Agglutination and kinds of affixes [was Re: First Conlang...?]

Nik Taylor wrote:
> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>
> Well, infixes would still be agglutinating, I believe.  I don't know
> what you'd call it if it used mutations.  I'd probably just call it a
> kind of agglutinating, just with the morpheme being an abstraction like
> "plus voicing" or "lenition" and the like, rather than a phonetic entity
> like /ta/.
Agglutinating suprafixion and ablaut would be interesting. Seems like it
  would result in a pretty wild phonology.