Perspectives : The Nature of Initial Rebellion

I feel prompted to clarify the reasons for which Alora turns against Eleyon and instigates disharmony in creation. This is partly because of my own recent experiences, and partly because I am trying to describe the history of Eldawn is broad swathes so the framework for its architecture will more established for me to work within. For those of you who are unfamiliar with my mythos, Eleyon is my Creator figure and Alora is my Lucifer figure.

The investigation begins with the nature of humanity. A cell group member asked me a question this week. I'm not Lizzie Bennet so forgive me if I can't remember it word for word, but the general idea was : Did God create us perfect? Because if He did, then how could Adam and Eve sin? Doesn't that mean that mankind was inherently flawed to begin with?

I responded : We were created perfect, but we were given free will. Because of this, there was opportunity for sin. 

After more thinking, that answer seems straightforward enough, but understanding often requires additional probing, which is why this subsequent exploration was generated.

I must begin by clearing a few issues - 

1. Free will is a choice that God made, and without it, man cannot meaningfully relate to God.

2. God is almighty. So he is omniscient and omnipotent.
3. Free will always chooses the best option within its knowledge that it perceives as available.

The first issue is something most of us should have little trouble understanding, I hope. Our relationships with objects without free will are not meaningful the same way that our relationships with other sentient beings are. We might project attachments and sentiments onto objects, like stuff toys or trees, but they can never respond of their own volition to whatever affection we link to them. Similarly, God did not create us to be mechanical servants of His will, but willing instruments of his divine orchestration.

Second, I base the argument on the fact that God, the Creator, is almighty, knows all and is all powerful. You might not agree with this, but I am basing my work and my life on Christian principles as much as I can; just exploring the resulting consequences.

Third, we always pick what we think is the best option for us at the time. The options also have to be within our knowledge simply because if they are not known to us, we wouldn't be aware of it. I have attached the idea of perceived availability because there might be a better option out there, but we believe that we cannot attain it and so do not strive in that direction.

To begin with, we need to examine the relationship between the Creator and the creation. (Or in tas eldawach, cives ec cizhen) When God created, the creation is by definition, inferior to the Creator. Creation is inferior both in terms of knowledge and ability, since I am working off the premise that the Creator is omniscient and omnipotent. If creation were on the same level as Creator, God would have made Himself. This difference between Creator and creation implies that creation is limited in its understanding and power. Of course the very fact that the Creator is able to create shows that he knows everything about us, while presumably, creation does not know everything about its Creator. I do wonder if this could be extended to any creator-creation relationship, but that will be for another discussion.

This has many resulting consequences on the nature of free will and the cause of rebellion. Free will that is created must therefore, belong to a being that is limited in knowledge and power when compared it its Creator. This sets up a dynamic between the first Will and all created wills. Simply put, the created wills either cooperate or defy the original Will. When the created wills work in concert with the primeval Will, there is harmony between creation and Creator. For this to be the case, the created wills must choose to be subservient to the primeval Will. On the other hand, when the created wills defy the divine Will, there is discord and suffering. There are always these two basic choices, every solution for any multifaceted conundrum will fall on one side of the fence.

A brief diversion into the nature of suffering - Suffering is a necessary result of creation rebelling against the Creator; an unavoidable consequence. This is the case because when creation chooses a path that is not in alignment with the Creator's purpose, it is unavoidably inferior to the path that the Creator has in mind. Since God is omniscient, He knows the best possible choices for every decision we have to make. We exist in a limited perspective, so we cannot always know what the best possible selection is for each encountered furcation. When we choose to rebel, or act outside God's will, the resulting situation is worse than what it was meant to be, or could have been.

We may not live in a perfect world now, but the fact of the matter is that we were created for a perfect one. Because God intended humanity to live in perfect community, we have persistent inborn expectations of the nature of the world; that which is good, pleasing and perfect, and so we know what falls short of that. Since the consequences of our rebellions are necessarily inferior to the path which God intended, there is a divide between our expectations of perfection and our imperfect reality. Because of this difference, like the Buddhists hold, suffering results. So when it comes to the question, why does God allow suffering? It seems to me it is because He allows free will. Those free wills might be restricted and coerced into suffering, but that is ultimately because other free wills are abusing their own privileges. Did God create suffering? No, for when God created, all things were good. Rather, creation creates suffering by choosing to turn away from God.

