Re: Agglutinating -> inflecting

En réponse à Mark J. Reed :


>AJ> I meant anade_w_ism literally
>
>Okay, I give up.  What's an anadewism?
Another Natlang Already Does it Except Worse ;))) . The main purpose of
Maggel is to break this rule ;))) .

>CG> Hehe, you should take a look at the Arabic number system. Check the
>CG> "Turkish and Arabic" message at
>CG> http://www.livejournal.com/community/linguaphiles/327787.html.
>
>Wow!
My reaction exactly! ;)))


>In Methkaeki, all quantifiers, including numbers, are suffixes, so
>you don't say "three men"; you say "manthree".  The generic plural is
>a suffix meaning "some", but it's only used when the exact number is
>unknown; otherwise the number itself functions as a plural marker.
It's exactly how my Azak works. Azak is extremely agglutinating, and number
is optional on nouns. If you want to indicate plural without specifying how
much, you use the suffix -ar: various. If you want to indicate an exact
number, you use the number suffixes. If you don't add any number suffix, it
*doesn't* indicate singular, just that number is unknown or already known
by context or unimportant for the discussion.

If you can read French, I have a grammar of Azak online at my webpage
(check the address in my sig.).

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

Replies