In this section, the main characteristics of the grammar will be shown. The grammar can be explained mainly in terms of 3: nouns, verbs and prepositions and tools. The sentences can start with either a subject or a verb, and the object always comes at the end.

1. Nouns:
The first thing to be known in the relation between nouns is that, there is no "of" in `Ayvariþ, as simple as that! Any compound of words that might use "of" in between in english can be made the same except without "of" in `Ayvariþ. Also, if there was a definitive article, this article is placed on the second word. One more thing is that such a combination can be made in form of a noun and an adjective. I will give an example here without giving the `Ayvariþ translation:
1. "Promise of Peace" would be literally as "Promise peace."
2. "The promise of peace" would be literally as "promise The peace."
3. The previous sentence can be put in a form of a noun and an adjective, like: Peaceful Promise (Promise peaceful, literally), OR, The Peaceful Promise (The promise the peaceful, literally).

The rule of "the" can be neglected when introducing titles like "king of Spain" of example. That sentence in `Ayváriþ would be literally like "king Spain" directly. When adding a definitive article is necessary, the sentence must be in the same form as in #3 above: "the king of Spain" would be literally "the king the spaniard."
There are no changes in the word in accusative, dative or genetive cases, and there are no changes in the initials when a preposition comes before the word. As mentioned in the nouns' section, the nouns mainly got 2 genders and their plural forms are mentioned. The personal articles (possession articles) are placed after the word as a suffix (if it is a plural form then it is placed after the plural suffix). Here are the suffixes with an example:
 

Word: King	1st person (my king)	2nd person (your king)	3rd person (his/her king)	1st plural	2nd plural	3rd plural
mulyKQ Maleek	mulykaYQ Maleekáy -áy	mulykuka Maleekaká -aká (to m. or f.)	mulykw Maleekoo (m) -oo mulyka Maleeká (f) -á	mulykayoNQ Maleekáyun -áyun	mulykukoNQ Maleekakun -akun	mulykiMQ Maleekim (m) -im mulykiNQ Maleekin (f) -in

Yet, let's not forget the separate pronouns:
I: auyQna [ayná]
You: aunutQ [anat]
He: hw [hoo]
She: hwT [hooþ]
We: nuxoNQ [naxun]
You(plural): aunutiMQ [anatim]
They (m): hiMQ [him]
They (f): hiNQ [hin]

2. Verbs:
The verbs are going to be somehow a long story to tell here. As with semitic languages, I've decided to make the verbs mainly depend on a 3-letters root (and sometimes 4). I tried to reduce the changes on verbs as much as I can, but seems I can't resist the desire to make a complexity out of anything!
There are mainly 3 tenses for the verbs: past, present and future. Out of the verbs' roots also we can form verbal adjective (to decribe a noun with some applied work on it, like: the written book), and we can form also the verbal donor, which mostly used to denote the "worker" of the this verb like in: "to give" would be "the giver." It's not quite like english when people talk about "verbal noun" and that would be a name for the action and not the donor, like in: "to give" would be "the giving."
In forming sentences, there is no need to use the verb "to be" and its tenses. For example "my name is TJ" would be easily as "my name TJ" or more literally "name-my TJ." However, the verb "to be" is used mainly in contexts were the meaning of existance is required, or in some expressions like "that would be great" or combined with other verbs to form the habitual past or conditional forms sometimes.
The verbs are made in plural form by adding (-im) suffix to the main verb stem (after adding the approperiate prefix) and in case that the stem ends with a vowel, just add the (-m) directly then. Maybe the only way to differentiate the gender of the donor of the verb is to put the approperiate pronoun before it. The objective pronoun (me, him, her..etc) made by placing the normal pronoun after the verb. Literally like: I treat him, would be "I treat he" and "he" is separate word and not suffixed to the verb.
Still my view of the grammar might not be so complete, so any suggestions will be welcome! ^_^
Here I will try to give an example for a single verb, and all the verbs must follow this string.

