Birthing Jaar

2020/10/16 § Leave a comment

a pidgin-midwifery conlang

by meika loofs samorzewski

September 2020

Version 1.3

Below is a paste of a PDF in which the ideas were first composed.
There is also a Jaar card PDF with the basic vocbulary defined, you'll have to read Birthing Jaar below on how to use it (until a short introductory guide is written). I hope to get it translated into other languages as time goes by. I'll add the links here (please, yes please, if you can help translate these please get in contact).

Other writing projects can be here.

1. Introduction

to imagine a language means to imagine a form of life1

This description of a new pidgin ennabler, or pidgin midwife, is an organised brainstorm, however anything that got too brainstormy and not deleted was pushed out into the footnotes or an appendix. I admit I did not delete much.

The general idea pushing out Jaar

Constructed langauges (conlangs) often seek to ease communication, and bring world peace, by developing a common language to avoid misunderstanding or community isolation. There is often an attempt to maintain a broadly level linguistic accessibility2 by all populations. This leads to a design that is hoped to be easier to learn and speak than a foreign natural language (natlang) with all of its idiosyncratic rules and exceptions developed over the course of time and fashion. Such “conlangs” are further described as auxialiary constructed languages (auxlangs). These “auxlangs” can be defined in deference to “artlangs” which are constructed for the purposes of world-building fiction and story-telling, vice -versa, or simply as a joke.

Jaar is, roughly speaking, an auxlang, however, as it does not seek to to serve as a lingua francaper se, but act as a method to intentionally hybridise the speakers’ languages into a pidgin. As such it can be described as a pidgin ennabler rather than as an auxlang as generally understood in the conlang community. But the term auxlang does applies in a more general sense of supporting a common communication.4

Whether it is a “-lang” at all is up for debate. Maybe Jaar is a meta-pidgin (metagin). It will likely produce a more isolating “lang”, even if not perhaps technically a natural pidgin “natgin”. Conlangs are the inspiration though.

Compared to most conlangs Jaar will appear deficient:

  • It has no set phonology.
  • It has no set orthography.
  • It has a very limited vocabulary. The target is less than a dozen words.5

These three elements (phonology, orthography & vocabulary)(and more no doubt) are basically BYO (bring-your-own) by whoever is engaged in the conversation in which Jaar is agreed to be used.

Thus the aim of Jaar is not to defined the perfect world-peace-channelling language, but to offer a method of communication from which a common tongue could emerge. I.E. to ease us past gesticulation to verbal communication, while accepting where we come from, and what we bring with us.

If no pidgin emerges, Jaar may just begin a conversation which supports learning each other’s language, and then like a ladder be thrown away once it has been climbed up to the place one already is.

As such it will have more in common with slangs (interslang?). Especially where “languages” pretend that they are natural (organically magical) and never constructed by usage & agreement, let alone by a group of grumpy old men in some fossilized-wood-panelled chamber, who reserve the right to agree on language, in the name of a tradition that grumps on williy-nilly into the future.

My background

I am a native English speaker. I learnt German as a 5-6 year old, and forgot it on my return to Australia6. As an adult I have re-learnt German to an advanced beginner, and stalled. I can read it okay, as well as having a smidgin of French and Russian, and ongoing efforts in Polish. All lamentably European, and burred with an Australian laziness.

Basically I love-hate learning languages, and never given it enough time. I totally support any argument that natural languages are the way they are — because babies learn them, and then as teenagers languages get re-tooled and slanged out to annoy their elders, while old grumps worry it’s all gone to pot because they have no memory of their own earlier phases in this life-cycle process.

However, when younger I disparaged conlangs for attempting to design what came naturally, now I do not believe that any language, let alone any national language, is a pure “natlang”.

So I basically stand in a place, where as I writer I love knowing how other languages work, the worlds they build, but as a modern human I hate some elements of “natural” languages, and the biggest hurdle (besides effort & time) in learning languages with gender-based noun-classes, in particular, lies with the gender-based noun-classes.

I do not want to learn Polish (perhaps the worst offender in this silly Indo-european grammar choice). Fuck that shit. I hate gender. Instead I want to change Polish, or German, or Russian, or French. Particularly French. It’s more a hate-hate relationship with French.

How did later English loose it noun-classes based in gender? Because, it is suggested, Norse and English speakers, in attempting to communicate with each, said fuck that shit. Gender-based noun-classes in English were un-denatured in a conversational moment of annoyance. I can relate to that.

