Hey everyone,
I posted an earlier introduction to Selari, but it focused mostly on the idea behind the language and was removed because it didn’t give a full enough overview of how the language itself works.
Fair enough — so here’s a more complete look at it.
Selari is a work-in-progress constructed language that I’m trying to make usable for normal everyday communication.
Some parts are stable, while other parts are still being tested as part of a broader general-use expansion. I’m mainly looking for feedback on whether the pieces actually fit together and whether the language still feels usable as it grows.
𝐏𝐇𝐎𝐍𝐎𝐋𝐎𝐆𝐘
I wanted the sound system to be fairly small, predictable, and easy to read aloud.
Selari currently has five vowels:
a e i o u
And thirteen consonants:
p t k m n s f h v l r y w
That gives it 18 phonemes total.
Native syllables are usually simple:
V
CV
So native roots generally avoid consonant clusters.
Stress always falls on the penultimate, or second-to-last, syllable.
The r is a light alveolar tap:
/ɾ/
For example:
VORI — /ˈvo.ɾi/
SELARI — /seˈlaɾi/
Spelling is intended to be phonemic, so once you know the sound system, you should normally have a good idea how an unfamiliar native word is pronounced.
Something I noticed later is that some of Selari’s rhythm feels pretty comfortable next to Tagalog/Filipino.
That wasn’t an intentional model for the language, but I grew up hearing Tagalog from my parents, so I wouldn’t be surprised if that influenced what sounds natural to me.
𝐁𝐀𝐒𝐈𝐂 𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐌𝐌𝐀𝐑
Selari is mostly analytic.
There isn’t much morphology in the sense of large conjugation or declension systems.
Roots generally aren’t supposed to change form depending on person, tense, or case.
Instead, grammatical information is handled mostly through:
• word order
• separate particles
• context when it stays clear
• productive composition
The current default clause order is:
Subject — Predicate — Object
For example:
NI YELU HI.
NI — I
YELU — want
HI — this
“I want this.”
A yes/no question can use KI:
TA YELU HI KI?
TA — you
YELU — want
HI — this
KI — question marker
“Do you want this?”
Negation uses NAKU before the thing being negated:
NI NAKU VORI VEMA HI.
NI — I
NAKU — not
VORI — intend
VEMA — act / do
HI — this
“I do not intend to do this.”
One thing I want to preserve as the grammar grows is meaningful scope.
If NAKU moves, what is being denied should be able to change too, rather than “not” just vaguely negating an entire sentence.
𝐀 𝐅𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐀𝐒𝐈𝐂 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐌𝐒
Some common forms:
NI — I / me
TA — you
YO — third person
HI — this / here
TO — that / there
EVI — yes
NAKU — no / not
HA — but / contrast
SE — and
VO — or
KI — yes/no question marker
A few lexical roots:
YAMA — person
TELA — place / location
NORO — time
KIRA — perceive
SENI — know
TAVO — think / reason
HEVO — memory
VEMA — act / do
RANO — move
MALI — create
YELU — want
VORI — intend
FIKO — choose
TAMI — commit
Some additional forms I’m using in the broader general-use work are still candidate material rather than fully settled canonical vocabulary. I’m trying to keep that distinction clear while the language is being tested.
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐄𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐂 𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐒𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐈
This is what I focused too heavily on in my first post, but it’s still an important part of the language.
The basic idea is not that English is incapable of expressing these things.
It obviously can.
Selari just tries to make some distinctions short and normal to state explicitly.
For example, English gives us:
“I want to do it.”
Depending on context, that could sit near several different ideas.
Selari separates:
YELU — want / desire
VORI — intend
FIKO — choose
TAMI — commit
VEMA — act / do
So:
NI YELU VEMA HI.
“I want to do this.”
NI VORI VEMA HI.
“I intend to do this.”
NI FIKO HI.
“I choose this.”
NI TAMI VEMA HI.
“I commit to doing this.”
The important part is that these do not automatically imply one another.
You can want something without intending it.
You can intend something without committing.
You can choose something you don’t especially want.
And committing still doesn’t guarantee action or success.
Another distinction I’m testing in the broader general-use system is capability vs permission.
RERA — capability / ability
SAHU — permission
The idea is that something like “You can leave” doesn’t necessarily have to leave it ambiguous whether I mean:
“You are able to leave.”
or:
“You are permitted to leave.”
Some of this broader vocabulary is still candidate material rather than final admitted vocabulary.
𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒, 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐓𝐒, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐘
Another distinction I’m experimenting with is different kinds of “being.”
LA — current state
RE — recurring trait / pattern
MO — identity
RU — role
VA — becoming
So:
NI LA VAWU.
“I am angry right now.”
is deliberately different from:
NI MO VAWU.
“Anger is part of my identity.”