Verb: nuhugQ (to treat) [nahag]
----------
Past(1st): nuhugQtQ (I treated) [nahagt]
Past(2nd): nuhugQtQ (you treated) [nahagt]
Past(3rd): nuhugQ (he/she treated) [nahag]
and plurals (we, you, they treated) are formed with -im suffix at the end.
---------
Present(1st): anQhugQ (I treat) [anhag]
Present(2nd): tinQhugQ (you treat) [tinhag]
Present(3rd): yinQhugQ (he/she treats) [yinhag]
and plurals are formed with -im suffix at the end.
----------
Future(1st): guaunQhugQ (I will treat) [ga anhag]
Future(2nd): gutinQhugQ (you will treat) [ga tinhag]
Future(3rd): guyinQhugQ (he/she will treat) [ga yinhag]
and plurals are formed with -im suffix at the end.
----------
Verbal adjective: munQhwgQ (treated) [manhoog]. Notice how the "ma" and "oo" are inserted in the beginning and before the last letter.
Verbal donor: minQhagQ (treater) [minhág]. Notice how "mi" and "á" are added in the beginning and before the last letter of the root.
----------

All verbs are changed into the negative form just by adding "má" (ma) before the verb. However, there are some verbs that have a stem of 4 letters, and the "shikna" for these verbs is placed on the second letter usually when formulating the usual tenses, like the present or when forming the verbal adjective and donor (after the prefix).

Some verbs end up with "t" sound, and such verbs in the past tense remain the same (no need to add another "T") but the difference is that when it is said, the last "T" gets a Gavva but with a schwa after it, but this schwa is not written. The Gavva effect would be obvious more when it is in plural form and you add the "-im" suffix. Example: "hutut" [hatat] (to give), "hututW" [hatatt] (I gave, you gave), "hututWiM" [hatattim] (we, you (plural) gave). It can be indeed annoying and indifferent, and here comes the rule of adding a pronoun before the verb to make it clear who did the action in the first place!

The verb "to be" has a major rule in forming expressions like "I used to..." or "I would..." or even "I was going to..." so it might be a good idea to show the tenses of the verb "to be."

Verb: XuwuNQ (to be) [khawan]
-----------
Past(1st): XuwunQtQ (I was) [khawant]
Past(2nd): XuwunQtQ (you was) [khawant]
Past(3rd): XuwuNQ (he/she was) [khawan]
and plurals (we, you, they treated) are formed with -im suffix at the end.
----------
Present(1st): auXwNQ (I am) [akhoon]
Present(2nd): tiXwNQ (you are) [tikhoon]
Present(3rd): yiXwNQ (he/she is) [yikhoon]
and plurals (we, you, they treated) are formed with -im suffix at the end.
----------
Future(1st): guauXwNQ (I will be) [ga akhoon]
Future(2nd): gutiXwNQ (you will be) [ga tikhoon]
Future(3rd): guyiXwNQ (he/she will be) [ga yikhoon]
and plurals (we, you, they treated) are formed with -im suffix at the end.
----------
Verbal adjective: muXwNQ (been, existed, created and also a living being) [makhoon]
Verbal donor: miXQwaNQ (creator, maker) [mikhwán]
----------

For expressions like "I used to...," (habitual) the past tense of "to be" is used with the present tense of the verb. Example: "I used to treat" becomes "XuwunQtQ aunQhugQ" (khawant anhag). Of course in case of plurals, all the phrase goes ended with -im suffix.

For expressions like "I would..." (to express the probability and conditionality of a verb), then the past tense of "to be" is used with the future tense of the verb. Example: "I would have treated" and "I would treat" becomes "XuwunQtQ guaunQhugQ" (khawant ga anhag). In case of conditionality is required which mostly would be accompanied with "if ... then" combination, then "yuNQ" (yan) and "DuNQ" (ðan) are used and they mean "if" and "then" respectively. Example: "if I would have treated him, then ...." becomes "yuNQ XuwunQtQ guaunQhugQ hw, DuNQ ... ." (yan khawant ga anhag hoo, ðan...).

For expressions like "I was going to ..." is composed by using the same rule for "I would..."
For expressions like "I was talking" or a phrase that endicates or used to denote binding two events in the past when one event happened WHILE the other was happening, then the past tense of "to be" is used with the present tense of the verb itself. For example: "I was treating" becomes "XuwunQtQ aunQhugQ" (khawant anhag).

Notice, however, not all English expressions can have an equivalent in `Ayváriþ (a fact reflected in reality among all languages). Take for example the clause "would be accompanied." In reality, in Arabic for example, the exact phrase would be something like (literally) "(it) be (or is) accompanying." Maybe the same concept should be applied to `Ayváriþ.