Now you might argue, if that is the case, what is the point of exercising free will? What is the point of God giving us free will if there is already a plan that He has in mind for us to follow? Part of this is already answered in assumption number one. Another part has to do with our understanding of exercising free will. As I already mentioned, the created wills either cooperate or defy the original Will. Exercising free will does not mean choosing the path that we would like to direct for ourselves. You are still exercising free will even as you submit yourself to a higher power. You would simply be making that fundamental decision to cooperate instead of cause conflict.

So, the question has turned to the issue of why a created being should wish to defy the Creator in the first place. Since by the logic of the first two underlying assumptions, any act of rebellion must lead to suffering and pain, there ought not to be any case where a created being chooses suffering over peace. Obviously, this is not the case and people make terrible, regrettable choices all the time, myself included. This is where the third tenet comes into play. A created will will only choose what they know to exist and what they perceive to be accessible. As a result, a created will may rebel against the divine Will out of pride, or of despair.

I will deal with despair first because it is not the fundamental cause of rebellion, but rather a resultant one. Despair comes when we settle for anything less than the perfect world we were intended for. Despair acts when we know that the situation should be better, but we decide that it will never be and choose what is inferior. We give up on the hope of restoration and glorification. It comes from being in a world that is already fallen, and being beaten by the offenses of that imperfect world until we submit to it. After months, years, decades of existing in a state of suffering, we forsake the divine inborn standard and elect the overtly accessible, next best alternative. In this situation, God's will is defied not out of active hatred for His plans, but because we perceive them as unattainable. However, since this form of rebellion arises from conforming to the pattern of a fallen world, it is not the original rebellion, which could only have happened in a perfect world.

The original rebellion, therefore, must have been out of pride. This is a result of a created being believing that it knows more, or has superior knowledge to the Creator. The created will sets itself above the Creator and believes that it has a superior solution than the Creator's to the choice at hand. For this to be the case, the created being has to believe it is justified in the defiant choice. Otherwise, the Creator can simply show the created being the error in its thinking and the creation will have no good reason not to begin the path of repentance. Now, we need to ask how a created being might possibly arrive at that conclusion that it has superior knowledge to the Creator. I am not considering a created being believing that it has superior power or ability, simply because power does not justify. It may be within your ability to perform a back somersault, but just because you are able to doesn't explain why you have any good reason to do so.

Going back to the second tenet, God is omniscient. Therefore it is impossible for a created being to actually know more than God, the being can only perceive that it knows more than God. This can happen in two ways, when we believe we know all there is to know, or when we believe we are considering a factor that God has not taken into account. Once again, within these two options, only the former is a candidate for the original sin. In the perfect, pre-rebellion world, created beings have full fellowship with God, so the Creator could have easily shown how He had already considered any misgivings about possible unexamined variables.

How then, might a created being arrive at the point where it believes it has achieved omniscience? The explanation that I have been directed to begins with this : since created beings are not omniscient, we are able to learn. For some, the word learning is inextricably tied up with the grinding tedious nature of academic learning. Perhaps unusually, I would say academic learning is one of the joys of my life. Nonetheless, we all enjoy learning in one form or another. It could manifest as learning about other people, learning a new song or a new skill far outside the confines of academic learning. Learning affects the three realms of knowledge that all of us are affected by. The first realm is the known, what we already know and understand. The second realm is the known unknown, which is what we are aware of, but are sure that we do not understand, like quarternion numbers for my present self. The third realm is the unknown unknown, what we are neither aware of nor understand. Perceived omniscience results when the second realm of the known unknown is minute or non-existent.

