Brivla are content words, i.e., categorematic. When acting as selbri they are roughly comparable to verbs (or adjectives (or even nouns), if the selbri's arity is one), and when acting as sumti (e.g., due to being prefixed with le) they are comparable to nouns. If a brivla modifies another one (thereby forming a tanru), the modifying brivla would be comparable to an adverb or adjective (), depending on whether the modified brivla is acting as selbri or sumti, respectively. // Footnote: () - the modifying brivla could instead be comparable, in some cases, to the modified brivla's predicate.

The natural sciences were only able to ontologise their statements traditionally because the object of their research – nature – normally did not contradict this.

Diarmid sang in a language Camrose didn't know, with a lot of liquid sounds mixed up with exhalings from deep in the throat.

What I like is a certain ambiguity in a story, but I've come to understand over the years that that drives most people absolutely batcrap!