English
"According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly."

Hip'alŭk'
Li hiro p'ɔlo, öx erar, son p'ʌp'rŭkiki, la hisŭ qlakyru, öx inner, son susus ky p'ʌp'rŭ, kĭn tɔn.
[ˈli ˈçiɾo ˈpʰɔlo ˈøx ˈeɾaɾ ˈson ˌpʰʌɸɾʊˈkiki ˈla ˈhizʊ qlaˈkyɾu ˈøx ˈinːeɾ ˈson ˈsuzus ˈky ˈpʰʌɸɾʊ ˈkɪn tɔn]

Gloss

Li    hiro p'ɔlo, öx       era-r,   son       p'ʌp'rŭkiki,
given all  wall   PREP.COM know-GER PREP.POSS study-of-flight

la hisŭ qlakyru, öx       in-ne-r,         son       susus ky       p'ʌp'-rŭ, kĭn      tɔn.
be no   way      PREP.COM be_able-SUBJ-GER PREP.POSS bee   PREP.DAT fly-GER   PREP.INS 3.INAN

Notes

• P'ɔlo, literally meaning the wall or foundation of a building, can also denote other kinds of supports. Here, it means "law".
• Since Hip'alŭk' doesn't have a past participle, it instead uses the gerund with the comitative preposition. Öx erar could be literally translated, "with knowing".
• P'ʌp'rŭkiki is a combination of p'ʌp'rŭ (the gerund of *p'ʌp', "to fly" and the derivational suffix -kiki, which is like English's -logy.
• In mainly means "to stand", but it can also mean "to remain", "to be ready", and (in this passage) "to be able". Its subjunctive gerund, inner, is used here.
• Son and ky, when used with a gerund (in this case inner), denote the subject and object of the verb respectively. More info on gerunds and dependent clauses in Hip'alŭk' can be found here.
• Sus, a word meaning "flying bug", is meant to be somewhat like a buzzing sound. Since bees buzz a lot, this onomotopoeia is reduplicated to get susus.
• Tɔn here refers to qlakyru (meaning "path, way, method"). La hisŭ qlakyru, öx inner, son susus ky p'ʌp'rŭ, kĭn tɔn, could be be more literally (but also more confusingly) translated, "There is no path with a bee's ability to flight using that path."

How would you translate this sentence in your conlang?

Basically the title. What's your favorite consonant sound as of late, and has it changed in the past?

Pretty much what the title says. What's a feature in your conlang that you find especially cool?

Recently, I've been playing around with tense, aspect, and mood in my conlang, Hip'alŭk' [çiˈɸalʊkʰ]. A lot of this will probably change completely as it has in the past, but here's what I currently have.

Lexical Aspects

Before getting into tense and grammatical aspect, it's important to understand lexical aspect (a verb's sorta "inherent" aspect) in Hip'alŭk'.

Verbs in Hip'alŭk' can be split into three lexical aspects:

• Durative verbs involve active change over a duration. Examples include t'ʌt'ʌ ("to run"), kĭ ("to build"), and lŭk' ("to say"). However, durative verbs also include semelfactives (brief, repeatable events) like ɔkɔ ("to cough").
• Instant verbs are instant events with distinct end points (i.e., punctual telic verbs). Examples include har ("to throw") and k'o ("to strike").
• Stative verbs, as the name suggests, describe unchanging states. Examples include era ("to know"), qala ("to be red"), and šly ("to inhabit").

(The difference between semelfactives and instant verbs is what's considered a complete action. With ɔkɔ, a complete action is considered to be any number of coughs and can thus occur over a duration. With har, a complete action is always a single throw and is thus always a single instant.)

Lexical aspect determines which tenses and grammatical aspects a verb can take:

• Durative verbs distinguish between the perfective, continuous, and habitual aspects.
• Instant verbs can't be continuous, so they only distinguish between perfective and habitual.
• Stative verbs don't distinguish aspect.

Tense, Grammatical Aspect, & Auxiliary Verbs

In Hip'alŭk', tense and grammatical aspect are applied via auxiliary verbs. Let's start by looking at durative verbs.

By default, durative verbs are nonfuture continuous:

Öluk Lisa qlakɔ.
[ˈøluk ˈliza ˈqlakɔ]
Öluk Lisa qlakɔ.
eat Lisa bread
"Lisa is eating bread." (or "Lisa was eating bread.")