In the process of learning, the first realm expands and second realm tends to expand. The third however, remains constant. This is so because if God is omniscient, He could be viewed as having infinite knowledge. If infinite knowledge exists, then the unknown unknown is the largest of the three knowledge realms and can never be reduced since it is infinite. This holds for any quantity of knowledge that creation believes it has. However, the third realm is not what holds our pride in check, but the second. It is easy to forget about the existence of the third realm; it is neither within our reach nor comprehension. The second realm is what prompts us to assume superiority or submit in humility.

Free will always chooses the best perceived available option, and someone who knows more can easily show you a better option. If a chess master was observing a game of chess you were playing, you would be certainly be inclined to follow whatever advice he deigns to give. It's a matter of trusting someone else's expertise in an area, supported by the awareness that they know more than you about a certain subject. The second knowledge realm is readily apparent. If the roles were reversed and you were the chess master, you would probably disregard suggestions from a novice. You would be confident that you have a greater understanding of the situation than a neophyte who forgets the direction in which pawns capture. In this case, the second knowledge realm is non-existent or at least, comparatively small. You would feel justified in making your own decision instead of deferring to another's judgement.

So, how does one proceed from chess rookie to chess master? When a created being is created, it is aware that it is intellectually inferior to its creator. It has existed for less time than its creator, it has less understanding of its purpose, composition and the world, until it begins to learn. So we begin in a state of submission because the second realm is initially obvious. Even if a created being is created with inborn knowledge, it cannot be all knowing as the Creator is. As we learn, our realms of knowledge expand. However, risk is involved when the creation forgets the fact that the third, mysterious and unknown unknown is actually infinite. When we forget the infinite nature of knowledge, knowledge appears to be finite. This implies that with each new grain of knowledge, the creation feels that it approaches the omniscience of the Creator. The creation develops the impression that it is slowly exhausting the realm of the known unknown and will soon reach intellectual equality with its Creator. The finite creation believes it can encroach on the infinite Creator, because it is not within the reach of the finite to grasp the sheer magnitude of the infinite.

At the point where the created being feels it has learnt all it has to learn, it feels it knows all there is to know, and so, presumes omniscience. If, at this point, the creation has different ideas from its Creator about the nature of reality and the future, it will feel justified in making an independent decision to act contrary to the Will of the divine. This is in spite of the fact that creation can never make a decision superior to decisions within range of the divine plan. Such is the stem of rebellion by Creation in a previously perfect world. It is a lack of wonder and a fostering of pride.

For this reason, the first to rebel must also be at the peak of all created beings, and most likely, the first created being. If you are less knowledgeable than another created being, it is perfectly clear that you must still be inferior to your Creator. However, it is only when there is no other created being to compare itself with that a created being feels it is next to the Creator Himself. In this state, there is no other created being who can hold the pinnacle in check when the summit of creation chooses to challenge the Creator. I suggest that the first rebel must also be the first created being, because the rebel would have observed the rest of creation as it was created. If a created being enters a world already populated by all manner of created things, their diversity is evidence enough that the second realm exists. But if a created being was the first and able to watch the rest of creation unfold, it could potentially suppose that it understood each new creation as it came into being.

Therefore, Alora has to fulfill these traits when it comes to his own rebellion against Eleyon. Alora is the first created being, albeit along with Iyvase, and Alora and Iyvase are at the summit of created things. Alora was predisposed to learning about the external, Iyvase about the internal. Alora becomes the first to presume omniscience and rebels. After this first rebellion, other methods of rebellion are made possible, as they rely on existing imperfection.

Would we then say that Alora, or Lucifer as he is in this world, was created inherently evil, or predisposed to evil? Again, this cannot be the case because God created all things good. But Lucifer was also given free will, and placed in a unique position, a delicate balance between power and humility that ultimately tipped over into pride and shattered the harmony of reality.

Knowledge alone is dangerous, because it empowers its bearers. Alora's pursuit of comprehension was partly to blame for his presumed omnipotence. If a created being is content to remain in a state of submission, never questioning what the Will commands, the harmony has no chance of being disturbed. It was when creation learned, and assumed that it was approaching the infinite Creator, that hamartia of the prime created being was made manifest. Nevertheless, the ultimate choice was still up to Alora's free will, to remember his limitations, or to challenge his Creator.

