While Kha'rlari grammar is not overly complex, and is surprisingly consistent, it is quite different from most grammars, and thus, takes a little bit of getting used to. The grammar also reflects the nature of thinking, which makes it more difficult for other races to work out, especially with more complex sentences in which it is often necessary to remember several separate 'blocks' of the sentence and figure out which part is talking about what afterwards. However, for those familiar with reverse polish notation in computer science, much of the grammar is incredibly similar in how it works.

Basic Kha'rlari sentences are constructed in SOV order, with the subject first, the object second, and the verb third. So, instead of saying 'I found catnip', I would say 'I catnip found'.

However, each part of the sentence (the subject, object, or verb) can be composed of a sentence within itself. For instance, ignoring all other aspects of grammar for clarity, 'Snagrat is a cat caught a mouse' would be syntactically correct. "Snagrat is a cat" would be the subject, "caught" would be the verb, and "a mouse" would be the object. When interpreting this, the sentence would be "Snagrat, who is a cat, caught a mouse."

Having the object be a sentence in itself has a similar effect. What is confusing is when the verb is a sentence. Because any word can be a noun, verb, adjective, or adverb, if the verb is a sentence, then the actual verb is considered to be the subject of the verb sub-sentence. For instance, 'Snagrat caught is described by quickly a mouse' where "Snagrat" is the subject, "caught is described by quickly" is the verb, and "a mouse" is the object. In this case, it simply means that Snagrat quickly caught the mouse. While this seems awkward, it isn't so clunky in the Kha'rlarli language.

Similarly, adjectives can also be sentences in themselves. Because the language is arranged in such a way that the begining and end of each sentence chunk is very clearly defined, this allows for a huge array of descriptors in one sentence where every descriptor very clearly describes only one thing.

The method of clarity is where the similarities to reverse polish notation come in. Each sentence fragment is in the same order of having something that is operating something (the subject), something that is being operated on (the object), and the operation itself (the verb). So, 'Snagrat(s) mouse(o) caught (v)' would be the most basic sentence part possible. However, we can easily expand on this. For instance, let's say we want to say the following:

1. Snagrat caught a mouse.
2. Snagrat is a cat.
3. The kind of cat Snagrat is, is a tabby.
4. The kind of tabby Snagrat is, is an orange tabby.
5. The way Snagrat caught the mouse was quick and effective.
6. The mouse is gray, fat, and slow.

Attempting to fit all this in one sentence in English would be rather awkward without confusing someone. However, it can be easily done in Kha'rlari, although to a non-Kha'rlar, it might be somewhat hard to correctly work out the sentence structure.

First, we want to say that Snagrat caught a mouse. Simple:
(Snagrat)₁ (mouse)₂ (caught)₃.
where the parentheses and numbers are added for grouping and labelling the subject (1), object (2), and verb (3). This will be needed later for clairity.

Now, we want to say that Snagrat is a cat. This can be done by making the subject a sentence in itself. So, we have:
( (Snagrat)_1.1 (cat)_1.2 (is)_1.3 )₁ (mouse)₂ (caught)₃.

To say that the kind of cat Snagrat is, is a tabby, we need to make the subject of sentence 1 (1.1) a sentence in itself, so:
( (Snagrat)_1.1 ( (cat)_1.1.1 (tabby)_1.1.2 (is)_1.1.3 )_1.2 (is)_1.3 )₁ (mouse)₂ (caught)₃.

Next, we need to say that he's an orange tabby, so we turn "tabby" (1.1.2) into its own sentence:
( (Snagrat)_1.1 ( (cat)_1.1.1 ( (tabby)_1.1.1.1 (orange)_1.1.1.2 (is)_1.1.1.3 )_1.1.2 (is)_1.1.3 )_1.2 (is)_1.3 )₁ (mouse)₂ (caught)₃.

Next to say that Snagrat caught the mouse quickly, we would say:
( (Snagrat)_1.1 ( (cat)_1.1.1 ( (tabby)_1.1.1.1 (orange)_1.1.1.2 (is)_1.1.1.3 )_1.1.2 (is)_1.1.3 )_1.2 (is)_1.3 )₁ (mouse)₂ ( (caught)_2.1 (quickly)_2.2 (is described by)_2.3 )₃.

To say that it was quickly and effectively, we have to make "quickly" (2.2) a sentence:
( (Snagrat)_1.1 ( (cat)_1.1.1 ( (tabby)_1.1.1.1 (orange)_1.1.1.2 (is)_1.1.1.3 )_1.1.2 (is)_1.1.3 )_1.2 (is)_1.3 )₁ (mouse)₂ ( (caught)_2.1 ( (quickly)_2.1.1 (effectively)_2.1.2 (and)_2.1.3 )_2.2 (is described by)_2.3 )₃.

