Sintach e fonno chleweye
(Chleweyish Syntax)

The idea under Chleweyish is reduce the grammar to its minimum expression but still make it understandable. The approach to do it so is writing and then analyze the rules, instead of creating the rules a-priori. The syntax is originally based on Colombian Signed Language (LSC) as used by Deaf. Main order is Noun-Predicate. Rules are very flexible in many cases and most of the ambiguity is semantically resolved. I haven't probably succeed in making an easy grammar but experimentation is in progress.

1. Basic word order: Context-Noun-Predicate sentences
2. Multiple argument predicates: Noun-Noun-Predicate sentences
3. Complex sentences: Use of connectors to precise meanings
4. Complex sentences: Use of free pronouns
5. Complex sentences: Adverbs, modals and serial verbs

The basic order in chleweyish is:
    (context) - noun - predicate,
where predicate is what in English would be either a verb or an adjective.

The context is the time and place the action takes place and can be given by a previous sentence or a time or place adverb.

The noun is actually the subject and could be either a noun or a pronoun.

Many situations need more than one argument (subject), there are several ways to show this.
  o Set all noun arguments before or before and after the predicate.
  o Set the core argument before the predicate and all other arguments as circumlocutions, usually with question connectors.

Chleweyish is mainly an SV language, and when multiple noun-arguments are used could be either SOV, OSV, SSV or SVO. SVO is rarely used, except for direction pronouns attached to the predicate. The SOV, SSV, OSV ambiguity is usually resolved semantically:

could mean:
  The cat kills the mouse (SOV),
  The mouse kills the cat (OSV),
  The cat and the mouse kill (SSV), or
  The cat and the mouse kill each other (SSV).
Semantically the correct one would be the first (cats use to kill mice).

Some predicates define the correct interpretation of their two or more arguments.

One argument predicates like hami (lost/to be lost), has not transitive meaning, therefore two arguments will both be subjects:

Means: both the cat and the mouse are lost.

Some predicates, like groni (to teach), are directionable, it means that one argument, usually the equivalent to the dative or indirect object in English, is given after the verb, usally with an attached pronoun.

Translates as The mouse teach the cat (something). (See use of free pronouns to explain this example better)

Lets look at a dialog:
 A: wambo robito drupe. (cat mouse killed)
 B: drupe quo? (who killed)
 A: wambo. (the cat)
as it can be noticed the quo word ask for the subject (agent) of the action.

In the previous example A: could have avoided the question saying:
 A: wambo robito drupe, quo? wambo.

This give a way of avoiding confusion or ambiguity: express the action and then give the arguments connected by questions. A more natural way of telling would ahve been:
 A: wambo drupe, ca? robito. (cat killed, what? mouse)
or
 A: robito can? wambo drupe. (mouse what? cat killed)
or
 A: robito dumpe, quo? wambo. (mouse was-killed, by-who? cat)

Punctuation is usually dropped:
 A: wambo drupe ca robito.
 A: robito can wambo drupe.
 A: robito dumpe quo wambo.