I would like to emphasise that it is not wrong to learn, the Creator allows us to learn and takes delight in our learning, but it is wrong to forget the third realm of knowledge and lose trust in the divine plan. So we arrive at the difference between knowledge and wisdom. As the proverbial phrase goes : 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.' and that is exactly it. For if we remember that the Lord is superior and knows all our unknown unknowns, we may learn as voraciously as possible without fear of rebellion. But if we forget this fear of the Lord, as the first rebel did, all his glory means nothing, for the finite cannot measure up to the infinite and any choices outside the will of the Creator elect the way of suffering.

Therefore, Alora was not created evil, desiring wanton destruction, suffering and all manner of ugly atrocities. It was part of how the situation was set up that every created will has the choice to cooperate or to conflict with the uncreated Will. Unfortunately though, suffering found its way into the world through the only way possible, the hubris of the first creature in creation. This unlocks the gate, into a vast world of hurt and confusion and sin, which is what we find ourselves in today.

The Name of a Language : Arezhen Tasach

After a few hours of brainstorming, Eldawnian now has a proper name for itself. The root syllable 'ta' is related to the idea of communication or throughways. 'tals' is the abstract idea of communication, 'tas' refers to language and 'tan' refers to physical passages or pathways. Additionally 'tain' refers to geographical passages, like valleys or natural tunnels but let's not get into that.

'tas' is therefore close to our equivalent of language, and in most circumstances, would have been sufficient for the inhabitants of Eldawn to refer to Eldawnian. If they wanted to be more specific, they could have gone with 'tas vesach', which simply means The language of humans. This was to distinguish their language from 'tas welach' or The language of souls which was spoken by natives of the second plane and of course, 'tas zelach' or The language of spirits which was the language of the great spirits in the first plane. The language of humans is the only conventional one that we can understand, since the rest do not rely on the same vocal apparatus that humans in the third, material plane employ.

At this point in Eldawn's history, all of humanity speaks a unified language, so there are no names for other languages of humans. Our languages only distinguish what we feel is necessary to distinguish after all.

Of course, for our purposes and living in a real world of a multitude of languages, it would be quite hard to refer to any one language as 'tas vesach'. Thankfully there's already a name for this world, so for our reference, we would simply call my fictional language, 'tas Eldawach'.

The word for script will be 'üdetas', which is a combination of language and physical body. At the moment there are several scripts that I have in mind. The first to develop in Eldawn's internal history is logographic designed by the elves, then a phonetic script was developed in Eleris shortly after. I haven't given too much thought to the logographic script yet, I probably won't for awhile because it isn't too high up on the priority list at the moment. The phonetic script is the script that I have explained in a previous post, containing 24 consonant letters and 6 vowel letters. The phonetic script is specifically referred to as 'üdetacas', or The forward/progressive script. 'üdetacas' eventually comes to be used throughout the Radiant Society, and to some extent among The Filial as well, mostly to aid learning the logographic script.

Adverbs : Analoges to Adjectives

Another particle of speech is the adverb, which I have decided to make quite similar to the adjective since they are similar in function. Like Eldawnian adjectives coming subsequent to their nouns, adverbs follow the verbs that they modify.

The declensions for adverbs are almost exactly the same as those for adjectives, except for the final vowel, which is [-o] instead of [-u]. 'o' was chosen so that the adverbs would match the verbs, which also end with [-o]. The three degrees are reflected with the voiced plosives, [-g-] [-d-] and [-b-] and the comparatives with the inclusion of [-r-]. Once again, the negative is indicated with [-m].

