Having spent most of my conlanging time recently working on WSL, and with all the recent discussion of loglangs and such, I find myself getting kinda tired of languages without verbs. Let's swing the pendulum the other way- *all* verbs! (Or close to it, anyway.) I'm taking a lot of inspiration from Salish languages, but not exclusively. The only open-class roots are basically verbs, divided into basic transitives and basic intransitives. Verbs show polypersonal agreement on suffixes, and also have subject-marking proclitics (used when an explicit subject phrase is missing). Noun phrases (or determiner phrases) are formed from an article or other determiner (e.g., demonstrative) followed by a relativized verb; a relativised verb in turn is a verb with a relative subject proclitic. This implies that only subjects can relativised, so we need some yummy argument-structure-rearranging operations. There are two de-transitivizing suffixes, which apply before subject and object agreement- one which removes the object (roughly equivalent to saying that the object is "something", and that it is irrelevant), and a passive. There is one transitivizing suffix, which adds a causative subject; when applied to intransitives, this does just what you'd expect; when applied to transitives, it demotes the original subject to object position, and demotes the object to an *oblique*. The causative can be chained with either of the detransitivizing suffixes. The language has only one preposition, used to mark obliques. Some verbs (like passivized transitives, or natural semantic ditransitives like "give") assign a specific role to at least one oblique argument, but extra oblique arguments can be added just about anywhere as long as they "make sense"- e.g., for time or locative expressions. If, for example, there were two obliques in a passive clause, one of which refers to a person and one of which refers to a building, nobody's going to be too terribly confused about which one is the demoted agent and which one is the locative. Two mechanisms are available to achieve greater specificity: lexical suffixes, and applicatives. Lexical suffixes are a closed class of bound roots that can be productively added to verb roots to derive new verbs (probably historically derived from incorporated objects) which have an assortment of functions like specifying a type of location, a specific instrument, a certain class of object, etc. For example, there could be lexical suffixes for "in water", "with a tool" (as opposed to "by hand"), or even specifying a particular tool, like "with a knife", or for specifying that the object of the verb is a person. Lexical affixes do not, generally speaking, modify the arity of the original verb. Applicatives prefixes with mostly adposition-like meanings which (in the case of intransitives) add an object with a particular role, or (in the case of transitives), add an oblique argument with a particular role, displacing any natural oblique argument that may have been originally lexically specified for semantic ditransitives. There is one additional argument-structure-changing suffix: the inverse, which just swaps the subject and object. I'm sorta-kinds thinking about introducing an animacy hierarchy to make the inverse suffix show up more frequently, but ignoring that for the moment it's primary uses would be to allow sharing subjects between conjoined clauses, demoting the discourse importance of an original subject but not as much as a passive would, and allowing for the relativization of applicative obliques. Passivizing an applicativized verb will demote the subject to oblique position, while turning the oblique argument into the new object. You can't passivize twice, but you can add an additional inverse suffix to swap the original-oblique into subject position, which can then be relativized. I'm also thinking maybe the passive historically derives from a fusion of the inverse followed by object-drop suffixes. Natural ditransitives (like "give") that imply a certain oblique argument already do *not*, however, automatically turn that oblique into an object when passivized. Thus, when relativizing oblique arguments of those verbs, they must first gain a conventional applicative prefix. In addition to the parts of speech already mentioned (verbs, determiners, and one preposition), there are also adverbs, including some basic adverbs and some that are morphologically derived from verbs. Adverbs always come before the main verb in a clause, and any explicit arguments follow- core arguments first, then obliques; explicit arguments formed from relativized clauses, however, can themselves contain further embedded relativized clauses, so the surface ordering of a complex sentence might actually have an oblique (of a nested clause) apparently inserted between two core arguments. And, that's pretty much it. I still need to make decisions about tense/aspect (I'm thinking maybe slavic-inspired lexical aspect), and more details of derivational morphology (how exactly can adverbs be derived?). And decide what kind of distinctions will be made in the pronouns and agreement affixes. And, of course, actually make up actual words for it. I think I will make use of the Salish-inspired-but-not-actually-very-Salish-like phonology that I played around with a while back. But I think that's all the important structural bits. -l.