This can be changed to perfective using the auxiliary verb q'e, "to finish". However, in Hip'alŭk', the present and the perfective don't really mix — after all, if an action is occuring as you're talking about it, it must be ongoing. Thus, q'e just indicates a past perfective:

Q'e öluk Lisa qlakɔ.
[ˈqʰe ˈøluk ˈliza ˈqlakɔ]
Q'e öluk Lisa qlakɔ.
finish eat Lisa bread
"Lisa ate bread."

The auxiliary verb la, "to be" or "to sit", signifies a nonfuture habitual:

La öluk Lisa qlakɔ.
[ˈla ˈøluk ˈliza ˈqlakɔ]
La öluk Lisa qlakɔ.
be eat Lisa bread
"Lisa often eats bread." (or "Lisa used to eat bread.")

With instant verbs, all of this becomes a bit more complicated, as instant verbs can't take the continuous aspect. Thus, an instant verb with no auxiliary is construed as a recent past perfective, with q'e indicating a further past perfective:

Har Antona oku.
[ˈhaɾ anˈdona ˈoku]
Har Antona oku.
throw Antona small_sphere
"Antona just threw a ball."

Q'e har Antona oku.
[ˈqʰe ˈhaɾ anˈdona ˈoku]
Q'e har Antona oku.
finish throw Antona small_sphere
"Antona threw a ball."

Like with durative verbs, la indicates a nonfuture habitual.

And then there are stative verbs, which don't differentiate aspect at all. By default, they're in the present, and q'e brings them into the past tense:

K'leni tik'ĭ.
[ˈkʰleni ˈtikʰɪ]
K'leni tik'ĭ.
glow moon
"The moon glows."

Q'e k'leni tik'ĭ.
[ˈqʰe ˈkʰleni ˈtikʰɪ]
Q'e k'leni tik'ĭ.
finish glow moon
"The moon glowed."

Since there's no habitual with stative verbs, la signifies the perfect tense (yes I'm not counting it as an aspect shut up) — i.e., that the state did and still does hold with present relevance.

La k'leni tik'ĭ.
[ˈla ˈkʰleni ˈtikʰɪ]
La k'leni tik'ĭ.
be glow moon
"The moon has been glowing."

Finally, there's the auxiliary verb t'ʌ, "to go", which indicates a future tense. No aspectual nonsense attached here:

T'ʌ öluk Lisa qlakɔ.
[ˈtʰʌ ˈøluk ˈliza ˈqlakɔ]
T'ʌ öluk Lisa qlakɔ.
go eat Lisa bread
"Lisa will eat bread."

Modal Verbs

There are a couple of auxiliaries that mark different modalities.

First, there's hŭ, meaning "to want". This auxiliary creates an imperative modality with a second-person subject:

Hŭ t'ʌt'ʌ penǃ
[ˈhʊ ˈtʰʌtʰʌ ˈpen]
Hŭ t'ʌt'ʌ penǃ
want run 2SG
"Runǃ"

With any other subject, it expresses a hortative modality, insisting that something happen:

Hŭ t'ʌt'ʌ jype!
[ˈhʊ ˈtʰʌtʰʌ ˈjype]
Hŭ t'ʌt'ʌ jy-peǃ
want run 1PL-1+2
"Let us runǃ"

Second, there's jek, "to ask". As you can probably guess, this is for questions:

Jek t'ʌt'ʌ pen?
[ˈjek ˈtʰʌtʰʌ pen]
Jek t'ʌt'ʌ pen?
ask run 2SG
"Are you running?"

The Subjunctive Mood

One inflection that verbs do get is what I'm tentatively (and lazily) calling the subjunctive mood: -n (or -ne if the verb ends with a consonant). On a surface level, this mood applies a dubitative modality, expressing uncertainty:

Šk'an Dansi oku nö.
[ˈʃkʰan ˈdansi ˈoku ˈnø]
Šk'a-n Dansi oku nö
collect-SUBJ Dansi berry PL.AN
"Dansi might be picking berries."

However, if there's an auxiliary verb, the auxiliary takes the subjunctive, and such makes for a lot of interesting constructions.

