Re: A wacky language

Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson :
>
>
>> Your adpositions should be impositions (ie, go in the middle of the
>> word).
>> Plural should be indicated by reduplication of the preceding word,
>> and verbs
>> should be discontinuous (ie, consist of 2+ separate bits that go in
>> different
>> places in the sentence).
>
>
> Well, German and Dutch already have that, and Maggel is planned to
> have that too, so I'm not sure it's such a wacky feature (Maggel is a
> bit wackier than Dutch and German as it separately conjugates both
> bits of the verb :)) ).
>
Well, if they're seperately conjugated, it qualifies as wacky.  But I
protest the idea that any feature that is found in a European language
is unwacky.

>>  Evidentiality should be indicated by suppletion of
>> the verb stem, while imperative mood by reversing the tonal contour
>> of the
>> verb, except on the third syllable from the right, if present.
>
>
> LOL. The verbs should also conjugate for future and non-future, and
> make no distinction between past and present :))) . The language
> should be written in a reverse abjad, i.e. with mandatory vowels as
> full letters and consonants not written at all or only optionally, but
> should have only 4 vowels and 50 consonants, and make most of its
> grammatical marks through vowel changes :))) .
>
I think that verbs should conjugate for non-future and non-past.  Lets
have no definite tenses at all.  Incidentally, I recently constructed a
vowel-abugida, for a language with a number of consonants near to what
you suggest.  Of course, it only has ten consonant signs, and a strict
CVCV(C) word structure.