u/Rare-Skirt4622

Medieval Europe had warrior figures like Richard I and Götz von Berlichingen; China had warriors and tacticians such as Lü Bu and Cao Cao; and Japan is known for warriors and military commanders like Minamoto no Yoshitsune and Oda Nobunaga.

With that in mind, I would like to ask: who are the specific historical figures—warriors or generals who vied for supremacy—that correspond to these types of leaders in regions such as Persia, Arabia, and Egypt (the Middle East and North Africa), or in Hindu-majority areas like India, during the medieval to early modern periods (specifically the 5th through 16th centuries)?

"toel" means "true" in Laputian language. language.──①

"toel" means "true" in English.──②

The "in" in ① means "in Laputian lexicon" and the one in ② means "if it is placed in English".

For such cases, I want to use the "if" or "IRREALIS" marker onto its adpositions, like latin language has the agreement on adjectives, or like mian language has the switching-reference on conjunctions.

So, can I do so? Or, can we calmly use such "border-crossing" thing like, irrealis adverbs, adpositions with agreements, or the adverbs/adpositions with switching-references?

For example, this can also be said of the passive voice of transitive verbs in accusative languages. ① One could think that the subject potentially takes the accusative case, but takes the nominative form because it is the subject, or ② one could think that the subject potentially takes the ergative case, and the passive voice is the voice that makes the ergative case the object of the action. I can't think of any advantage to ② at the moment, so I have always thought that ① is correct. However, when I consider ergative languages, ② seems correct. This is because if ergative and activative languages ​​are "languages ​​in which the case of a noun changes regardless of whether it is the subject or not" (③), then when taking the antipassive voice, the subject takes the absolutative case and is also the agent. If ① is correct, then the subject of the reverse passive voice must be the agent and therefore must be in the ergative case, which contradicts ③. So, what is the merit of passive or antipassive (without when you want to omit the subject)?

Is there a webpage that lists onomatopoeia used in all natural languages ​​(preferably those not derived from any existing words) and shows which onomatopoeic meanings are commonly associated with specific sound values? Wikipedia has a list of onomatopoeia from around the world ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linguistic_onomatopoeias ), but it's written in phonemes, and it doesn't include things like [r̼ʔ] or [l̼ʔ] in the Coatlán Zapotec language.