Away from special expressions, the verb "to be" is used also to describe an adverb. In English for example, "alone" is an adjective while "lonely" is an adverb, or let's say it is a word the doubles the effect or gives a sense of continuity. However, in `Ayváriþ there are no adverbs but only adjectives and they are combined with the verb "to be" to tell the situation of a something in the past or future (and rarely present). In this manner, the verb "to be" in `Ayváriþ is almost identical to the rule of "to be" in English. For example: "he is hard" becomes "hw SQda" (hoo shdá) which has NO "to be" verb. However, "he was hard" would be "hw XuwuNQ SQda" (hoo khawan shdá), and "he will be hard" would be "hw guyiXwNQ SQda" (hoo ga yikhoon shdá). Thus, the verb "to be" is almost equivalent to its rule in English and `Ayváriþ.

Still, we might need the passive forms of the verbs. The passive form is used mainly to mark an event done to something, and the donor is unknown. In `Ayváriþ, the passive can be formed in 2 ways: from the verb's stem, or using verbal adjectives. However, the passive form that comes from the stem itself has a wider range of expressions more than using adjectives. Anyway here comes the way to formulate the passive out of our example for the stem (nuhugQ) [to treat] (Notice the change in diacteristics):

Verb: nuhugQ (to treat) [nahag]
----------
Past(1st): nohWgQtQ (I was treated) [nuhhagt]
Past(2nd): nohWgQtQ (you were treated) [nuhhagt]
Past(3rd): nohWgQ (he/she was treated) [nuhhag]
and plurals (we, you, they treated) are formed with -im suffix at the end.
----------
Present(1st): aunohWgQ (I am treated) [anuhhag]
Present(2nd): tinohWgQ (you were treated) [tinuhhag]
Present(3rd): yinohWgQ (he/she was treated) [yinuhhag]
and plurals (we, you, they treated) are formed with -im suffix at the end.
----------
Future(1st): guaunohWgQ (I will be treated) [ga anuhhag]
Future(2nd): gutinohWgQ (you will be treated) [ga tinuhhag]
Future(3rd): guyinohWgQ (he/she will be treated) [ga yinuhhag]
and plurals (we, you, they treated) are formed with -im suffix at the end.
----------

The verbal adjective form for the passive would be a descriptive term and would not give an indication of time. For our example here (combined with "I") that would be: auyQna munQhwgQ [ayná manhoog] which is the present state of me, or let's say the final result of what happened in the past for me (by someone). Thus, it is better to use the passive form out of the verb's stem in case the time is involved.
For more verbs please refer to the verbs' section (and of course you can help me add to it)!

The easiest form of all verbs is the imperative form, but it might not be easy to say! Of course the imperative form must have only 2 forms: single and plural. To form a command from the stem of the verb, simply put a stop (shikna) on the first letter. To form the plural, the (-im) suffix is added as usual. Example:

(you) treat!: nQhugQ [nhag]
(you plural) treat!: nQhugiMQ [nhagim]

However, to make it easier to say, a speaker might add a small "i" before the first letter (or a schwa), but that is not written at all. To make the imperative for a 4-letter verb, then the verb remains the same and only the "fitax" is changed to "xisir" in the letter before the last. Example: "bulQbul" (balbal) becomes "bulQbil" (balbil) [confuse!].
Imperative mode is not only achieved by changing the stem, there is also the imperative that involves the negative or the not-to-do something form. This is achieved simply by adding "má" (ma) before the present tense of the corresponding verb (for "you" as singular or plural of course).

3. Prepositions and Tools:
In this section, some of the prepositions and other words that complete the meaning of the sentence would be reviewed. Prepositions are divided into 2 main strings: prefixed and non-prefixed. Prefixed prepositions are those which attach themselves to the beginning of the word and becomes like a part of it, while the non-prefixed are those which come before the word and do not attach themselves to the beginning of it. Prepositions are important in many ways, and sometimes they can replace a verb (in terms of English) as you will see. The relation between prepositions is not one-to-one between real semitic languages and English, and so it would be with `Ayváriþ. One preposition can have several meanings as you will see. Here are the main prepositions and their possible meanings, and those colored blue are the ones that come attached or prefixed:
 

Notice, however, that "and" is not really a preposition but I've listed it here to mark out that it comes prefixed to the word. As you saw, some prepositions takes the form of some expressions or verbs. These when accompanied with the possession articles or endings at their ends can have different meanings depending on the context itself. Example for the preposition "AeylQ" (?äl) when it means "must" :