I am a grumpy teenager who wants to baby talk.

Eureka moment

The other personal element is learning-about those languages, mostly outside Europe, that structure some part of their grammar with reference to the quality or source of the information. I.E. how certain they are, whether they witnessed it directly, was it reported to them only, …. is it complete BS?7

I’ve been wondering of-and-on for years how to add this feature to English. As a new declension? A flavouring particle? A modal verb thing? Tonal signification?

Then I thought, of course, if you add it to English why not add the same thing to any or every language?

“Ah ha!” <insert lightbulb emoji here>. I had this last thought as I fell asleep one night, after watching too many conlang critic youtube reviews one after the other… This after months of watching LangFocus, NativLang, and language acquisition channels like EasyGerman, EasyPolish etc. “Yes,” I thought, “add it to all of them.

“Bastardise them!”

And combine those degrees of un/certainty with an element that recognises the speaker/audience not as pronoun so much but as…. Zzzzzzzz. I slept. I dreamed. I woke up renewed.

Norbert Wierzbicki’s Ecolinguist guess-a-word youtube videos are also a major influence here. I even guessed correctly before Norbert did once. The guessing is often between more closely related languages (Romance, Germanic, Slavic) but what if….?

Jaar seeks to bootstrap what speakers of closely related languages can already do. Thanks Norbert.

Maybe with more gesticulation.

And even more smiles.

2. Wording Jaar

As an interrogating & connecting meta-pidgin Jaar seeks to ride the ebb-and-flow of active conversation where speakers without a common language try to communicate —with the language/s they do have. This meta-language provides a conscious & attentive learning space, where the use of Jaar is a divergent or parallel method belonging to neither natural language (nor conlang as we know them) (this qualifier may be lost in time). With both sides of the conversation using Jaar, it is hoped, speakers can end up creating (perhaps more easily) a new pidgin, which simplfies and combines both langauages, and so, perhaps, moves towards that possibility we call a common tongue, or, even better, a Common Tower of Babel. Confusion creates potential.

Once a pidgin has succesfully launched from Jaar, it is no longer Jaar. Then there may be strong and weak pidgin forms of Jaar birthed pidgins. A pidgin which strongly maintains what is described below is a Jaar-based pidgin (and perhaps a Jaar based creole in the far future). A pidgin which does not, or only weakly, maintains the description below is a Jaar-booted pidgin (or creole).

First I’ll describe the deficiencies, both as it’s a shorter list and as these lacks, particularly the third, actually define Jaar. Thus, it has:

  • No set phonology. Let those talking listen and gesticulate to each other and work out what works.
  • No set orthography, let those conversing scribble it out for each other. (I’ll make IPA guesses8 of the stuff I do use.)
  • No set vocabulary. It is Bring-Your-Own (BYO) and then to be agreed9 (except that described below for querying, the degrees of certainty and the speech-based locational points of view).

Jaar does have:

  1. A small vocabulary. (ASPIRATION: less than a dozen terms);
  2. Some initial rules of interruptive/investigative grammar;
  3. Use of Subject Verb Object (SVO) word order (Nominative–accusative alignment is assumed herein as the creator only really knows this alignment form in his weak English-speaking way);
  4. A mix of epistemic modality with a point of view, sprinkled with hints of evidentiality;
  5. Nod for yes and shake of head for no; and,
  6. General gesticulation.

2.1 Vocabulary

The ten words of basic Jaar are of three types:

  1. three to locate speech and its audience, or neither;
  2. a questioning interrogative particle czy (t͡ʂi)10. Used used like Polish czy, but not just to prompt for yes-no answered questions in Jaar, but to make all Six Degrees of Confidence queries; and,
  3. six used to indicate certainty or confidence, by way of modal elements, called Six Degrees of Confidence (DOCs)

A) Initial Pronouning – three speech centric locations (SCLs)

The speech centric locations are:

1jaʝɑːI, me, we, us, the speaker, those speaking — e.g. I/We say – speech from the Point of View (POV) of the speaker or speech act
2juʝuːyou, yous, the audience, those listening — e.g. you hear (hear ye)– from the Point of View (POV) of all those who hear or correspond
3perpərthose neither speaking nor listening (but capable of speech)11 — people not here.

These locations may well be used as pronouns, though the first two positions refer to a POV of the speech rather than the entity as person that holds the POV producing the speech. 12 No doubt this is not clear, and a pointless distinction at this point in the description.