For example, take q'en, the subjunctive of the auxiliary q'e. Often, it's just the dubitative past perfectiveː

Q'en šk'a Dansi oku nö.
[ˈqʰen ˈʃkʰa ˈdansi ˈoku ˈnø]
Q'e-n šk'a Dansi oku nö.
finish-SUBJ collect Dansi berry PL.AN.
"Dansi was maybe picking berries."

However, q'en can also be used to create a condition. Since it usually indicates a past perfective, it can be thought of in these cases as meaning "with this being done".

T'ʌ šk'a Dansi oku nö, q'en jype t'ʌ öx ʌk'.
[ˈtʰʌ ˈʃkʰa ˈdansi ˈoku ˈnø ˈqʰen ˈjype ˈtʰʌ ˈøx ˈʌkʰ]
T'ʌ šk'a Dansi oku nö, q'e-n jy-pe t'ʌ öx ʌk.'
go collect Dansi berry PL.AN finish-SUBJ 1PL-1+2 go PREP.COM 3SG.SUPAN
"Dansi will pick berries if you and I go with him."

A counterfactual conditional can be created by applying the subjunctive to both the condition and the result.

Šk'an Dansi oku nö, q'en era hukɔr son jype.
[ˈʃkʰan ˈdansi ˈoku ˈnø ˈqʰen ˈeɾa ˈhukɔɾ ˈson ˈjype]
Šk'a-n Dansi oku nö, q'e-n era hukɔ-r son jy-pe.
collect-SUBJ Dansi berry PL.AN finish-SUBJ know hunger-GER PREP.POSS 1PL-1+2
"Dansi would be picking berries if he knew that you and I are hungry."

Lan is just la but dubitative: either dubitative nonfuture habitual or dubitative perfect depending on the main verb's lexical aspect.

Likewise, t'ʌn is a dubitative future. However, when used in conditionals, it can indicate a possible but unlikely result.

T'ʌn šk'a Dansi oku nö, q'en jype t'ʌ öx ʌk'.
[ˈtʰʌn ˈʃkʰa ˈdansi ˈoku ˈnø ˈqʰen ˈjype ˈtʰʌ ˈøx ˈʌkʰ]
T'ʌ-n šk'a Dansi oku nö, q'e-n jy-pe t'ʌ öx ʌk.'
go-SUBJ collect Dansi berry PL.AN finish-SUBJ 1PL-1+2 go PREP.COM 3SG.SUPAN
"Dansi might pick berries if you and I go with him."

While hŭ indicates an imperative modality, its subjunctive hŭn indicates an optative modality, expressing a strong wish for something to happen.

Hŭn ška Dansi xer oku nö!
[hʊn ˈʃkʰa ˈdansi ˈxeɾ ˈoku ˈnø]
Hŭn šk'a Dansi xer oku nöǃ
want-SUBJ collect Dansi 125 berry PL.AN
"May Dansi pick 125 berriesǃ"

Finally, jekne is relatively rare and usually only used formally. It's used to especially politely ask a question, the subjunctive emphasizing that the request might not be fulfilled and by no means has to be:

Pen Dansi, jekne ška pen oku nö?
[ˈpen ˈdansi ˈjekne ˈʃka ˈpen ˈoku ˈnø]
Pen Dansi, jek-ne ška pen oku nö?
2SG Dansi ask-SUBJ collect 2SG berry PL.AN
"Dansi, would you be so kind as to pick berries?"

I hope all of this was at least somewhat interesting. Trying to write everything out in an explanation really helps to clarify things and flesh out details. What do you think of all this?

I find that translating this is a great way to come up with new bits of grammar & vocabulary when conlanging, so I decided to try translating the Lord's Prayer in my unnamed conlang. Came up with some fun stuff, such a "subjunctive" suffix to change the meaning of auxiliary verbs, a way to write first-person plural pronouns, and the use of second-person pronouns to create vocative expressions.

English
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from the evil one.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

Conlang
Pen Najo, öx ʌhir ky ilŭ, son jyk'a,
hŭn k'lenĭ hoq'e son pen;
hŭn t'ʌ p'aqlak;
hŭn la kĭr ky nunka;
nɔ qlak ʌn lar ʌhi ilŭ.
Hŭ hɔ nɔ jʌšu k'ejŭ pen qlakɔ son jyk'a ky jyk'a .
Ĭ hŭ ölonɔ pen enpir son jyk'a ky jyk'a,
ʌn ölonɔr son jyk'a ky ʌkk'a öx enpir ky jyk'a.
Ĭ hŭsŭ yrusa pen jyk'a t'ʌ nelosŭr;
špe hŭ ške pen jyk'a isa ʌk öx akokor.
It'ʌ son p'aqlak ĭ ŭšap'rŭ ĭ ŭšap'ap'rŭ pen,
rokri ɔq son k'ejŭ k'an.
Anpen.