Similarly, to say the mouse is fat, gray, and slow, we need to modify "mouse" (2) to say it is fat.
( (Snagrat)_1.1 ( (cat)_1.1.1 ( (tabby)_1.1.1.1 (orange)_1.1.1.2 (is)_1.1.1.3 )_1.1.2 (is)_1.1.3 )_1.2 (is)_1.3 )₁ ( (mouse)_2.1 ( ( (fat)_2.1.1.1 (gray)_2.1.1.2 (and)_2.1.1.3 )_2.1.1 (slow)_2.1.2 (and)_2.1.3 )_2.2 (is)_2.3 )₂ ( (caught)_2.1 ( (quickly)_2.1.1 (effectively)_2.1.2 (and)_2.1.3 )_2.2 (is described by)_2.3 )₃.

So, in the end, we get:
Snagrat cat tabby orange is is is mouse fat gray and slow and is caught quickly effectively and [is described by].

Of course, no sane Kha'rlar would normally use sentences like this as, while Kha'rlar would probably be able to understand it alright, it would still be a little awkward.

However, note that the descriptors are completely non-ambiguous. For instance, take the phrase, 'Purple monkey dishwasher' using Kha'rlari syntax under the following meanings:

• A purple monkey who washes dishes - Monkey purple is dish wash
• A purple washer of monkey dishes - Washer purple is dishes monkey [is described by] wash
• A washer of monkey dishes that are purple - Washer dishes monkey [is described by] purple is wash
• A washer of dishes of purple monkeys - Washer dishes monkey purple is [is described by] wash

A basic subject object verb sentence, however, can be expanded upon on the outer level only (not when a sentence is used as a subject). For instance, if you are talking to someone, you can say their name (or a sentence in place of their name slot), and then say the sentence. This is similar to saying, 'Snagrat, go catch a mouse.' An 'addressing' phrase may be put at the beginning or end of a sentence with no change in meaning, although the beginning is preferred when you want to get someone's attention. This way, you avoid the situations where the other person isn't paying attention until you say their name, and by then, you have to repeat the entire sentence anyway.

A block can also be inserted describing the time that is being talked about. This is typically put in the front of the sentence except for certain situations of emphasis (described in more detail later).

As mentioned earlier, any word can be a noun, verb, adjective, or adverb in Kha'rlari. This may seem very confusing at first, but isn't so bad once you understand the idea. In fact, this very phenomenon is not unknown in English (for instance, input was originally only a noun, but computer people started verbing the word. Now, everyone knows what it is meant when one inputs data.

In Kha'rlari, this is extended. When a word is verbed from a noun, it usually means to do whatever that noun generally does or is used for. For instance, we do this with the noun 'skateboarding'. Using a skateboard is called 'skateboarding'. If the word is normally an adjective or adverb, it generally means to make something that adjective. For instance, 'redding' would be to make something red.

If the word is nouned, and was originally a verb, then it is simply the act of doing that verb, or an instance of an act of doing it.

Making words adjectives or adverbs from nouns simply mean that it is like that noun. Adjectives from verbs mean that the thing tends to do the verb a lot. For instance, it is like turning 'jump' into 'jumpy'.

For self-evident reasons, though, some words are rarely used as anything but one type of word, even if it's syntactically correct to do otherwise. For instance, 'and'. While 'anding' something is possible, or having something that's 'and-y', actually using the word as such is rare since semantically, it usually makes little sense.

Obviously, though, if you are using something for something besides its intended purpose, you can't verb the noun with clarity. For instance, using a boat to bash someone over the head would not be described as 'boating'. Boating is when you sail on a boat, not hit someone over the head with one.

Adjectives and adverbs, while explained above, should be expanded upon due to their tricky nature in the Kha'rlari language. Syntactically, To use adjectives or adverbs, one simply modifies the part of the sentence (subject, object, or verb) by making that part a sentence in itself. So, if our sentence is, 'I Sam am', then to say that Sam is green, structurally, it is, 'I Sam green is am'. However, in Kha'rlari, there are actually many words for 'is', 'of', and other words that describe the relationship between two words. This aspect is perhaps the most confusing for a non-Kha'rlari speaker because the relationship between subject and object in Kha'rlari is often both precise, subtle, and occasionally seemingly arbitrary.

For instance, consider the word 'is'. da is probably the closest translation to the word. However, da is only used to say something it a literal equality or equivalency. If you said 'I am hungry' using this word, you would probably get a lot of blank stares because you are actually saying you are the very embodiment of hunger in physical form. If you said, 'He's a pig' using this word, you would be saying that that person literally is all that pigs are in all of pigdom, not just that he is like a pig or even an individual of the pig race.

