More Questions for a Conlang Grammar

• Word order operations
• Can emphasized words in subclauses be fronted to the onset of the main clause?
• If so, does this cause any weird effects?
• In many languages, the subjunctions cannot remain if the subject is removed from initial position in the subclause:
• I know that she can sing -> She I know can sing. (but in other languages, "she I know that can sing" is permissible.)
•  Restrictions on placement of elements within a clause
• General restrictions on what can go where
• More complicated rules may require some kind of formal language(!) to express them.
  
• V2
• Exceptions (e.g. Swedish permits a handful of adverbs to go between the subject and verb!)
• Anti-V2
• I.e. restricting some element from standing in a certain position altogether?
• V-2
• I.e. the verb goes second-to-last?
•  Specific restrictions on some lexical elements - e.g. an adverb that just can't go right after the subject, or maybe a verb which does not permit for the object to be fronted.
  
• Discontinuous phrases
• Wackernagel position words and clitics

The Wackernagel position is the second slot in a phrase. In some languages, some elements go there, e.g. the (indirect) question particle 'li' in Russian and a bunch of words in Latin, such as -ne).

• How are questions formed?
• Can you coordinate polar questions with other questions in the manner of this question form the previous list of questions: "How would you, or would you even, distinguish different spans depending on whether the end- and starting-points are included or not, whether they are both in the past, both in the future, starting-point in the past, or either one happens to be the present?"
• Can you have multiple question words?
• Can you coordinate polar questions at all?
• Do direct questions and indirect questions correlate formally?
• Do questions and conditionals correlate? Reuse of particles? Reuse of word order operations? Reuse of verb forms?
• Can interrogative pronouns reside in subclauses or do they have to be extracted to the main clause (and maybe even its onset)?
  
• Do interrogative pronouns correlate with some other kind of pronouns (indefinite ones, relative ones, other ones?)
• Wh-in-situ or wh-fronting?
• Double wh-fronting? (I.e. if there's multiple question words), single wh-fronting (i.e. only one is fronted even if there are more), no wh-fronting?
• Is there other mandatory fronting or dislocation, e.g. with imperatives?
  
•  How do reflexives refer?
• Back to the subject?
• Back to 'a hierarchically superior noun phrase'?
• Constructions where no single element carries the conveyed meaning
• E.g. in Finnish, one way of expressing "X must VERB" is "X.gen is VERB.passive_present_participle", where none of the elements by themselves contain any obligation (although the passive present participle can be used as an adjective to express 'a thing that has to be verbed', but also 'a thing that can be verbed' or even 'that will be verbed' or several different moods).
• How is ownership and other types of association between nouns expressed
• adnominally
• genitives vs. adpositional expressions vs. apposition 
• "coat of the man"
• "man's coat"
• "man his coat"
• possessive suffixes
• inalienable possession?
• workarounds for when general cases of such things are spoken of (i.e. just any old knee, not necessarily mine or yours)
  
• is reflexive possessivity distinguished from non-reflexive such
• i.e. "the man saw them steal HIS car" when HIS is the man's vs. when it's someone else's.
• In e.g. Old German, sein was reflexive AND third person masculine at the same time, so "The Königin saw them steal sein car" was ambiguous between the königin's car and some relevant man's car, whereas "The König saw them steal sein car" could be ambiguous between the könig's and some other relevant man's car. "ihr car", however, would always be the car of a female third person who was not the subject of the same clause.
  
• predicatively?
• A dedicated "have"-verb?
• By X is ...?
• X is with ...?
• Other?
• ... is X's.
• Distinguishing types of ownership and association
• To what extent is sex distinguished in the language
• names?
• pronouns?
• titles?
• e.g. in Finnish, despite having no separate pronouns for masculine vs. feminine, names tend to be gender-segregated, and older titles also.
• Valency of adjectives
• It is not unusual for adjectives to have somewhat ambiguous valency, e.g. "kär" in Swedish can mean both 'beloved' and 'in love with'. Does the adjective mark different roles differently in some contexts?
• Statements about 'general' noun things
• English is wild on this, making a general statement about the properties of a species may use singular or plural; in the singular, the definite seems more common ("the giraffe has a tall neck"), in the plural the indefinite. However, a language could well restrict this only to one number - or even one number/definiteness combination, or have them be lexically determined (or even lexically statistically determined, i.e. each lexeme or class of lexemes basically has a probability table for each type).
  
• Symmetry of marking systems
• Does negated verb phrases mark all the information that non-negated ones do?
• Do plural and singular nouns have the same cases available?
• this might differ for different nouns as well
   
• Do different tenses distinguish the same information?
• e.g. in Russian, past tense doesn't distinguish person, but does distinguish gender
• Do adjectives lose some distinctions in some forms?
• e.g. in Swedish, comparatives and superlatives have a less complex gender x definiteness marking; and adjectives with definite nouns do not convey as much gender information as indefinite ones.
• Is e.g. definiteness conflated for possessed nouns?
• In English and Swedish, this is true to some extent, although indefinite possessed nouns can be conveyed by circumlocution: "one of the man's coats".
• Is definiteness conflated after cardinal numerals? After ordinals?