ASPIRATION: That is, from the point of view of a imagined pure Jaar, ja & ju are located by the speech act or conversational gesture (and the topic of conversation in relation to the members of the conversation) (or sprachbund even). This relativity provides the platform from which the six degrees of confidence initially open-up, or operate from, to imagine a form of life. Jaar itself is a world-building exercise. Jaar supports multiple attempts at world-building, real or imaginary.

Thus, there is no “4. xxx — they…”, because ‘they’ are not speaking. I or we (ja) can report what they say, but not speak from their location per se. One cannot speak for others. Nor listen for them.13

These three speech centric locations (SCLs) are the intialising boot-set mechanics for pronoun support.14 You can call them pronouns for short, even though they would be / are a derived feature15.

So anyways, more pronouns can be developed by the Jaar users in conversation. Like one for the English “it” (or that which cannot converse in any language, and so may relate to notions of animacy). And their conjugations for that matter.

B) >Asking? — the interrogative particle czy (t͡ʂi)

Not just for creating yes/no-answered questions in Jaar, but for all Six Degrees of Confidence (DOCs). (I.E. more broadly used than the Polish czy16, from which it descends.)

Comment: This is a late addition when I decided that swapping word order for questions (for example) added more complications than a dedicated questioning word (tho I am trying to have less than 12 words.) It became obvious that a querying prompt is an absolutely basic part of conversation though17.

C) Six Degrees of Confidence (DOC) or certainty


1arɑːr or aɹyesI say the modality of confidence on this is 100% positive18. (I agree with myself.)+nod
2susuːyesWe agree. It is agreed. It is traditionally accepted.++nod
3titiːprobablyLikely, might, shall (modality of confidence above 50% positive)~
4mamɑːpossibleCan, could, may (modality of confidence above 0% positive)^
5nonoʊnoThe modality of confidence on this is 100% negative. (No agreement.)– –shake
6raːra or ɹanuhAn attempt has failed – (No, but can imply try again.)shake

Three “similar” or colour pairs of DOCs are structured in tension and contrast, and hopefully this pairing may help speakers “point” the way forward in a conversation more broadly than a guessed yes (nod) or no (shake of the head) can achieve alone:

  • ar and su are tensed by the conversation itself, if not the moral urge in us to build a world by talking. While statements using either of these forms may agree, they may also disagree with each other. What is conventionally agreed may not be what I think. I.E. They may not be identical with each other. And what is idiosyncratically declared as certain by an individual may not be maximally certain at an intersubjective, traditional or consensus level19. As such, curiously, they are the most fictional modallties or certainties, if only because their confidence is at 100%. They are a pretence, a laziness or a working shortcut that imagines a world as it is, and hopefully they will not forget that absolute fuzziness, and be proud of it.
  • ti and ma are in tension in everyone’s head (between acting/doing and investigating/intuiting in the world) — between what is possible and what is likely (things that make you go hummann.) They are the least pretentious.
  • no and ra are in tension where falsehood does not equal complete failure. (no, but or yeah nah).

Petalled pentagon of modal tensions. Which of the pair should you choose, and when?

(This can be drawn with su & ar positions swapped, i.e the centre oscillates in all worlds of conversations.)

NOTE: su and ar can both be used for the copula, which depends on who/how that modality for/of 100% confidence is determined. See 4. Verbing.

3. Conversing

3.1 Key for Conversations

In this text Jaar words are italicised but source or new loanwords are not italicised when used in Jaarish sentence/phrases.

Italicised loanwords imply agreement and acceptance in the Jaar conversation/pidgin. (The distinction is canonical but not the orthography here used below to indicate it).

In addition Six Degrees of Confidence can also be used as follows:

  1. ar == yes == nod == +
  2. su == we are agreed or have solved it == ++
  3. ti == almost == hand twist == ~
  4. ma == maybe == hand twist == ^
  5. no== no == headshake == —
  6. ra == no, try again == shrug == –

3.2 Initialising protocol = Hello

Canonical protocol or verbal handshakes for attempting to converse using Yaar. Also the first line is the equivalent of “Do/Can you speak X-language?”

1st speaker: ja ar! == I say I am maximally certain I speak.

= (Greetings, I am speaking Jaar) Hello!

2nd speaker: ar ja!20 == I am maximally certain I say I am speaking.