IPA
[ˈpen ˈnajo ˈøx ˈʌçiɾ ˈky ilʊ ˈson ˈjykʰa]
[ˈhʊn ˈkʰlenɪ ˈhɔqʰe ˈson ˈpen]
[ˈhʊn ˈtʰʌ ˈpʰɑqlak]
[ˈhʊn ˈla ˈkɪɾ ˈky ˈnuŋga]
[ˈnɔ ˈqlak ˈʌn ˈlaɾ ˈʌçi ˈilʊ]
[ˈhʊ ˈhɔ ˈnɔ ˈjʌʒu ˈkʰejʊ ˈpen ˈqlakɔ ˈson ˈjykʰa ˈky ˈjykʰa]
[ˈɪ ˈhʊ øˈlonɔ ˈpen ˈembiɾ ˈson ˈjykʰa ˈky ˈjykʰa]
[ˈʌn øˈlonɔɾ ˈson ˈjykʰa ˈky ˈʌkkʰa ˈøx ˈembiɾ ˈkyˈjykʰa]
[ˈɪ ˈhʊzʊ yˈɾuzaˈ pen ˈjykʰa ˈtʰʌ neˈlozʊɾ]
[ˈʃpe ˈhʊ ˈʃke ˈpen ˈjykʰa ˈiza ˈʌk ˈøx aˈkokoɾ]
[ˈitʰʌ ˈson ˈpʰɑqlak ˈɪ ʊˈʒapʰɾʊ ˈɪ ˌʊʒaˈɸapʰɾʊ ˈpen]
[ˈɾokɾi ˈɔq ˈson ˈkʰejʊ ˈkʰan]
[ˈamben]

Gloss

Pen Najo,  öx       ʌhi-r        ky       ilŭ, son       jy-k'a,
2SG Father PREP.COM be_above-GER PREP.DAT sky  PREP.POSS 1PL-1+3.PL

hŭ-n      k'lenĭ hoq'e son       pen;
want-SUBJ shine  name  PREP.POSS 2SG

hŭ-n      t'ʌ  p'aqlak;
want-SUBJ come country  

hŭ-n      la kĭ-r      ky       nunka;
want-SUBJ be build-GER PREP.DAT plan

nɔ       qlak  ʌn        la-r   ʌhi   ilŭ.
PREP.LOC earth PREP.SMBL be-GER above sky

Hŭ   hɔ   nɔ       jʌšu       k'ejŭ pen qlakɔ son       jy-k'a     ky       jy-k'a.
want give PREP.LOC DEM.PROX.1 day   2SG bread PREP.POSS 1PL-1+3.PL PREP.DAT 1PL-1+3.PL

Ĭ   hŭ   ölonɔ   pen enpi-r   son       jy-k'a     ky       jy-k'a,
and want forgive 2SG harm-GER PREP.POSS 1PL-1+3.PL PREP.DAT 1PL-1+3.PL

ʌn        ölonɔ-r     son       jy-k'a     ky       ʌkk'a     öx       enpi-r   ky       jy-k'a.
PREP.SMBL forgive-GER PREP.POSS 1PL-1+3.PL PREP.DAT 3PL.SUPAN PREP.COM harm-GER PREP.DAT 1PL-1+3.PL

Ĭ   hŭ-sŭ    yrusa pen jy-k'a     t'ʌ      nelos-ŭr;
and want-NEG lead  2SG 1PL-1+3.PL PREP.ALL enjoy_mischief-GER

špe hŭ   ške  pen jy-k'a     isa      ʌk        öx       akoko-r.
but want take you 1PL-1+3.PL PREP.ABL 3SG.SUPAN PREP.COM be_evil.GER

It'ʌ son   p'aqlak ĭ   ŭšap'-rŭ      ĭ    ŭšap'ap-'rŭ          pen,
For  be_of country and be_strong-GER and  be_very_prideful-GER 2SG

rokri  ɔq  son       k'ejŭ k'an.
before end PREP.POSS day   3PL.SUPAN

Anpen.
amen

EDIT: Fixed some errors in the IPA.
Additionally, a few notes about the gloss:

