Languages &c.

/'fɑwɑf hleʃːy'jøɾfe/

"If only they had been able to go often."

probably glosses like:

fɑw-ɑ-f hle-s-ʃy-jøɾ-fe

go-HU-3 POL-PST-can-often-OPT

-shue /ʃy/ "can"  might be better glossed as something vaguer like deontic possibility, since I think it's going to be a bit more broad than English. We'll see. It's strictly deontic/situational, too.

I have some ideas about maybe shifting this around etc etc. It's fairly likely I'll add at least one more category of marking on the verb or verb-particle-thing (actually... two categories.), and also fairly likely that the main verb will get another thing by the end of this.

Basically the nested-up little noun-ish verb does not need to have tense marking as badly as the main verb, so we have:

madśam hlenö miŕäs 

want-HU-1SG FORM-that happy-HU-3

I want them to be happy

madśam hlennö miŕäs

want-HU-1SG FORM-PST-that happy-HU-3

I will want them to be happy

madśam hlenö miŕäs hlen

I want them to have been happy (?)

madśam hlenö miŕäs hles 

I want them to be happy in the future...?

See yeah it's really... rarely necessary for the tiny bb nested verb to have any tense at all. But I'd still like a second hle/etc to be plausible for something just in case, obvs, since like, let's see

*madśam hlenö miŕäs wo.

... no. nope. this would be "I want them to not be happy", but you'd just say "I don't want them to be happy" (madśam wono miŕäs) instead, this form is super silly.

madśam hlenö miŕäs hlejöŕ

want-HU-1SG FORM-that happy-HU-3 FORM-often/FRQ(?)

I want them to be happy often. 

As in the happiness happens often. Tbh I think this is the most plausible use of two hle's or etc in one sentence. This also justifies both positions, bc you can contrast e.g...

madśam hlejöŕnö miŕäs 

I often want them to be happy.

So basically the rule will be that later nested-up verbs tend to drop their hle particles? If they're in a present/general sort of tense & don't need any particular aspect or mood taped on. 

The fact that the nested verb is not nested within the sentence -- e.g. a *[madśam [no miŕäs] hle] type of thing -- makes this construction a bit more infinitive-y than noun-ifying-y, particularly compared to what Old Meśät was doing, but I think I'd like to go with this for now.

etśesi tsokky kefje hle.

know-AN.NHU-3-3 bird-ERG fish.ABS-DEF FORM

A bird knows the fish.

hle kefje etśes. (?)

FORM fish.ABS-DEF know-AN-3

The fish is known.

And I'd feel super comfortable with it since my sentences are bookended with the tense/aspect/formality/negation particle, which would switch out with the verb. For adjectives, etśe kef would probably be 'known fish' and kef etśe 'knowing fish', so opposite order technically but same head-directionality, I believe. (My motivations for having NAdj be standard are mainly aesthetic, though).

I propose alle/alloj/allen/allojn for gender neutral pronouns from the german ‘alle’ *note: I’m really basic with esperanto, just thought these pronouns sounded nice because they could be used with alle people *excuse the bad german pun

Ha, that could work! Yeah, the thing about introducing new pronouns is it is a pain to get ppl to recognize them widely, & having to work around all of that for an auxlang seems like a bit much for me. But I have seen discussions about coining pronouns to fix it up! 

i’m so with you, if it were just someone’s side project i wouldn’t bat an eyelash but as an auxlang that anyone’s supposed to take seriously, i am just so annoyed by esperanto lol