Shayquanne Taylor wrote:
Next, on the formation of syllables, what I meant is that, unlike Chinese or Viet Namese, there are no formal "official" ways of constructing a syllable. For example, in Viet Namese, each syllable comes in three parts: an initial syllable, a middle vowel, and a final consonant. In Mandarin, there is a chart of syllables and rules such as that the "ü" sound can only come after certain letters, and so forth. No such "official" rules exist for Kidden, albeit, you are right, there are some patterns and general trends.
Every language has syllable structure, or 'rules' which define what is permissible in a syllable. Mandarin and Vietnamese are just particularly restrictive of what can occur in a syllable. English also has rules about what can or can't make up a syllable - they are just more complex than those of Chinese languages, for example.
On the notion of the Romani people, I have looked into their history, and they seem to come from northwestern India, where my family (at least according to what some of you have been suggesting) would have been coming from southeastern India or even southern China or the Indochinese peninsula (I know that that's an outdated term, but I could not find another word). Moreover, we do not look like the Romani people -- well, maybe a little, we have straight black or brown hair, but our skin is much lighter, and our faces do not look like theirs. So I do not see how we could be related.
This might have been more fun if it were presented as a reconstruction challenge of an undiscovered fictional language, which this clearly this. Your story of family migration from South-East Asia and through the Middle East makes no sense when looking at the language. It's been presented as a language which has 'picked up' various elements from a bunch of languages but that's not how language works. People end up learning the majority language of where they are, and only keep minority languages if there is a strong enough impetus (i.e. a large diaspora community, and even then lots of the second generation prefer to use the majority language). The alleged presence of clicks in only two speakers is completely bizarre, given how clicks are found in the world's languages today.
The physical descriptions you have given have no relevance on the language at all, and don't reveal much about your ancestry story either. Nor have you told us where your grandparents or great-grandparents came from other than a vague 'maybe the Middle East'. Assuming that your great or great-great grandparents were not born in the US, any travel made by them and previous generations would be in the pre-airtravel/car era, meaning a journey from Burma to the Middle East would take a while, and to 'pick up' words, several generations would probably have had to live in a certain area. By which time they would have assimilated to the local majority language, unless they were completely isolated, or a large enough community. None of these possibilities are feasible in this case given the information.
Otherwise, this has been quite amusing (although I'm not sure if the OP really believes we are so easily fooled?).