• SUPAN means superanimate, one of the three animacies (the others being animate and inanimate). Superanimate corresponds to humans, gods, and other things of great significance like the celestial bodies.
• This conlang's demonstratives make a three-way distinction between distance (near, slightly far. and very far) and a three-way distinction between person (speaker, addressee, and both). DEM.PROX.1 is the "meoproximal" demonstrative, meaning "that near me".
• First-person plurals used to be two pronouns joined by ĭ (and). "Me and them", for example, would literally be ju ĭ ʌkk'a (1SG and 3PL.SUPAN). Over time, these constructions got condensed into single words, starting with jy (coming from ju ĭ). Ju ĭ ʌkk'a, for example, got shortened to jyk'a (1PL-1+3.PL), which you can see in the translation.

While I haven't done much conlanging in a while, I figured it'd be fun to showcase a cool feature from my conlang. In this conlang, gerunds are used to make dependent clauses. The best way to demonstrate this is probably to show an example, starting with content (noun) clauses like indirect statements.

Take the following sentence:

Ölo Ken pʌpʌ.
Ölo Ken pʌpʌ.
eat Ken fish
"Ken is eating a fish."

Let's say we want to turn this into an indirect statement, such as in the sentence, "He is saying that Ken is eating a fish." To do this we apply the following transformations:

• The verb ölo becomes a gerund (ölor) and the direct object of the main verb (lŭk — to say).
• The subject Ken is given the possessive preposition son (which indicates an agent when used with gerunds).
• The object pʌpʌ is given the dative preposition ky.

The resulting sentence would be this:

Lŭk' ʌk ölor son Ken ky pʌpʌ.
Lŭk' ʌk ölo-r son Ken ky pʌpʌ.
know 3SG.SUPAN eat-GER PREP.POSS Ken PREP.DAT fish
"He is saying that Ken is eating a fish."
LIT. "He is saying the eating by Ken to a fish."

If the subject of the content clause is the same as that of the main clause, you can omit the possessive constructionː:

Lŭk Ken ölor ky pʌpʌ.
Lŭk Ken ölo-r ky pʌpʌ.
say Ken eat-GER PREP.DAT fish
"Ken is saying that he is eating a fish."
LIT. "Ken is saying the eating to a fish."

In auxiliary verb constructions, the main verb ends up acting like an adverb to the auxiliary verb. For example, in the following sentence, the verb t'ʌ (to go) is an auxiliary verb indicating the future tense:

T'ʌ ölo Ken pʌpʌ.
T'ʌ ölo Ken pʌpʌ.
go eat Ken fish
"Ken will eat fish."

In a content clause, the auxiliary verb gets turned into a gerund, whereas the main verb (again, acting like an adverb) stays the same:

Lŭk Ken t'ʌr ölo ky pʌpʌ.
Lŭk Ken t'ʌ-r ölo ky pʌpʌ.
say Ken go-GER eat PREP.DAT fish
"Ken is saying that he will eat a fish."

Moving on from content clauses, relative (adjectival) and adverbial clauses work in a similar manner. To make one, take the gerund of a content clause and give it a preposition. For example, take the following sentence:

Pasŭ Sali, öx par ky k'ejŭ, tik'ĭ.
Pa-sŭ Sali, öx pa-r ky k'ejŭ, tik'ĭ.
like-NEG Sali PREP.COM like-GER PREP.DAT sun moon
"Sali, who likes the sun, does not like the moon."
LIT. "Sali, with a liking to the sun, does not like the moon."

Here, the gerund of the verb pa is given the comitative preposition öx (meaning "with") to create a relative clause. Like with content clauses, the subject is omitted (i.e., we don't need to write "Sali, öx par son Sali ky k'ejŭ…") when it's the same thing as what the relative clause is modifying (the antecedent).

However, in the case when the object of the relative clause is the same as the antecedent, we still need to write out the object in the clause:

P'a k'eju, öx par son Sali ky ʌk', tik'ĭ.
P'a k'eju, öx pa-r son Sali ky ʌk' tik'ĭ.
be_bigger_than sun PREP.COM like-GER PREP.POSS Sali PREP.DAT 3SG.SUPAN moon
"The sun, which Sali likes, is bigger than the moon."
LIT. "The sun, with a liking by Sali to it, is bigger than the moon."

