Grammar as more and less to Language - Logoori case

The native Logoori aims to write as near as possible to the word of mouth. That way, one argues, is giving the language its face in letters. Otherwise would be adulteration, a mess, a doubt whether the writer is even knowledged in the art of Logoori. 

Where the native learnt the language unconsciously, Logooli's complexity simplified by rote learning, there was the underlinings which even the parental tutor was not aware of. With this what could form or deform did, what was never spoken never known, where the community's philosophy didn't stretch past, it remained dark. 

Yet it is the language itself informing us both ways. That it is malleable. For within it is a structure, shown by trends and can work in applied tests. This increases the depth of language understanding beyond mere word of mouth. And again it can breach that, by word of mouth, making complexities simple in various ways. Here the native is advantaged by art, can outsmart any secondary language learner. This second learner would benefit best if taught the language alongside grammar rules.

In teaching and progress however we have to go by certain rules. How the native speaks and understands the language is the bar but not the foundation - the underlying structure is. To what extent this agrees or disagrees with the native is the work of phonetic linguistical branch. For morphology does maintain understanding, the essence of communication. Patience calls us, at the initial stage, to study carefully the deviations and similarities to know the language better. It is such science approach that births increased understanding about and of a people's resource - the language of Varogoori.

Even expanding on cultural limitations, the environment through which the language evolved. By writing, creative as it can be, logical or illogical, within the said rules, Lurogoori's grammar would be unfaulted even if its cultural interpretation is faulty. See the example sentense below:

Nasema muguuku [N.a.sem.a   mu.guuk.u] - I abused grandmother

The sentence follows the Subject+Verb+object grammar rules. Where nouns are represented by pronouns, the pronoun is attached to the verb, with immediate tense coming second, followed by a root verb and a second final tense. For the full noun, in the sentense an object, there is need for noun class denotion, which speech would have dropped, [mu]guuku. 

The above conflicts with cultural view of the language, that would be pronounced /ndaasema guuku/ and written, Nasema muguuku. The orthography aside, how can a subject be able to confess to having abused own grandmother? That is unacceptable and unexpected. Similar to whatever cultural understandings that would wish to be propagated in grammar. They would not stand as grammar has no manners but rules. Like the lady of justice, grammar takes what it can only take and suffers the same as would the native (cultural understanding of language. 

It is not to say that the native's functioning grammar is amiss in its vivid description. It is to highlight its incidental nature, considering psychomotor as opposed to cognitive language harnessing, enabling a scientific pattern that can judge correctness by any capacitated user, not just a reserve of the native. Bringing light to the undiscovered zones in the language.

....

original image from study.com

 Learn Lurogoori on YouTube