But midve isn't for example. Or onadva, which would be unclear if you just used ona instead.
I haven't posted in this thread yet but I agree with the people who told you that you don't use it so you don't really know it. You remind me of anglos complaining of gendered nouns and how pointless it is to have them, when it actually makes communication more precise and concise.
>how pointless it is to have them
It mostly is though
>You remind me of anglos complaining of gendered nouns and how pointless it is to have them.
This. I am aleo annoyed by how analytic grammar is often presented as inherently "simpler" than synthetic or agluttinative and how the loss of English declension is presented as something inevitable and final. The truth is, languages tend to change from synthetic to analytic, then again to agluttinative and synthetic, in fact English is evolving agglutination slowly, just think of gonna vs going to, gotta vs got to, whatcha, gotcha, ain't etc.
This is the same sort of lame thinking the Poles give us when talking about dialects.
So next, you can also remove genders and cases since they don't matter. What else is not necessary?
Conjugation, I suppose. 4 forms (infinitive, present, past, imperative) would be enough.
the absolute madman
>serbia
>russophobic cuck
Its time to choose, Ivan
...
Based on this logic we should all speak Esperanto or some primitive pidgin.
Who here likes games like Amnesia or Outlast?