= (Greetings, I am speaking Jaar) Hello!

Both speakers : ja su! == (We agree to use Jaar to converse.) = Yes, we speak Jaar!

And off you go folks. == ju ma!21

3.3 Querying = checking-in with the correspondent

Examples: (might be best to read 4. Verbing below first)

Czy? == Umm? == querying prompt = (possibly then also) who, what, when, how, and/or why? = What? == Que?

Czy ar? == Am I right? = Have I got this right?

Czy ju ar? == Is that right? = Is that, what you said, maximally certain? = Would you say that is 100% certain? = Have I understood you correctly?


Czy ja. == (something like) Who/what is it speaking [gack22] that/who speaks I/us? = Who am I? Who are we?

Czy could be agreed / used as a verb to mean “to ask” = “to question”.

Ja czy. == I ask = we ask.

Ja ma czy? == May I ask? = May we ask?


Czy ja ma? == (might mean) Can I? Am I allowed?

3.4 the redundancy between SCLs & DOCs

Just to be clear:

Ja ar [XXX] == i say / I am [XXX]

Ja su [XXX] == we say / we are [XXX]

Ju ar [XXX] == You say / you is [XXX]

Ju su [XXX] == yous say / yous are [XXX]

SCLs & DOCs overlap in their responsibilities.

4. Verbing – what grammar?

These six Degrees of Confidence (DOCs) can be used as verbs, as well as be used as other parts of speech23. So they are both verbs and not-verbs. I suggest people will verb with them a lot, because….

These Degrees of Confidence (DOC) are designed to displace the natural speakers’ verbing systems, in particular those verbs of a modal and auxiliary use. These DOCs interrupt the native speaker, so that rather than learning a new language they use Jaar as an intermediary clunky adaptive mechanic24. Speakers use Jaar to interrogate themselves and the speaker they are trying to converse with. It’s all trial and error, and so support that pidgin formation, and work towards a useable outcome. And rather than memorise and practise an entire language (foreign or auxlang) from the start, you just have to remember what you agree to use, which the pronouning locations (SCLs) support directly.

Thus su and ar can both be used for the copula, and how it is used depends on who/how that modality for/of 100% confidence is determined. I have no opinion currently on which should be used for what other auxiliary verb purposes, if any at all at this stage of description. However the modal verbs should be replaced extensively, as described and then as agreed, with the following serving suggestions below and in the appendices.

More subjunctive forms (could, should, must, dare, would, were) could be formed by combining these six elements if agreed by the speakers using Jaar. Working out useful or clearer deontic modalities might a fun parlour game later in the conversation.25

As might various tenses.26 Basically, like pronoun conjugations the speakers using Jaar will have to work out their own agreements on these matters.

This is a lightweight boot set with some examples, or implications based on my own undertanding of the languaes I have some knowledge of.

4.1 Identity and the copula, the modality of a certain confidence.

It is recommended that ar and su be used to replace verbs indicating identity or predication: to be, sein, być etc. Why? Because from the position of a imagined pure Jaar, the copula represents a modality of 100% certainty and confidence.

Use ar when it is the speaker/s’ POV that stresses the confidence or certainty— I/we are certain that…

Use su where it is the speaker/s’ POV that agrees collectively in the intersubjective conventionality of the truth or certainity. This includes socially constructed knowledge, scientifically deducted consensus knowledge, and traditional beliefs & customs. Where this is consistent with their modality of maximum or agreed certainty or confidence.

A small example:

The truck is red. == Truck ar red.


== Truck su red.

However, back translation would include:

Truck ar red. == I say the truck is red.

Truck su red. == We agree/say the truck is red.

Thus the following is also possible:

(Truck ar red. ≠ Truck su red.) == (I say the truck is red. ≠ We agree the truck is red.)

Thus the end of the exchange will end up somewhere, if only through efforts gesticulatory and lots of head-nodding/shaking (assuming that is common to the speakers).

This usage as a copula is where a statement or proposition can be queried/refused/judged. This is a different construction to descriptive phrases:

Red truck == red truck in a Jaar-boosted pidgin, but not if the other speaker/s does not get it or agree.

Dialogue example:

First speaker points at truck: truck.

Second speaker nods and checks: czy truck?

First Speaker: ar.