The examples are going to be similar to the adjective examples, so I won't spend too much time explaining them. The adverb declined is 'üsero' which means willingly. This is derived from the verb 'üseyo' which means to decide/choose.

ces ibeto üsego tes : (Descriptive) I help you willingly
ces ibeto üsedo tes : (Moderate) I help you very willingly
ces ibeto üsebo tes : (Superlative) I help you most willingly
ces ibeto üsegom tes : (N. Descriptive) I help you not willingly
ces ibeto üsedom tes : (N. Moderate) I help you not very willingly
ces ibeto üsebom tes : (N. Superlative) I help you not most willingly

The comparative cases have the added 'ra', used as a comparative marker to distinguish the two clauses being compared. In English, it would be translated as either as or than.

ces ibeto üsegro tes ra ibeto üt pes : (Equative) I help you as willingly as I help them
ces ibeto üsedro tes ra ibeto üt pes : (Augmentative) I help you more willingly than I help them
ces ibeto üsebro tes ra ibeto üt pes : (Extreme) I help you much more willingly than I help them
ces ibeto üsegrom tes ra ibeto üt pes : (N. Equative) I help you not as willingly as I help them
ces ibeto üsedrom tes ra ibeto üt pes : (N. Augmentative) I help you not more willingly than I help them
ces ibeto üsebrom tes ra ibeto üt pes : (N. Extreme) I help you not much more willingly than I help them

The subject is not repeated in the clause after the comparative marker, and so it is taken to have the same subject as the first clause. The verb is required to indicate that 'pes' is the object by syntax. If the subject changes while the object remains the same, it is possible to omit the object in a similar manner. Necessarily, if both subject and object change, both must be included in the construction.

The example above was for a transitive verb, in the case of intransitive verbs, the adverb can simply be followed up with 'ra' and the subject in comparison. For example, 'saton ateto atebro ra latun' The sun shines much more brightly than the moon.'

Conjunctions : Causation and Counting

At the moment, I haven't settled all the conjunction functions, but there's more than enough material to cover in one post for what I've come up with so far. Conjunctions are words that link two statements in various ways. For example, and, if, or, even though, but and so. The two types of conjunctions that I've designed for Eldawnian are the causation conjunctions and the counting conjunctions. These terms are not official linguistic vernacular, but it makes it easier for me to think about their functions at the moment.

The causation conjunctions are easy enough to explain. Their English equivalents are the words for and so. As a conjunction for expresses one clause as a reason behind another. Simply Drink water, for you are thirsty. You are thirsty is the reason why you should drink water. On the other hand, so expresses the relationship that one clause is a result of another. I was thirsty, so I drank the water. Thirst is the cause.

Presently, there are four types of causation conjunctions : Real, Essential, Relevant and Hypothetical.  They express various relationships between proposed causes and events. The conjunctions are place before the clauses they modify.

Real
cive - since - ci : real, ve - cause, cizhe - therefore - ci - real, zhe - result

Essential
isve - is a required cause of - iseyo : to compel, ve - cause, azhe - is a required result of - aseyo : to force, zhe - result

Relevant
iave - is part of the cause of - ia : link, ve - cause, iazhe - is part of the result of - ia : link, zhe - result

Hypothetical
lave - if - la : hypothetical, ve : cause, lazhe - then - la : hypothetical, zhe : result

For the example sentences, I'll use the verb 'ibeyo' meaning to help/aid, along with the simple pronouns 'rices', 'rites' and 'ripes', which are first, second and third person respectively.

'ricos ibeto rites cive rites ibepo ripos' I help you since you helped him.

It is generally preferred to have cause before effect, so the full default sentence would be :

'cive rites ibepo ripos cizhe ricos ibeco rites' Since you helped him, therefore I will help you.

The other categories of cause and effect conjunctions work in the same way.

'lave rites ibeto ripos lazhe ricos ibeco rites' If you help him, then I will help you.

Additionally, there are negative versions of the causal conjuctions. Once again, this is negated with the addition of the [-m] suffix.

