Re: fusional languages (was Re: First Conlang...? (Was Re: ...))

Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>:

> Hallo!
>
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:21:14 +0100,
> Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
>
> > Quoting Muke Tever <hotblack@...>:
> >
> > > E f+AOk-sto Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>:
> > > > Is there a term for languages where you have essentially one-to-one
> > > > correspondence between morphemes and grammatical categories, but
> forgoes
> > > > agglutinating accretion of suffixes in favour of mutations and
> infixes?
> > >
> > > I think that'd just be a fusional polysynthetic language.
> >
> > The definition of fusional is, or so I was taught, that single markers
> > indicate multiple categories. Eg Latin -a in _exempla_ indicates both
> nom/acc
> > and plural (and arguably neuter). In the kind of language I'm asking
> about,
> > there would still be one-to-one mapping between markers and categories.
>
> Nevertheless, I'd call it fusional as the markers are fused with the
> stems.
> An example would be Nur-ellen (one of my Hesperic conlangs) where nouns
> undergo i-umlaut for plural and initial mutations for case marking.
As you may've figured, the lang I have in mind is Meghean. It does feature
boringly traditional suffixes (marking nominal pl and accusative, among other
things), but also has initial mutations (marking definiteness, of all things)
and infixes (perfect aspect, some nominal plurals, possessives). So the
consensus seems to be I've perpetrated a fusional conlang.

Latest Meghean word: _tuncear_ "librarian".

                                                   Andreas