Jaar : a pidgin-midwifery conlang 1.4, July 2026
Jaar : a pidgin-midwifery conlang 1.4, July 2026
See also meika.loofs-samorzewski.com, whyweshould (self-hosted) and substack.com
- 1 Introduction : creating Jaar
- 2 Wording Jaar
- 3 Conversing
- 4. Verbing – what grammar?
- 5. Resources & references
- Appendix 1 Dictionaries & usages
- Appendix 2 Exercises & experiments
- Appendix 3 speech-centric locations – a chart
- Appendix 4 Out-takes, works-in-progress & bloopers
- Footnotes
1 Introduction : creating Jaar
to imagine a language means to imagine a form of life [2]
Jaar is a meta-conlang, a constructed language ennabler for speakers with 'no' common language to help create a working pidgin between them.
I love the idea of a speaker of 'toki pona' and a speaker of 'Esperanto' with 'no' common language to try using Jaar.
1.1 The general idea for the meta-conlang Jaar
Constructed langauges (conlangs) often seek to ease communication, and bring world peace, by developing a common language to avoid misunderstandings or community isolation. There is often an attempt to maintain a broadly level linguistic accessibility[3] 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[4] is, roughly speaking, an auxlang, however, as it does not seek to to serve as a 'lingua franca' 'per 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.[5]
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.
It has 'no' set phonology.
It has 'no' set orthography.
It has a very limited vocabulary. The target is less than a dozen words.[6]
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 back 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 willy-nilly into the future.
1.2 My background
I am a native English speaker. I learnt German as a 5-6 year old, deom my cousins, and forgot it on my return to Australia[7]. 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 its 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. That compromise if Jaar.
I am a grumpy teenager who wants to baby talk.
1.3 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?[8]
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. Jaar as a 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 f’ar' 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.
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 guesses[9] of the stuff I do use.)
No set vocabulary. It is Bring-Your-Own (BYO) and then to be agreed[10] (except that described below for querying, the degrees of certainty and the speech-based locational points of view).
A small vocabulary. (ASPIRATION: less than a dozen terms);
Some initial rules of interruptive/investigative grammar;
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);
A mix of epistemic modality with a point of view, sprinkled with hints of evidentiality; Nod for yes and shake of head for no; and, General gesticulation.
2.1 Vocabulary
The ten words of basic Jaar are of three types:
three words to locate speech and its audience, or neither;
a questioning interrogative particle czy (t͡ʂi)[11]. 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,
six words 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:
| Person | Term | IPA | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 'ja' | ʝɑː | I, 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 |
2 | 'ju' | ʝuː | you, yous, the audience, those listening — e.g. you hear (hear ye)– from the Point of View (POV) of all those who hear or correspond |
3 | 'per' | pər | those neither speaking nor listening (but capable of speech)[12] — people not here. |
These speech 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.[13] No doubt this is not clear, and a pointless distinction at this point in the description for beginners.
These three speech-centric locations (SCLs) are the intialising boot-set mechanics for 'pronoun' support.[15] You can call them pronouns for short, even though they would be / are a derived feature[16]. I regard pronouns as a decayed version of prepositional attitudes. In compositin with the copula we have the beginnings of identity politics (that’s a linguistic-logic pun or two folks).
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 'czy’[17], from which it descends.)
Note | This is a late addition when I decided that swapping word order for questions (like in English for example) added more complexity than a dedicated questioning word (even though I am trying to have less than 12 words.) It became obvious that a querying prompt is an absolutely basic part of conversation though[18]. |
(C) Six Degrees of Confidence (DOC) or certainty
Here we have the main game of Jaar. While the above two alone (A & B) could possible work as a meta-lang to help build a pidgin between two speakers with no common language, it’s not much more than we already have. Especially if one or more speakers have any experience with more than their mother’s tongue.
| IPA | Gloss | Definition | Symbol | Gesture | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ar | ɑːr or aɹ | yes | I say the modality of confidence on this is 100% positive[19]. (I agree with myself.) | + | nod |
2 | su | suː | yes | We agree. It is agreed. It is traditionally accepted. | ++ | shared nod |
3 | ti | tiː | probably | Likely, might, shall (modality of confidence above 50% positive) | ~ | |
4 | ma | mɑː | possible | Can, could, may (modality of confidence above 0% positive) | ^ | |
5 | no | noʊ | no | The modality of confidence on this is 100% negative. (No agreement.) | – – | shake |
6 | ra | ra: or ɹa | nuh | An attempt has failed – (No, but can imply try again.) | – | shrug |
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:
Remember:
'ar' and 'su' are tensed by the conversation itself, if not the worlding 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' (or ==) with each other. And what is idiosyncratically declared as certain by an individual may not be maximally certain at an intersubjective, traditional or consensus level[20]. As such, curiously, they are the most fictional modalities or certainties, if only because their confidence is at 100%. They are a pretence, a laziness, an efficiency, a postponement, 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 hhhummmmann.) They are the least pretentious.
'no' and 'ra' are in tension where falsehood does not equal complete failure. (no, but or yeah nah).
Which of the pair should you choose, and when? For 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 as a copula in utterance/sentence construction, which depends on who/how that modality for/of 100% confidence is determined. See [4_verbing_what_grammar]. |
3 Conversing
This sections deals with how to actually use these words. These are all imaginary conversations.
Note | Some six years after the original published version Jaar 1.3 (in 2020) I am unaware of anyone giving it a go, as it requires more than just me to try it. |
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 so the orthography used below to indicate it. It is just what I have at hand for these imaginary conversations.