Second speaker: czy truck ar red? ar. truck ar red. (How do we know colour is involved?)(maybe they have already talk about colours)

Second speaker: ju truck ar red? == you say truck is red

First Speaker: ja truck ar red, czy truck su red? == I say yes truck ar red. Do we agree/say truck is red?

Second speaker nods: truck su red.

First Speaker: su. red truck. == Yes we agree. [It is a] red truck.

Second speaker <shakes head>: ra! camion rouge! == (nice try!) Camion rouge!

These two may take a while, if ever, to create a pidgin, understanding is not agreement. Agreement to a meaning is not the same as agreeing to use a particular form.

4.2 (The other) modal verbs of not-so-sure and wrong

Modal verbs replaced by tiand ma.

czy ju ti angielsku == Can you speak [in] English?

no. ja Deutsch == No. I speak German.

czy ju ma Deutsch == Are you perhaps German?

no. ja ar Schweizer. Ja Hochdeutsch. == No. I am Swiss. I am speaking High German.

Context can supply missing arguments27:

czy ju ma coffee == Are you likely coffee [to drink]? = Would you like a coffee?

czy ju ma trinken == Vielleicht du trinkst? = Möchtest du [etwas] zu trinken.

5. Resources & references:

 Language Creation Society (USA)

5.1 Youtube:


Conlang Critic “jan Misali





5.2 References:

Halley, Mitch. 2018. My First Conlang – How NOT to Make a Language. Conlang Critic — jan Misali.

———. 2020a. Conlang Critic: Kēlen. Conlang Critic — jan Misali.

———. 2020b. Conlang Critic: Viossa. Conlang Critic — jan Misali.

———. 2020c. Community Contributions Are Going Away (Rant). Conlang Critic — jan Misali.

loofs samorzewski, meika. 2019. Why we should. Hobart: meika loofs samorzewski

Wierzbicki, Norbert. 2019. Carpatho Rusyn Language | Can Polish and Czech Understand It? Ecolinguist.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations, Translator G.E.M. Anscombe, (Oxford, Blackwell. 1953).

Appendix 1 Dictionaries & usages

The above is the outlineof the absolute basics, and it’s prescriptions are canonical for Jaar.

But below in all these apendicies are included some minimum suggestions, and perhaps in time, this will become expected default usages when two or more Jaar speakers without a common language or previous communication wish to begin to use Jaar to construct a common tongue between themselves, and build a world.

So at the moment they are thought experiments, or possible pathways of agreement. Of course, as I write I am the only speaker and I get to agree on everything with myself…

A1.1 Canonical word list

ja == speaker or ageement of utterance – I me us we etc who speak this speech

ju == listener / correspondent (you, yous — real or imagined, implied or assumed)

per == not in conversational remit but capable of speech (they say)

czy == turns any statement / phrase / gesture into a query

ar == yes == nod == +

su == we are agreed or have solved it == ++

ti == almost == hand twist == ~

ma == maybe == hand twist == ^

no == no == headshake == —

ra == no, try again == shrug == –

A1.2 Possible things to be pidginned in…

And agreed on fairly quickly for that which is lacking and thus follows from everything above, or their equivalent from languages which do things differently or not at all:

  • Pronouns, demonstrations and their conjugalities
  • Possessives and cases, things that relate indications in the conversation
  • cases and prepositions, things that indicate relations in the world
  • Tensing to the rhythm of time and its in/completions

A1.3 Possible implied usages and meanings

As derived from canonical grammar & word list – a (strongly) suggested list.

A1.3.1 Lack of an object (SV-O)

Can indicate capabilities, content, and thus reflexivity as it doubles-down on the speaker-centric assumptions POV of the speaker/s.

ja ar == I speak me = I am who speaks. = I myself speak “ja ar”. = Jaar.

Ja su == those who converse, correspond/agree/create.

ja comb == I comb myself = I comb my hair.

A1.3.2 Lack of a subject (-SVO)

To indicate more passive forms:

ar bite man == I state, man was bitten.

(per? or no ja?) ar trash conlangartist (ConlangCritic)== (They-not-here-in-this-conversation stated) The constructed language maker was rubbished (by the Conlang Critic). [???]

A1.3.3 Lack of a verb (S-VO)

Without any verb, or more particularly no DOC, nothing can be inferred. However this could be used to indicate being confounded or astounded.

ja tree == i speak tree = I am amazed into speaking by this tree. = I, amaze, the tree. OR I, tree, myself.

This is a pathway for gerund formation when we verb nouns or noun verbs.