Negative Real
civem - not since - ci : real, ve - cause, cizhem - not therefore - ci - real, zhe - result

Nonessential
isvem - not a required cause of -  iseyo : to compel, ve - cause, azhem - not a required result of - aseyo : to force, zhe - result

Irrelevant
iavem - is not part of the cause of - ia : link, ve - cause, iazhem - is not part of the result of - ia : link, zhe - result

Negative Hypothetical
lavem - not if - la : hypothetical, ve : cause, lazhem - then - la : hypothetical, zhe : result

These negative conjunctions do not mean not A then B, but rather A is not a cause of B. For the negative real conjunction, it would be akin to saying A was not the cause of B, and so on. The irrelevant case would be analogous to the expression A has nothing to do with B.

Next, the counting conjugations, of which there are six.

ab [conj] or (10/01), ot [conj] but not (10), ec [conj] and (11)

ip [conj] or (11/00), ud [conj] not but (01) , üg [conj] nor (00)

These conjunctions would be used in lists, for example, saying that I have a blue pen and a red pen but not a green pen. and other similar statements. The binary codes in parentheses refer to the positive or negative quality of the clauses. A few example sentences would probably make things clearer.

I advise him and her. 'ricos iveto ripos ec ripus'
I advise him but not her. 'ricos iveto ripos ot ripus'
I advise him or her. 'ricos iveto ripos ab ripus'
I advise him not, but her. 'ricos iveto ripos ud ripus'
I do not advise him nor her. 'ricos ivetom ripos üg ripus'
I advise both him and her or neither him nor her. 'ricos iveto ripos ip ripus'

'ip' isn't really a conjunction that has a clear translation in English. It could be viewed as an all or none statement, such that either both objects have the same action done to them, or neither will receive the action. It could also be used in a situation with more than two objects to make things clear. For example in the sentence I advise you, him or her. it is ambiguous whether you mean you and him are advised, or her, or whether only one of the three are advised. In contrast the Eldawnian construction system allows clearer constructions with 'ricos iveto rites ip ripos ab ripus' which indicates that the positive or negative states of you and him are bound together. The other sentence that would appear similar in English is 'ricos iveto rites, ripos ab ripus' where it is taken that the same conjunction applies to all three since one is omitted. Of course, for clarity, one could always say 'ricos iveto ab ripos ab ripus', just as we might way I advise you or him or her.

Anyway, language construction is getting a little exhausting at the moment, I intend to return to the main purpose of the language, which was to set up the names of my proper nouns consistently. Now that most of the rules of grammar and phonology are in place, I think I'll come up with names and get back to working in English as soon as possible. Just a final post on how to ask questions, and this series on linguistics will be frozen until necessity or interest calls for its thaw.

Pronouns : Attempted Regularity

I realise that I have used a couple of Eldawnian pronouns in my earlier linguistic posts without explaining how they work. There is a rather straightforward method to their construction. To begin with - personal pronouns. In English, they are words like I, me, you, they and them. Like the rest of the human related nouns, they end with a default [-s] and the noun before [-s] is dependent on the gender of the person or people being referred to. [-e-] is neutral, [-o-] is masculine and [-u-] is feminine. There are three persons, first, second and third, which doesn't beg much explanation. The persons are indicated by [c-], [t-] and [p-] respectively. Altogether, there are nine personal pronouns : 'ces, cos, cus, tes, tos, tus, pes, pos and pus'.

In formal settings, the prefix [ri-] is added. Another significant prefix is [be-], which is used to indicate respect. There are no plural declensions for the pronouns, as with all Eldawnian nouns. Instead, the particle 'üt' added before the noun.

The second series of pronouns that have been set are the demonstrative pronouns, which are words like this, that, these and those. Demonstratives are used to point out specific objects. There are three "persons" or distances rather. Close would be the first distance, indicating things on your own person, or that belong to yourself. Near would be the second, indicating things that are in the immediate area. Far would be the third, indicating things that are distant from both the speaker and the listener. The first, second and third positions are indicated with [g-], [d-] and [b-] respectively. The final letter is [-n], and the vowels follow the same paradigm for gender, including [-i-] for the locative gender. This yields twelve demonstrative pronouns : 'gen, gon, gun, gin, den, don, dun, din, ben, bon, bun and bin'.

