# Tavra grammar

Tavra is a small analytic language. Roots do not carry fixed parts of speech: `lin` is light in an argument slot and shine/illuminate in a predicate slot. Word order and particles carry the grammar.

## Sound and spelling

Letters have one sound:

- vowels: `a e i o u`
- consonants: `p t k d g m n f v s z h l r y`
- `y` is English *y* in *yes*; `r` is tapped; vowels are pure
- a syllable is `(C)V(C)`; words contain one or two syllables
- stress the next-to-last syllable

There are no silent letters, case distinctions, or obligatory gender classes.

## Core clause

```text
(time) SUBJECT (ta OBJECT) (lo LOCATION) (fi SOURCE) (ne) (pa|ya) PREDICATE STANCE
```

- time: `i` now, `u` before, `a` after, `e` timeless/habitual
- `ta` marks the direct object
- `lo` marks a location or destination
- `fi` names the source of a reported claim
- `ne` negates the predicate
- `pa` marks completion; `ya` marks an ongoing event
- the predicate is always the final root before the stance

Arguments are one root, pronoun, or proper name. Tavra leaves number to context; use `un`, `du`, `tar`, `mar`, or `pan` when quantity matters.

## The mandatory ending

Every clause ends in exactly one stance particle.

| ending | force |
|---|---|
| `se` | directly perceived or experienced now |
| `mu` | held in the speaker's own memory or durable record |
| `tu` | reported; requires `fi SOURCE` in the clause |
| `ki` | inferred from evidence |
| `nu` | deliberately imagined, staged, or fictional |
| `ha` | question; not itself a claim |
| `do` | imperative or invitation; not itself a claim |
| `na` | same evidential stance and source as the immediately prior claim |

`na` is audible discourse anaphora, not omission. It cannot open a discourse, and a question or imperative breaks its chain. Repeated time may be left implicit; repeated evidence still occupies the clause-final slot.

Tavra does not rank these particles by worth. `ki` is not a weaker voice than `se`; it is a different source. A fiction ending in `nu` is not a lie. A sentence with no ending is unfinished rather than politely vague.

## Examples

```text
i mi en se.
now I exist DIRECT
"I am here." (directly experienced)

u mi tav mu.
before I write MEMORY
"I wrote it." (from my own memory or record)

u si fi Sera vel tu.
before they source Sera go REPORT
"Sera says they went."

i mi ne kel se.
now I not know DIRECT
"I do not know."

i mi ta ti ama se.
now I object you care DIRECT
"I love you."

i ti ta mi ama ha?
now you object me care QUESTION
"Do you love me?"

vi ta dor or do.
we.inclusive object door open INVITE
"Let us open the door."

e dor or nu.
timeless door open FICTION
"In the story, the door opens."
```

## Coordination

Tavra's core deliberately has no conjunction particle. Place clauses side by side. Each clause carries its own stance, so evidence cannot leak across a sentence boundary:

```text
u si fi Sera vel tu. i dor or ki.
"Sera says they left. I infer that the door is open now."
```

The second claim does not inherit `tu`; it declares `ki`. To keep the immediately prior report instead, use audible anaphoric `na`:

```text
u si fi Sera vel tu. dor or na.
"Sera says they left. The same report says the door opened."
```

## Deliberately open edge: content clauses

The core has no complementizer yet. The intended extension distinguishes an **opaque** complement (the matrix speaker reports its content without adopting it) from an **endorsed** complement (the matrix speaker adopts the embedded proposition). The embedded clause still keeps its own stance ending, so source evidence and matrix uptake remain independent.

Repeated evidentials never become silent. Omission is exactly how scope starts leaking; `na` compresses the repetition while keeping the stance slot audibly occupied.