In Jaar there is a strong possibility that all nouns can verb. And that all verbs can noun. Obviously this will create confusions that will have to be agreed by speakers of Jaar where a sentence with no DOCs does not indicate if the SVO order is altered and a word is not obviously a noun or a verb.

A1.3.4 Reversing subject verb order (VSx)

Emphasizes or redoubles again the (un)certainty (and or reflexivity where there is no object (VS-O)

(some verb) ja (some object) === I am 200% sure of VO = Absolutely! VO is true.

Expresses shock, joy, and glad agreement.

Ar ja! == I do indeed myself speak Jaar. Joy!

A1.3.5 Presently tensed

Use of modal forms of strong certainty or identity ( ar & su) can be use to imply/ indicate a process, the results of which have ended, or continue presently, or indicate the process has begun as we speak.

A1.3.6 Future tense

Using the unsure modalities to create the future.

ja ma walk == I say I may walk = I will walk. == Ich werde gehen. == pójdę (będzie chodzić)

ja ti walk/ed == I will have walked

A1.3.7 Possible Imperative

no DOC and use ju & verb:

ju run == Run!

With DOC :

ju no == Stop! (also == you are wrong)

ju ra == back off!

ju ma == off you go == śmiało

A1.3.8 Evidentiality

See also Agreed definitions and derivatives.

Use of modal forms of certainty or identity ( ar & su) can instruct a locational speech (pronoun) usage to bear evidentiality when they either initiate a morpheme and (thus) word order, i.e. go first:

arya == I saw this = I bear witness = this is my story and I am sticking to it.

super == they say they saw this, they bear witness as follows, their story is

super tasmaniantiger yesterday == They say they sensed/heard/saw/tracked a Tasmanian Tiger yesterday.

maper dolphin morze == they say it is possible they see/sense a dolphin in the sea

A1.4 Agreed: derivatives & definitions


ja ar = jaar == name of meta-pidgin Jaar (reification of reflexive phrase ja ar) – implies usage of reification then as gerund as in su jaar == we speak Jaar.

per su== they who are not hear agree that = they


ergative == headache, and thus broadly any non nominative-accusative aligned language.

Appendix 2 Exercises & experiments

  1. Fluent speakers of toki pona and Esperanto with no common language to try using Jaar to converse.
  2. Use in linguistic studies, i.e. actual experiments to collect more controlled data.
  3. Jaar users could iterate their experiences with different languages and take note of what pathways are similar or repeated, and which are localised to particular speakers.
  4. if repeated enough, then we can take note of what pathways are similar between similar language pairs, and which are localised to particular pairs of languages.
  1. How it might be used outside the Anglo-cacophony-sphere?
  2. Aliens!

Appendix 3 speech centric locations – a chart

Appendix 4 Out-takes, works-in-progress & bloopers

These do not even make it to footnote status. Or need their own sections in Jaar-booted pidgins. Or are too hard for an imaginary pure Jaar, or even the canonical lightweight toolkit.

  1. Words can come in with their bits (declensions/conjugations) and loose them as we converse.
  2. Sign language (more than gesticulation) in the basic cononical vocabulary.
  3. Habits from a native tongue and literacy skills are no banned but accommodated and or eventually ignored becoming useless.
  4. Jaar is a philosolang. But what began as a POVlang… turns into a qualifying range. [WTF]
  5. Jaar is a boardgame. A card game.
  6. Degrees of certainty revlve around their impact on the “V” of SVO.
  7. Worldbuilding is key, world-building is the moral urge. Conspiracy theorists prove this with their fantasies.
  8. How does one tell apart, with gerunds, when/if it is a failed noun identity?
  9. When the other DOCs come first (ti & ma) what grammatical elements might that allow?
  10. Degrees or moments of doubt.
  11. Are there too many puns?
  12. Nothing in this would upset Chomsky? What have I done wrong?
  13. ja snuck in from Polsih with no conscious effort on my part, but czy was comepletely conscious.
  14. Jaar is the opposite to toki pona. Jaar does not interrogate your vocubulary, but interrogates who says what and how sure are you about that? toki pona offers a divergent method of interrogation as you try to translate dedicated morphemes into even more toki pona morphemes, but Jaar does the opposite, you just bring inwhat you have and then try and work it out together and out of that usage it is both created and rememebred.
  15. There is no present tense. There is only present agreement. A tense is not an agrement.
  16. The locations of speech and DOCs are tight seeds that can unfurl in different directions, if they were just pronouns and only modal verbs then they could not do this. Jaar is a set of potentials that allow an ease of conversational interviews.
  17. Tensing time. The present is either an outcome of the past, or a cause of the future. The The shortcut is that the DOCs of negation and maximum positive certainty are for all time, including right now, all time is a shortcut for the present tense.
  18. The verb “to be” equivalent in Alya [later Yaar then finally Jaar] is a modal verb use to indicate certainty/identity (a certain identity) Alya removes this modality from the verbs, it de-verbs. 15 August 2020 [at type of typing 6 September 2020 I say “WTAF”] [it was the last thing written in my handwritten notebook].
  19. The other cases and all prepositional type things (instrumental, imperative, dative, oblative, recessive28) will have to be agreed on by the speakers. Start with your languages preferred method.
  20. I prefer world buiding to world peace in my conlangs, even if they are actually the same things. == Ja ma worldbuilding, ra worldpeace, even they ar samething. Ja imagine.
  21. What is the imaginary pure Jaar? It is that which need never exist.
  22. What will happen to the entire world? Ask the children what the world is.


1Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Translator G.E.M. Anscombe, (Oxford, Blackwell. 1953).

2Forgetting of course that more accessibility increases interference from the native speakers’ language.

3Feel free to glottal stop the ja·ar of Jaar.

4It is also more an interrupt-o-lang than an interlang.

5Probably less than 10 percent of Toki Pona, at the time of the first draft 1.0 Jaar had 9 words.

6I have no memory of being aware of gendered noun-classes.

7The basic Jaar described here has a weak evidentiality.

8From …tho these will probably be badly formed as I have never studied it. But IPA can be canonical, just not my attempts in interpreting them. This goes for anything seriously linguistic, in which I am a noob.

9I swear I had not heard of Viossa at this time. So jealous.

10 Or even more like t͡ʂi.

11A linguistic or speech based animacy. Also, see Appendix 3.

12 I.E. the difference here is that pronomial systems do not always have a self-awareness about where they have come from and wander off into noun-class gendered hells. No doubt this may be eventually forgotten as well in subsequent Jaar booted pidgins. Whatevs. This “language” ‘s purpose is to help create a pidgin not maintain it.

13[Possible work around— “per su” (== them not in this conversation who agree that).]

14[(And not pronouns.) (Yes they are.) (No they are not, they are not just pronouns.)(Yes they are.)(We agree to disagree == ja su ra su)] — [Compare ja su no su == we agree to not agree = we agree we cannot agree = we agree we will never agree]

15“would be / are” <thinks> maybe a eigenstate superposition modality might be useful – combine irrealities via the subjunctive with a mix of potential quantum physics realities</thinks> save thought for later Jaar expansion pack “Flip that quark!”. (Also, Jaar-like pidgins could midwife between specialists to become more inter-disciplinary.)(or a grammaer that supports scientiic inquiry…)

16I first thought of using “um” for this. I’m using the Polish form here czy and not chi (or something) because I used no for no, and in Polish no is used positively, and I am aiming for some auxlang attempts at ease of access by speakers of different language groups. ja snuck in all by itself. Nothing to do with me I swear.

17Grumprammarians don’t seem to worry about this but. No doubt because children are better seen and not heard, so orders & imperatives are more important anyway.

18Originally, before the first typed draft, in pencil, this DOC ya was al and ra was la, but I had actually changed it before I saw the video Conlang Critic: Kēlen at, wherein I learned Kēlen, an alien artlang by created by Sylvia Sotomayor had a similar word for a similar idea…

19Please note I chose to not divide these up further into modalities to cover intersubjective experimented certainty, traditionally accepted wisdom, or actively agreed consensus. Feel free to develop those evidential modalities from here… This is supposed to be a lightweight toolkit.

20See Appendix 1 Dictionaries & usages: Reversing subject verb order (VSx) and Lack of an object (SV-O).

21See Appendix 1 Dictionaries & usages: Possible Imperative

22This translation is beyond my nominative alignment capabilities. ja ma ja know = ja mathink

23Please remember this project is an ennabler not a dictat of fine filligree.

24The useage of the word “mechanic” is heavily influenced by the word when used in describing boardgame structures of play.

25See my “Why we should” essay about the moral urge in more general terms. (Though its Australian references may may it details unavailble to North American readers.)

