My Conlang

[dfiller]

When I worked on my conlang I made the grammar first because I wanted to keep working on the phonology. It wasn't supposed to be a human phonology because the my species face is shaped differently. The language is also verbless. Is it OK to make a grammar then then the phonology?

[Vardelm]

FYI, your post seems to be just a question on how to go about creating your conlang. This is something that is probably better posted in the C&C Quickies forum.

Is it OK to make a grammar then then the phonology?

I don't see why not. I think syntax is probably fairly easy to work on without a phonology. If you start creating some of the morphology, then it becomes much harder. For example, if you decide a certain affix uses a particular sound, you'll need to make sure this is reflected in your phonology. It seems to be easy to overlook this, as I've seen a number of posts over the years where people have created a bit of morphology & sentence examples before working out the phonology. They often end up not including some sounds or phonotactic rules in their phonology description that appear in their examples. So, go ahead, but try to be cautious & well organized.

The language is also verbless.

I'll be interested to see what you come up with, as my Tibetan Dwarvish was going to be "verbless" for a while. I think you'll find that it's much more difficult to come up with a language that is truly "verbless". IMO, even Kelen, perhaps that most famous of "verbless" languages has verbs. The language that probably comes closest to not having verbs is Thenqol, created by (I think) Yiuel, who posts here.

'cause
workin'
s'posed
'cause
specie's

You seem to have an itchy apostrophe finger. May I suggest you drop the practice & just write the full words out? It appears to be infecting words that aren't abbreviated, as "specie's" should be "species".