> >Well, until now I have not taken the trouble to introduce
> myself, so I
> >do so.
> >I'm 16, living in Moscow and right now preparing for my exams in
> >summer - first school finals and then entrance the Department of
> >Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Philology,
> Moscow State
> >University.
> Privet! Greetings from another Moscovite!

Are we the only two here? :-)

> >Though I don't read Reichenbach (non cuivis contingit adire
> >Corinthum), I am not wholly unlettered.
> Who's that? I'm lazy to google for his name ;)

How am I supposed to know who he is if I didn't read him? A linguist, I
would try to hazard a guess :-)

>We take you ;)

Yep thanks.

> >It has a relatively simple noun morphology (the object/subject
> >distinction is almost completely demolished, and there is
> third Dative
> >case),
> That is, three cases, partly homophonic, one of them dative?

To be more specific, the Nom-Acc forms are not homophnic only when used
with a certain (very limited) class of verbs.

> Or what is
> 'third dative'?

It means that dative is the third case, apart from the nominative and
the accusative :-).
That was a typo, read: and a third case, Dative.

> >but the verb is awful - it just comes out of control! It has
> >three separate inflectional paradigms for the verb, having to do with
> >whether the subject/object is definite and/or associated with a
> >possessive.
> Like in Hungarian, for objects (IIRC)?

Yes, with the difference that Hungarian thinks of the possessive in
terms of it just being definite, and Tolwd has separate conjugations for
the definite object and for the possessive object.

As to your remark in another letter, regarding the oddity of languages,
I must say that I like naturalistic languages (that's why I'm not deep
into Klingon, but absolutely in love with Quenya and Sindarin), but I
don't want mine to look just like natlangs.