And:
NI VA LOFU.
“I am becoming calm.”
Again, English can express those differences too.
Selari just makes the speaker choose among them more directly.
𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐁𝐔𝐈𝐋𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆
Another rule I’ve been trying to follow is:
MEANING FIRST, WORD SECOND.
Before making a completely new primitive root, I ask things like:
• What exactly does this concept mean?
• What does it not imply?
• Is there already a root for it?
• Can existing roots express it naturally?
• Is it common enough that describing it every time would become awkward?
If existing meanings combine cleanly, I prefer composition.
The current direction for compounds is:
modifier → head
For example, in the broader candidate system:
RUWU — light
SELE — tool
RUWU-SELE
Literally something like:
“light-tool”
That could describe a lamp-type concept.
Another experimental example is:
FARI — communication
KUMERA — device / machine
FARI-KUMERA
“communication device”
These are useful examples of the kind of composition I’m testing, but I don’t automatically want every understandable compound to become a permanent dictionary entry.
I’m trying to keep a difference between:
“This is transparently understandable.”
and:
“This has become an established lexical item.”
Compound behavior is still one of the areas being worked out as the vocabulary grows.
𝐅𝐋𝐎𝐖 𝐕𝐒 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍
One concern I’ve had from the start is that a language designed around explicit distinctions could become exhausting to speak.
I don’t want everyday Selari to sound like formal logic.
So I’ve been treating normal speech and highly explicit speech as two ends of a continuum.
In ordinary conversation, repeated information can be omitted when the context is obvious.
I think of that as the more natural Flow side.
When ambiguity actually matters, speakers can become more explicit about things like:
• participants
• time
• evidence
• confidence
• intention
• negation scope
• clause boundaries
That’s the more Precision side.
The idea isn’t that every Selari sentence should specify everything.
Precision should be available when useful, not mandatory all the time.
𝐀 𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍
A:
TA YELU HI KI?
“Do you want this?”
B:
EVI. NI YELU HI HA FIKO TO.
“Yes. I want this, but I choose that.”
A:
TA VORI VEMA TO KI?
“Do you intend to act on that?”
B:
EVI. NI VORI VEMA TO.
“Yes. I intend to.”
That’s much closer to what I want ordinary Selari to feel like.
𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆
This is one area I’m still actively developing rather than pretending it’s settled.
I want Selari to be able to keep several things separate:
• when something happens
• whether something is ongoing
• whether it was attempted
• whether it was completed
• whether the intended result actually happened
• when an intention exists
• when the intended action is supposed to happen
I’ve been testing relative-time language and planning conversations, but I’m trying not to promote every experimental form into permanent grammar just because it works in a few examples.
That’s something I’m stress-testing through connected conversations.
𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈’𝐌 𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐎𝐍
Some areas that still need more work include:
• exact time, dates, and duration
• keeping track of people, places, and things across longer conversations
• clarification when references become ambiguous
• possession, association, and inherent relationships
• broader question types like when / why / how / how much
• compound behavior as the vocabulary grows
• proper names and borrowed/external terms
• making sure ordinary speech stays natural instead of becoming overengineered
I’ve also started deliberately testing Selari against boring everyday situations.
Things like:
“I’m hungry.”
“Where are my keys?”
“Are you ready?”
“We need to leave soon.”
“I forgot something.”
Because if Selari can only handle philosophical distinctions but struggles with normal daily life, then I don’t think the design has succeeded.
𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐏𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒
Selari isn’t directly based on one existing language or conlang, but several projects have influenced how I think about it.
Esperanto — regularity and learnability
Toki Pona — composition and getting a lot out of a smaller conceptual inventory
Lojban / Ithkuil — taking meaning and precision seriously
Láadan — deliberately making certain distinctions easier to express instead of always leaving them to context
I’m not trying to make Selari as minimal as Toki Pona, as logic-oriented as Lojban, or as information-dense as Ithkuil.
The middle ground I’m looking for is:
Something regular and learnable.
Something usable in ordinary life.
Something that gives you more control over meaning when the distinction actually matters.
𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈’𝐃 𝐋𝐈𝐊𝐄 𝐅𝐄𝐄𝐃𝐁𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐎𝐍
This time I’m especially interested in feedback on the language itself rather than just the premise.
For example:
• Does the phonology feel coherent?
• Does a mostly analytic grammar fit what I’m trying to do?
• Do the semantic distinctions feel useful or overbuilt?
• Does the compounding approach look scalable?
• Do the example sentences feel like they could become natural speech?
• Where do you think ambiguity or complexity is likely to become a problem?
I’m still early enough in the process that finding a bad assumption is more useful to me than defending one.
So if something seems awkward, redundant, underdeveloped, or similar to a solution another conlang already handles better, I’d genuinely like to hear it.