26Some comments at this stage. I should add here, that Jaar is also built on the notice that the most conservative parts of a language (and the most irregular) belong to the oldest stems of a language, and widely shared with its language family members, both in cognate forms and irregularit., In Indo-European languages these are often the most basic elements, particularly verbs dealing with identity and the work of the copula: to be, sein, być etc. (Amazingly, their irregularity may arise because they survive from a form of language which used completely different alignments and grammar structure to the descendant languages). In the Indo-european case Jaar replaces these most ancient and thus irregular bits, and makes them common to people attempting to communicate. (No, they are not direct replacements, that’s what makes it Jaar.) No idea how this would work in the case of an ergative language. Might be okay if both sides are ergative speakers. I am happy if Jaar creates a new forum for the broader development of auxliary but interrogatively constructing “languages” (method might be a better term) of pidgin development, and language extension (consciously re-modelling natlangs). Currently I love the idea of a speaker of toki pona and a speaker of Esperanto with no common language to try using Jaar.

27See Appendix 1 Dictionaries & usages: for objectless phrases Lack of an object (SV-O).

28I made recessive up.

Babies, #Lojban, #Esperanto and Code (Poems)

2010/09/15 § 1 Comment

Lojban, like the better known Esperanto, are constructed languages.

Esperanto was constructed in order to help bring understanding between people who spoke different languages, in the hope that this could bring peace. Lojban was initially made with the idea of testing the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis; that language, ordinary socially constructed natural languages, influenced thought.

Lojban was based on an earlier language designed for logic, Loglan. Loglan was designed to be machine readable, parse-able by machines like computers. As such it had very strict form and was very regular. (Read more on Lojban history.)

Lojban differed from Loglan in that, like many natural languages used by human speakers, Lojban included the point of view of a speaker. It’s a bit of a kludge, but it works okay. We often like to structure our sentence according to who said them. It’s a major way to give otherwise perfectly logical statements meaning. (See Peircean Logic and Biosemiotics.) Mathematical logic after all is just a set of clever tautologies.

The grammars of many European languages are structured around who said what, and to whom, whether these theys are socially inferior or superior (formal/informal). Or what gender speaker/spoken to/spoken of are, or even what gender non-sexed things are, as ascribed by sex based noun-class systems. Esperanto has this ‘gendering’ in vestigial form. In response, non-gendered versions like Ido have forked–> see Gender Reform in Esperanto).

I’d learn Lojban ahead of the others, and have started in a small way, except is it really that far from learning Klingon?

I’ve been learning Polish over the last year or two and I just can’t stand the crap in the natural languages, the irregularities, the exceptions, and the stupid bits like gender. Polish, like some other Slavic languages even conjugate the past tense of verbs according to the gender. Considering that the subjunctive (could be, might be) is based on these past tense forms it just a massive #fail for me as an adult. Ethnicity, identity is based on this crap? We’re proud of it because we are all idiots together.


Now I don’t want any language to disappear, go extinct, but really? Who gives a flying what gender I am when I say I might go to town tomorrow?

There’s an argument that languages have the grammar they do because babies learn languages and they like regularity but do not tend to judge the sense of that regularity, nor notice that all those exceptions make the regularity a fractal type of thing. Babies just don’t care what they learn. No discrimination, no style control.

So I am in favour of constructed languages, so long as they are not stupid. Tolkien’s Elvish and Klingon are stupid. Fun for a little while but I wish they would go away.

French is a curated language, it’s completely stupid, because political forces are trying to maintain a natural language. Polish is similar to French but it’s not curated so much as fossilized by historical forces.

Yes, English is stupid too, all natural languages are a pain to learn as an adult because of all the irregularities that babies just don’t care about.

Yes, I am blaming babies for the mess. (Can’t find reference as yet).

But what to do?

Lojban is a good start, but I feel like forking it, by starting with the point of view of the speaker, not kludging it on to a substrate of “mathematical logic” (as Peirce would call it).

The inteprenant focus, yeah, and I like those natural languages that structure some of their grammar not according to gender/noun-classes (what a waste of mental processing power!)  but on how the speaker acquired the information, i.e. structuring according to the quality of the information, the meta-information.

The meaning not the logic, but logic ahead of irregular crap.

A well structured grammar, IMHO, would be based on the point of view of the point of view.

Babies just don’t care about that.

Crossposted at

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with constructed languages at FORMeika.