The words for 'of' are probably even more confusing. For instance, 'doggy biscuit' connected with any of the 'of' words could, among other things, mean that a dog made the buscuit, the buscuit is part of a doggy group, the buscuit is classified under dogs, the buscuit is made of dogs, the buscuit belongs to a dog, the buscuit is carrying or containing dogs (but not made of them), the buscuit has a dog attatched to it, or the buscuit is intended for dogs, depending on which form of 'of' you use. Obviously, using the wrong form can lead to very strange (and often amusing) confusions.

It is advisable to keep this aspect in mind and not simply translate words directly from English to Kha'rlar when trying to speak it. Details on individual words, such as da will be added in time in the dictionary (when that is added, of course).

The ability to make a verb apply the opposite direction is important due to the syntactic makeup of Kha'rlari. For instance, if we want to say, 'Bob bought a painting created by Picasso', it would be structured as, 'Bob painting Picasso [created by] bought'. Because Picasso created the painting, and not the painting Picasso, we use 'by' in English to clarify this. In Kha'rlari, A is appended to the end of the word, except if the word already ends with that letter, in which E^A is appended.

It is also important to note that some words naturally are reversed in their natural form in Kha'rlari. For instance, te has the simplified translation of 'is described by'. Note that teA, the reversed form would be translated as 'described'. This is, of course, backwards as far as English speakers are concerned, and while most words do not do this, a few do and seem perfectly natural to .

To make a word plural, a a is added to the end. Because doubled letters are not allowed, if the word already ends with a a then a n is added to the end instead. The n does not replace the a.

There are no tenses in the Kha'rlari language. In order to describe something in a different time period, you simply append the time period before the main body of the sentence. For instance, instead of 'I went to the story yesterday', you would say 'Yesterday, I go to the store.' If you want to simply say, 'I went to the store,' you would say, 'Before, I go to the store.'

It is, however, important to note that the time modifier you can put in front of a sentence makes a big impact on the meaning. For instance, to say that gravity pulls things downwards, you should append 'always' in front to say that you mean it is a universal law (unless you mean that gravity is pulling something downwards in this specific instance). There are many words that apply to specific instances (such as something that is in the process of occuring, something that has occured, but no longer is, something that will occur, something that always occurs, etc). These should be used to change the scope as well as tense of a sentence. Specifics on words appear under respective words in the dictionary (once the dictionary is there).

Questions are arranged differently from in English. In general, you simply replace the word you want to know about with 'what'. For instance, instead of asking 'What did you eat?', you would say 'You eat what?'. Instead of 'You did what to the room?!", it would be 'You what the room?!'

In the case of yes/no or 'which' questions involving short lists of options, the typical reverse polish notation-like grammar is broken. In place of the part you are uncertain of, you list all possibilities, and then follow it with a 'what'. For instance, instead of 'Do you want to go to the store?', you would say 'You want or not want what to go to the store?' In this usage of 'what', it always describes the block of things connected by connectives like 'and' or 'or'.

So, if you mean to say, 'Which colour do you want: the red, blue, or green?', you would instead say 'You want red or blue or green what?'

However, because people are often lazy with yes or no questions, they may simply append the sentence with 'yes no', similar to with Chinese. For instance, instead of 'Do you want to go to the store?' it would simply be 'You want to go to the store, yes no?' This is technically gramatically incorrect, but it is still commonly used. Sometimes, the 'yes no' part is shortened further to simply 'no' with a slight rise in the voice at the end. This is similar to the common adding of 'non?' in French for yes/no questions. This, however, is only used in speach as without the change in tone, adding 'no' will actually negate whatever word was before it rather than asking a question.

Connectives for Kha'rlari include 'and', 'or', and 'xor' (exclusive or). For those unfamiliar with 'xor', it means that something is either this or that, and not both, while 'or' means that it can be both. The Kha'rlari use connectives strictly and quite literally, so this should be paid attention to because in English, connectives can be used loosely or in different ways.

The use of xor in Kha'rlari is important. For instance, asking a Kha'rlar if they want a green or blue car, they would perfectly reasonably answer "Both" since you just offered either a green car, a red car, or both a green car and red car. In a hostage situation, saying, 'Drop your weapons or I kill her' would likely result in lots of deaths because that would mean that you are saying that if they drop their weapons, you may or may not kill her anyway, which really gives no motivation for them to drop their weapons. You might succeed in confusing them, though, which might buy you time to escape with your hostage.