I must: auyQna AeylaYQ [ayná ?äláy]
You must: aunutQ Aeyluka [anat ?älaka]
He/She must: hw Aeylw [hoo ?äloo], hwTQ Aeyla [hooþ ?älá]
We must: nuxoNQ AeylayoNQ [naxun ?äláyun]
You (plural) must: aunutiMQ AeylukoNQ [anatim ?älakun]
They (m) must: hiMQ AeyliMQ [him ?älim]
They (f) must: hiNQ AeyliNQ [hin ?älin]

and of course, "must" is equivalent to "have to" as well. Prepositions that attach themselves to the beginning of the word might as well attach themselves before the pronoun, but in that case we use the possession articles (-áy, aka, -oo, -á, ...etc) except of "and" which is attached before the pronoun itself, like: viauyQna [vi ayná] (and me), viaunutQ [vi anat] (and you)..etc.

Coming to ownership and possessions, 'Ayváriþ has no such a verb as "to have" (do you remember your irish gaelic lessons?). The ownership is accomplished by adding possession articles or endings to the preposition "li" and thus the meaning would be "for..." Sometimes, just to emphasize the meaning, the corresponding pronoun is added before this combination. I will give a brief list here without writing the 'Ayváriþ text, it's up to you to write it down yourself! (notice, however, how the "i" is dropped in the addition process).

I have: láy (emph. ayná láy)
you have: laká (emph. anat laka)
he has/ she has: loo/lá (emph. hoo loo/hooþ lá)
we have: láyun (emph. naxun láyun)
you (plural) have: lakun (emph. anatim lakun)
they (m) have: lim (emph. him lim)
they (f) have: lin (emph. hin lin)

of course, the emphatic form shouldn't get mixed with forms like saying in English "you have me" for example, which would be in `Ayváriþ "ayná laka." This is not an emphatic clause but just a normal one.

Further more, there are some other important tools, namely "interrogation articles" to ask questions. The question is made by making a normal sentence in whatever tense, and putting the article in the beginning of the word. Literally that would be something like: "you go home," so when I want to ask about the time by which you go home I would say literally: "when you go home?." One interrogation article that is not available in English but available in semitic languages (and so `Ayváriþ as well) is the type of questions that might be answered with yes or no. In English there is no special article for such question, but just saying something like "is ...?" or "does ...?" or even "did...?." For such question, you formulate the sentence normally and put this corresponding article in the beginning. The articles are:
 

Just an example to elaborate the usage of such articles (and note that not all articles do indeed require a full sentence!):
muyQnw hw? (maynoo hoo?): who is he?
muzQ SQlymuka? (maz shleemaká): how are you? [notice here I didn't use "how" but "what." "Shleem" means "peace"]
muzQ muRuka? (maz maghaká?): what's wrong with you?
mutQ hwT auludQ? (mat hooþ alad?): when did she give birth (deliver)?

There are some articles of those that can be used as well in conjugating phrases (as it is with English) or used as words by themselves. However, there are special words for conjugating and mainly they are of two types: masculine and faminine, and can be either singular or plural. These words are used between clauses or phrases to complete the meaning or to give an explanation. The closest example in English is "that," "who," and "which." Here, as mentioned before, we are bounded by the gender and conditions of the word we are trying to explain, so the main conjugators are:
 

Example:
the man who spoke: aeauduM yi qumur (E adam yi qamar)
the woman who spoke:  aeaudumiT hu qumur (E adamiþ ha qamar)
the men who spoke: aeaudumwN ywN qumuriM (E adamoon yoon qamarim)
the women who spoke: aeaudumat hat qumuriM (E adamát hát qamarim)

For more expressions and phrases please refer to the expressions section, and help me build it as well!! ^_^
----------
This is all what I can say for now in the grammar section, so please if I did miss something here or some expressions that need to be listed, feel free to email me at: lonelytj@hotmail.com

Verb Exaggeration:

Verb exaggeration is mainly used to double the effect of the verb to the receiver. You can call it emphasizing the action but it also adds some strength to the verb specially when it is connected to actions ot beating or hard-working stuff.
Working out of the way to use such thing, in fact in my native language (Arabic), verbs with exaggeration form or just a tiny vowel change can change the whole meaning of the sentence or the verb itself and moreover they are considered verbs of their own and got all the tenses available. But here, I decided to make the exaggeration form applicable only to the normal tenses, no passive form, no imperative form.

All the rules used to make the past, present and future tenses are applicable here in the same way, the only change occurs within the verb:
1. 3-letter verb: for such verbs, the middle letter is doubled. Example: "he wrote" (hw gudub) [hoo gadab], with exaggeration form becomes: "he wrote severaly, so much, with all his power..etc" (hw gudWb) [hoo gaddab].

