Squall wrote:I have some weird rules in my conlang.
I want to know if the rules are acceptable. In other words, can a human speaker use theses rules spontaneously and non-prescriptively?
None of this strikes me as particularly weird, especially as Géarthnuns does similar things.
There is a word that means "this/that". It is usually followed by a noun, but the noun can be omitted. However, when the next word is a noun that is not part of the same nominal group, a particle that means "thing" is used. If the next word is a conjugated verb, a relative pronoun, an adverbial or the end of the sentence, that particle is not used.
While not exactly the same, and not used in this particular context, there is some similar particle usage in Géarthnuns.
The rule is also used with numbers. When the number occurs without a noun, 'two' is translated as 'two ones'.
Géarthnuns would do this, too, but with substantivized adjectives.
The other rule concerns relative clause and subordinate clause. A relative clause may end with the particle 'en', which has no meaning. If the clause ends before a conjugated noun or at the end of the sentence, the particle is not used.
I ate the apple that you bought yesterday. (you bought it yesterday)
I ate the apple that you bought EN yesterday. (I ate it yesterday)
I ate the apple that you bought last week EN yesterday.
"Sho" works similarly to your "en":
I the apple that you yesterday bought SHO ate. (you bought it yesterday)
I the apple that you bought SHO yesterday ate. (I ate it yesterday)
I the apple that you last week bought SHO yesterday ate. (well, nothing really new here)
Are the rules stable for a long time?
Stability, schmability. Whether the rules last one generation or ten, any language description, con- or nat-, is simply a snapshot taken at a particular moment/period of time. If you want to think of your lang as enduring throughout the ages, you'll need to take a series of snapshots and run them through a linguistic zoetrope.