To make an adverbial clause, we just need to use a different preposition than öx. In the following sentence, the locative preposition nɔ is used:

Nɔ k'lenĭr son tik'ĭ, k'lenĭ ɔqi k'an.
Nɔ k'lenĭ-r son tik'ĭ, k'lenĭ ɔqi k'an.
PREP.LOC shine-GER PREP.POSS moon shine star PL.SUPAN
"While the moon is shining, the stars are shining."
LIT. "During the shining of the moon, the stars shine.

EDIT: Formatting changes

A song about the bittersweet beauty of trauma and the healing that follows..i zgike ra'a lo drigei melbi si'o se menxai je babo cu xilvaSong: "Sruri Falo Tar...

When I'm romanizing my conlangs, I tend to prefer using diacritics over digraphs—e.g., I'd rather write /ʃ/ as <š> than <sh>. It gets rid of any possible ambiguity, and makes things a consistent one letter per phoneme. What do you guys think?

Just thought a few people here would enjoy seeing and hearing the language!

https://youtu.be/1kDcRlQSPns

I used to learn it, it was pretty fun. What do you guys think about it?

Esperanto: Mi kutimis lerni ĝin, estis amuze. Kion vi opinias pri ĝi?_

English
“Why do you eat such big fish?”
“Because I’m hungry.”
“But you’re eating too much.”
“And…? I’m hungry.”
“I doubt that you’re that hungry.”
“I am.”
“You could just eat some smaller fish.”
“I’m good. Thanks.”

Conlang
“Ky jetɔ kĭr la öluk pen pʌpʌ nö öx p'ar öx p'ar?”
“It'ʌ hukɔ ju.”
“Špe öluk pen öx p'ap'ar.”
“Ĭ…? Hukɔ ju.”
“Kĭsŭ ju hukɔr öx p'ar son pen.”
“Hukɔ ju.
“Rokri pen ölukrŭ ky pʌpʌ nö öx nar.”
“Hylo ju. Et'e.”

IPA
[ˈky ˈjetɔ ˈkɪɾ ˈla ˈøluk ˈpen ˈpʌpʌ ˈnø ˈøx ˈpʰaɾ ˈøx ˈpʰaɾ]
[ˈitʰʌ ˈhukɔ ˈju]
[ˈʃpe ˈøluk ˈpen ˈøx ˈpʰaɸaɾ]
[ˈɪ…? ˈhukɔ ˈju]
[ˈkɪzʊ ˈju ˈhukɔɾ ˈøx ˈpʰaɾ ˈson ˈpen]
[ˈhukɔ ˈju]
[ˈɾokɾi ˈpen øˈlukɾʊ ˈky ˈpʌpʌ ˈnø ˈøx ˈnaɾ]
[ˈçylo ˈju. 'etʰe]

Gloss

Ky       jetɔ kĭ-r      la öluk pen pʌpʌ nö    öx       p'a-r      öx       p'a-r?
PREP.DAT what cause-GER be eat  2S  fish PL.AN PREP.COM be_big-GER PREP.COM be_big-GER

It'ʌ    hukɔ ju.
because hunger 1SG

Špe öluk pen öx       p'ap'a-r.
but eat  2SG PREP.COM be_excessive-GER

Ĭ…?     Hukɔ   ju.
and     hunger 1SG

Kĭ-sŭ     ju  hukɔ-r     öx       p'a-r      son      pen.
think-NEG 1SG hunger-GER PREP.COM be_big-GER PREP.GEN 2SG

Hukɔ ju.
hunger 1SG

Rokri     pen  öluk-rŭ ky       pʌpʌ nö    öx       na-r.
be_before 2SG  eat-GER PREP.DAT fish PL.AN PREP.COM be_small-GER

Hylo     ju.    Et'e.
be_good 1SG     be_happy

Writing a conlang grammar is pretty hard, especially so for analytic and isolating languages. Most natural language grammars seem to be based off the classical grammars of Ancient Greek and Latin, 2 languages with a lot of complex morphology; something that isolating languages obviously lack. So what does one do about that then? Should I even bother having a morphology chapter? My current plan is to just take everything that would be in a morphology chapter (how to express pluralization on nouns, TAM for verbs, etc.) and put it in syntax, but I feel like there's got to be a better way than this.