2. 4-letter verb: for such verbs, the second letter gets a "fitax" and the third gets "gavva" or doubled. Example: "I diffuse" (auyQna aubulQbul) [Ayná abalbal], becomes with exaggeration form: "I diffused extremely, severely..etc" (auyQna aubulubWl) [Ayná abalabbal].

In #2, don't mix the beginning of the verb with "a" with the stem of the verb itself. This "a" is just a prefix for present verb 1st person.
Sometimes the exaggeration form can be used as a sign of repetition of the action. For example, the verb "ruxuN" [raxan] meaning "to have mercy (on)," with exaggeration can be "ruxWN" [raxxan] meaning "to have mercy more than one time" but however the general meaning of the exaggeration remains the same, which is that "to have mercy severely..etc."

Nouns Plural Exaggeration:

This form of exaggeration is mainly made to show respect for something, or to show how dear and valuable is this thing. This form of exaggeration is easily done by adding the plural suffix twice, but once with the appropriate suffix, then followed by the opposite suffix for the opposite gender. Examples follow:

1. Masculine noun: "man" (auduM) [adam]. Plural: "men" (audumwN) [adamoon]. "great men, dear men..etc" (audumwnat) [adamoonát]. Notice how the word (adam) was first set to plural in the usual way, then followed by the faminine plural suffix.

2. Faminine noun: "woman" (audumiT) [adamiþ]. Plural "women" (audumat) [adamát]. "great women, dear women..etc" (audumátwN) [adamátoon]. Notice how the plural first is done by adding the usual "-át" ending then followed by the masculine plural form suffix "-oon."

Of course, adjectives can be used as usual. This is just a form I thought of to make something new out of this conlang. As for a single noun, there is no exaggeration form except by showing that with the help of adjectives of course!

Plurals for words ending with "-ee" [-Y] and "-eeþá" [-yTa]:

Plurals in general are fixed for masculine and faminine words. But at some instances it is required to change some vowels to make it easy to say the word after changing the form into the plural. Usually, the vowel at the end of the word like "-a" (-a) is removed, and if it ends with "-oo" (-w), then the suffix is added without its preceeding vowel. But here we have a word that ends with "-ee" (-Y) and "eeþá" (-yTa) and that required a bit of change in the vowels before the suffix. Why? This is to make the plurals as they are in the form of "-oon" for masculine nouns and "-át" for faminine nouns (and the rule extends to adjectives as well).
For example: The word for "jew" or "jewish" is "Yahoodee" (yuhwdY). Now to make the plural (jews) we are supposed to add "-oon" and applying the rule that would be something like "Yahoodeeoon" which is almost unpredictable in terms of its pronunciation!
Thus, to make it elaborate in typing as well as in saying, we need to deal with the "-ee" end.
For the reasons above, the plural for a word that end up with "-ee" is formed in the following way:
1. put a "xisir" on the letter before the end.
2. put a "gavva" on the "y" or the end vowel.
3. add "-oon"
So the plural of "jews" this time is "Yahoodiyyoon" (yuhwdiyWwN). Notice the "i" and the "yy," where the first is for the "xisir" and the second for the "gavva."

In the same manner and rules, the faminine plurals for words that end up with "-eeþá" are made. For example to say "jewish(girls)" [singular: Yahoodeeþá (yuhwdyTa)], the plural should not be "Yahoodeeát" but "Yahoodiyyát" (yuhwdiyWat).

Affirmative Mode:

Affirmative mode is a mode of speech that gives the sense of emphasis. It can be equal to "of course" or "surely" or "verily" although the single expression for these previous words are different, but the meaning is unique after all. To establish a sentence in the affirmative mode, only one article is to be added at the beginning of the sentence and the whole sentence turns from a regular one into an affirmative one. The article is (ainuN) [Inan]. This article comes only before a noun, and never a verb. For example, "he is here" [hw hwN] (hoo hoon), and to turn into the affirmative mode, i.e. "yes, he is here" or "for sure here is here" ..etc, the sentence becomes [ainuN hw hwN] (Inan hoo hoon). The article "Inan" always come at the beginning of the sentence, and never followed by a verb. The gender of the noun is not important since the article does not change according to gender (just like the definite article "E"). ainuN hwT SuGiT GuzwziT (Inan hooþ shaghiþ ghazooziþ), it is indeed a weird language!