Also, a sentence such as "Let me try and I'll do it," would be at best, confusing to a Kha'rlar, and at worse, offensive. This is because while it means in English that if you let me, I will do it, if it is interpreted literally, like it would be in Kha'rlari, it means that you are requesting that someone let you try, and that regardless of if they'll let you try, you'll do it.

Commands in English are shown by dropping the 'you' and saying the sentence. For instance, '(You) Get the paper.' In Kha'rlari, it is done in a way that is often used by annoyed parents in English. If I were going to tell someone to get the paper, instead of 'Get the paper', I would say, 'You're getting the paper.' There can, of course, potentially be confusion in some situations. Usually, if you are clearly not doing something, it's obvious it's a command instead of a statement. However, 'You're doing the laundry' may be confusing if you can't remember if you're already doing the laundry. If there is a wish to clairify specifically, then a time indicator may be added to the end of the sentence. For instance, 'You're doing the laundry, now' would mean that it is a command, while the standard 'Now you are doing the laundry," simply is an informative statement that says you are currently doing the laundry.

Predictably, it is not uncommon for someone being rebellious to reply to, 'You are mowing the lawn' with 'No I'm not.' This, of course is usually answered with 'Yes, you are," followed by some sort of glare or threat.

• Poetry and songs are infamously confusing as syntactic structure tends to go out the window in favour of presentation and rhyme and rhythm. As a result, even often have trouble understanding it. Speaking this way in common speach, however would be about as weird as someone walking up to you and suddenly speaking in Shakespearian.

• If no time is specified, it is assumed you are talking about the present in a sentence.
• It is expected that you talk in 3rd person. This is because the word for 'I' is only used when you don't know your own name, or in a very generic sense when you don't know who 'I' will be in a given situation, which is rare. 'I' can, however, be used if you wish to remain anonymous. 'You' is similarly only used in a generic sense, and never when you are talking to a person you know the name or title for (in which you would speak in 3rd person as usual). Also note that if 'you' is used for multiple people, it should be made plural.
• If... then... statements, such as 'If you build it, [then] they will come', are structured as 'if [sentence] then [sentence].'
• If a sentence does not have an object, like the sentence 'I jump', then the object segement is replaced with the ' punctuation mark in writing or a short pause when spoken.

Due to the syntax of the language, sometimes you end up with a big string of verbs at the end of a sentence or phrase. Sometimes, these verbs are all the same as well, which results in a sentence that sounds incredibly stupid when you say it, and looks stupid when written.

Because of this, it is common in writing to simply append the last letter of a word to the end as many times as needed to represent the word being used that many times. For instance, because te te te is awkward, teee is used instead. Because doubled letters do not normally exist in the language, this can never result in confusing one word with another.

When spoken, some words have alternative pronounciations that can be alternated with the normal pronunciation when spoken. In these instances, the words are usually spoken in a more rapid succession than normal. This makes it much easier to say the same word over and over and makes it sound less awkward. For instance, te te te can be spoken like te ta te instead.

The rules of when this can be used are not very formal as this is not part of the official language. Often, general usage of this shortcut is made up on the fly, although seemingly arbitrarily, certain instances are considered awkward to use while others are not. In general, though, this alternation is used with short one-syllable words, and the sound alternation usually goes between the normal sound and a a ending. For words that already end with a, a e ending is often used. Unfortunately, this may sometimes result in another word with a different meaning being used as the alternative pronunciation. This is even more confusing when they intended it to mean the other word and not a repeat of the first. When things may be too confusing, Kha'rlar generally switch to the formal method, which is repeating the word over and over in its normal form.

If there is a long word, repeating it also can be a major pain. As a result, there are two accepted shortcuts. The first is to simply repeat the last syllable, slightly slurring each with the previous syllable. This, however, can sometimes be confusing if the last syllable may mean something else (as it often does) that still makes sense, which renders the sentence ambiguous. A second method is to repeat the sound e over and over, which is usually the preferred method.

This only applies to spoken Kha'rlari. In sentences where there is no object, it is standard to pause briefly to indicate the space. However, this only works reliably if speakers don't randomly pause very often. Since it is not unusual to have to pause to find a certain word, to think, or to try to make something more dramatic, to avoid confusing people, the word O is commonly used. It is a completely meaningless word that does nothing except replace the object in a sentence when there is no object.

This convention is very commonly used and has virtually become an official part of the Kha'rlari language.

Negating a word with the word na is extremely common. While technically, it should be the object of a sub-sentence with te as the verb (for instance, da na te would mean 'not equal'), it is common to skip the te (and, for instance, simply say da na instead of da na te). This is only used when a single word is being negated, and it is expected that you are negating the word immediately preceeding the na.