish "everything else"? Observation: This would imply that subjects are required, rather than being inferred from the verb (as in Spanish), otherwise "me eat." would be ambiguous (between "I ate." and "I was eaten.").

> * 4 verb tenses: present, past, future, & progressive

As was noted, progressive isn't a tense, but on the other hand, I could see how it could fit into a tense system as if it were. There are two ways this would happen:

-- The progressive is only available in the present. There's no such thing as past progressive or future progressive.
-- The progressive implies the same tense as the current context, with present being the default.

As an example of the latter, I'll use the English gerund to show how it would work:

"Yesterday, I sitting at my desk when I saw a man outside. He shoveling snow, which was strange because it was summer. Tomorrow, if I sitting at my desk again, I will-look for him."

This does seem strange to me, though. More reasonable to have three tenses and two aspects (simple and progressive).

> * 10 basic colors: RGB + CYM + white, gray, brown, black (essentially, English 
> -orange -purple +cyan) 

Reasonable enough, for certain values of "basic." This does slightly violate the hierarchy claimed by Berlin and Kay (cyan is less common than orange and purple), but that hierarchy only apparently satisfies 80% of natlangs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term)

> * 5 sense words: see, hear, smell/taste, touch, & feel(emotion)

Reasonable enough.

> * base-six number system (i.e. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11...)

I'm not sure why others have honed in on this among your various features, except from the standpoint that natlangs are with minor exceptions decimal. French is predominantly decimal but has some vigesimal characteristics, for instance; the words for 70-79 are 60+(10-19) (72 = soixante douze, that is, 60 12), while 80-99 is "four twenties" plus 0-19 (91 = quatre vingt onze, that is, 4 20 11) . Also, English has words for 12 (dozen) and 144 (gross), as well as a word for 20 (score, as in "four score and seven years ago..."), but is also overwhelmingly decimal. Computer languages are usually hexadecimal, sometimes octal, rarely binary (although it's binary underlying it all). Base 6 does seem very arbitrary for a human natlang. There's nothing technically wrong with it, but I'd expect a motivation for it other than difference for the sake of difference.

> * a phonetic alphabet modified from Greek & Latin

Phonetic or phonemic? Phonemic writing systems are common. Phonetic writing systems are rare.

> * 7 vowels: /a/ /ae/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/ /ɛ/

It appears to be: three front closed, three back closed, one front open. Why the last?

> * 15 consonants: /k/ /p/ /t/ /h/ /x/ /s/ /θ/ /f/ /v/ /w/ /y/ /l/ /r/ /m/ /n/ 
> (so, no voiced plosives, one voiced fricative /v/)

/T/ (/θ/) with an otherwise small consonant inventory is usually a dead giveaway that this is an English-based conlang. That particular phoneme isn't very common across natlangs. Also, why the absence of /N/ (/ŋ/), given the presence of /k/ and /x/? Phonemic gaps are of course common across natlangs, but this set looks more reliant on English phonology (or, in the case of the missing /N/, orthography) than I would expect from your other rules.
 
-- Paul