Both the personal and demonstrative pronouns can be declined for each of the four cases, Ablative [-dz], Dative [-rets], Possessive [-ch] and Instrumental [-rej].

The final class of nouns I'll deal with for now are the reflexive pronouns, which in English is indicated with myself, yourself and themselves. This class of pronouns is indicated with the infix [-r-]. This applies to the personal pronouns more clearly, resulting in : 'cres, cros, crus, tres, tros, trus, pres, pros and prus'. These nouns are used when the object of a verb is also the subject of the verb. For example, in the sentence : I'll help myself. In Eldawnian, this would be 'cos ibeco cros'.

One set of pronouns that I have not yet dealt with are the indefinite pronouns, such as anyone, everyone, someone and nobody. These will probably be tied to the numeral system and number words, which I have yet to codify.

Auxiliary Verbs : Reduced to Disuse

Auxiliary verbs, as far as I understand them, are verbs that modify other verbs. In English, they are verbs like can, should, will, must, and so on. They change the meaning of the statement they are in to express things like possibility and intention. From the simple statement : I run. We get more complex statements like I can run, I will run and I should run. Syntactically, the subject comes first, then the auxiliary verb, then the main verb, and lastly the object if there is one.

In Eldawnian, auxiliary verbs will precede their subjects. One series of such verbs is the possibility family. Many of the abstract verbs have been classified by the qualities of the ether Spirits they are associated with, by the means of their opening vowel. Perhaps it will be clearer as I give examples. 'se' is a syllable I'm using to indicate movement and action. In combination with the abstract verb ending, it forms the possibility verb stem.

'seyo' : to make possible (can)
'aseyo' : to command/force (have to)
'oseyo' : to allow/permit (may)
'eseyo' : to be able/make ready (can)
'iseyo' : to compel/motivate (must)
'useyo' : to obligate (should/ought to)
'üseyo' : to decide/resolve (will/want to)

If I was to employ English syntax, I would simply construct sentences with auxiliary verbs as such : Subject - Auxiliary Verb - Verb - Object. I can run to Eleris would work out to 'ricos seto asüdiyo Elerirets'. I don't find this suitable for some reason, I'd like to maintain a strict SVO except for poetry, although I'm not much of a poet myself so it's unlikely that there'll be much Eldawnian verse.

It is now incumbent on me to introduce the noun 'vezhen'. It's a combination of the syllables 've' and 'zhe', which mean cause and effect respectively. Agglutinated, they mean the situation/circumstance. This word serves as the subject to the object of the possibility verb. The full formal sentence structure for something like I can run to Eleris would be 'vezhen seto ricos asüdiyo Elerirets'. Literally translated, this works out to something like The situation makes it possible for me to run to Eleris. Because of this, you could say that there are no auxiliary verbs as there are in English.

The main verb of the sentence becomes the possibility verb, and this can be in the three temporal tenses of past present and future. The second action verb of the sentence relating the object to the indirect object and will be in the infinitive conjugation. Well technically indirect object isn't the correct term... but I'd say it's acceptable since I'm making up my own grammatical structure. Then again I'm sure there must already be a formal name for what I'm trying to define... Oh who knows, I'm not Tolkien.

It is increasingly clear to me that the sentences we speak colloquially do not necessarily have to be complete to convey meaning. As such, I intend to reserve full sentences for indicating formality and politeness. I'll write a separate post on that, but the sentence could be reduced from 'vezhen seto ricos asüdiyo Elerirets' to 'seto cos asüdiyo Elerirets'.

Of course, the negative conjugations for the possibility verbs simply indicate that it is not possible, or not allowed and so on. When I introduce conjugations, it will be possible to construct sentences like I would help you, but I cannot. and so on. In fact it would probably be clearer than English because we have rather fuzzy, context sensitive meanings for words like may, would, could, should and will.

The reason why I have decided to remove auxiliary verbs is partly so I can remove the auxiliary copula as well. There is also no passive conjugation system for the verbs at the moment, nor am I inclined to introduce one. Verbs can, for now, remain as simple links between subjects and objects.