In addition to the usage described above in 2.1 (C) Six Degrees of Confidence (DOC) or certainty can also be used as follows ( "==" means is identical with/to, and a single "=" means it is more similar than 'identical'):
'ar' == yes == nod == single+
'su' == we are agreed or have solved it == ++
'ti' == almost == hand twist == ~
'ma' == maybe == open hand/s == ^
'no' == no == headshake == —
'ra' == no, try again == shrug == –
3.2 Initialising protocol = 'Hello, World'
Canonical protocol or verbal handshakes for attempting to converse using Jaar.
Hello! (== I say I am maximally certain I speak == Hey there, I am speaking Jaar)
Hello! ()== I am maximally certain I say I am speaking. == Yes,greetings, I am speaking Jaar)
== (We agree to use Jaar to converse.) = Yes, we speak Jaar!
And off you go folks. == ju ma![22]
3.3 Querying = checking-in with the correspondent
These are examples of common 'handshaking' towards using Jaar to create a working pidgin.
Note | Also reforming the first line "ja ar!" in 3.2 Initialising protocol = 'Hello, World' into a question "czy ja ar" is the equivalent of “Do/Can you speak (like me)?” |
Note | It might be best to read 4. Verbing – what grammar? first, but that’s not how I got there… |
'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?
So given those verbal handshakes with intent to begin using 'Jaar', the following may well be the way to go:
'Czy ja.' == (something like) Who or what is speaking.[23] that/who speaks I/us? = Who am I? Who are we?
'Czy' could then 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?
Then it might follow that:
'Czy ja ma?' == (might mean) May I? = 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 speech[24]. 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 mechanic[25]. 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.[26]
:)
As might various tenses.[27] 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 languages 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.
Or it == Truck 'su' red.
However, back translation into English 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 examples
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 'ti' and 'ma'.
'czy ju ti' angielsku == Can you speak [in] English?
'no. ja' Deutsch spricht == 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 arguments[28]:
'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 == Would you like something to drink?
5. Resources & references
Language Creation Society (USA) conlang.org
5.1 Youtube:
Conlang Critic “jan Misali” https://www.youtube.com/c/HBMmaster/featured
NativLang https://www.youtube.com/user/NativLang
5.2 References:
Halley, Mitch. 2018. 'My First Conlang – How NOT to Make a Language.' Conlang Critic — jan Misali. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjDqBz7kw1M&feature=youtu.be.
———. 2020a. 'Conlang Critic: Kēlen.' Conlang Critic — jan Misali https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97RsfY2ODw0&feature=youtu.be.
———. 2020b. 'Conlang Critic: Viossa.' Conlang Critic — jan Misali https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1LBCMWDNwo.
———. 2020c. 'Community Contributions Are Going Away (Rant).' Conlang Critic — jan Misali https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCxz2lSeer4&feature=youtu.be.
meika loofs samorzewski
——— 2019. Why we should. Hobart: meika loofs samorzewski Why we should: an introduction by memoir into the implications of the Egalitarian Revolution of the Paleolithic, or, Anyone for cake?
——— see also from 2023 'Why we should' blog at substack.com and also selfhosted.
Wierzbicki, Norbert. 2019. "Carpatho Rusyn Language | Can Polish and Czech Understand It?" Ecolinguist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JivjZYLclE.
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 these appendicies are some minimum suggestions, and perhaps in time, these 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 pidgin-ned 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' Degrees of Confidence (degree of confidence), 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' Degrees of Confidence (DOCs) 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 A1.4 Agreed: derivatives & definitions below
Use of modal forms of certainty or identity ( 'ar' & 'su') can instruct a locational speech (pronoun) usage to be 'ar' 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
Derivatives 'ja ar' = 'jaar' == name of meta-pidgin Jaar (and thus a reification of reflexive phrase 'ja ar') – implies usage of reification then as gerund as in 'su jaar' == we speak Jaar = the world of Jaar.
'per su' == they who are not hear is agreed to mean "they/them" ( perhaps = those who do not speak Jaar).
====Definitions ergative This ergative language comparison == headache, and thus broadly any non nominative-accusative aligned language.
Appendix 2 Exercises & experiments
Fluent speakers of toki pona and Esperanto with 'no' common language to try using Jaar to converse.
Use in linguistic studies, i.e. actual experiments to collect more controlled data about language in general.
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.
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.
How it might be used outside the Anglo-cacophony-sphere?
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.
Words can come in with their bits (declensions/conjugations) and loose them as we converse.
Sign language (more than gesticulation) in the basic cononical vocabulary.
Habits from a native tongue and literacy skills are no banned but accommodated and or eventually ignored becoming useless.
Jaar is a philosolang. But what began as a POVlang… turns into a qualifying range. [WTF]
Jaar is a boardgame. A card game.
Degrees of certainty revlve around their impact on the “V” of SVO.
Worldbuilding is key, world-building is the moral urge. Conspiracy theorists prove this with their fantasies.
How does one tell apart, with gerunds, when/if it is a failed noun identity?
When the other DOCs come first (ti & ma) what grammatical elements might that allow?
Degrees or moments of doubt.
Are there too many puns?
Nothing in this would upset Chomsky? What have I done wrong?
'ja' snuck in from Polsih with no conscious effort on my part, but 'czy' was completely conscious.
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 in what you have and then try and work it out together and out of that usage it is both created and rememebered.
There is no present tense. There is only present agreement. A tense is not an agrement.
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. [he says " 'ja jaar, ja jatima"]
Tensing time. The present is either an outcome of the past, or a cause of the future. 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.
The verb “to be” equivalent in Alya [later called 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]. {in 2026 I just nod sagely}
The other cases and all prepositional type things (instrumental, imperative, dative, oblative, recessive[29]) will have to be agreed on by the speakers. Start with your languages' preferred method, and see how you go.
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.
What is the imaginary pure Jaar? It is that which need never exist.
What will happen to the entire world? Ask the children what the world is.