Re: A'liath: This is completely insane

Peter Clark wrote:

>    Are you sure this number is correct? I just multiplied them and got
> 76,204,800. Granted, this is still a huge number, but it's half of your original
> humber.
Oh, guess what? I accidentally left something out of the impressive
list! The intentionality distinction. So, it *is* in fact 152,409,600.

>    Have you considered some agglutination?
Not really, because including it would somewhat destroy the point.

> Also, if you ditch the 42
> subject/object number combinations and 20 subject/object person combinations,
> that reduces the number to 90,720, by my calculations.
Heh. I'll have to consider that. I personally would prefer to have those
distinctions in, but removing them might render the language actually,
er, creatable. Alternately, I might just limit the number system to
singular/plural or something only slightly more complex. (The current
system is nullar/singular/dual/trial/paucal/plural.) I really *do* like
the appeal of expressing such sentences as "we three would not have been
intentionally ceasing to throw it repeatedly at irregular intervals" as
two morphemes, though.

> Also, remember that most
> fusional languages have a great deal of overlap. For instance, look at the
> pattern for a typical feminine noun in Russian:
<snip>
>     Context (and the nouns themselves) dismabiguate nicely, however.
Oh, there will of course be overlapping cases. Doesn't change the fact
that they have to be created independently, of course.

>     Here's another idea: have fusional prefixes and suffixes. Double the -fixes,
> half the work!
Hmmmmmm. I'll think about it.

> Or make your morphemes semi-agglutinating: each inflection would
> effect the one following by some simple and transparent sound change.
Again, I'll think about it.

> In any
> case, don't give up now! Just remember, there's some languge in the Caucuses
> that has over a million verb paradigms (someone will refresh my memory, II
> hope...)! If they can do it, so can you.
>     :Peter
>
Oh, I'll figure out *some* way to do it. I just need to figure out which
way  least compromises the initial goal. And, meanwhile, I'll be
spending my creative energies on my other big project, Ngyrri. (Will be
posting soon on some of my ideas for *that* language.)

- Ian Maxwell
--
C'est la vie, c'est la guerre, c'est la pomme de terre.

CONLANGER CODE: CU v1.1 !lm+ cN:R:N:H a+ y n19:1 !B* A+ E--- L+ N1<2 Im
k-- ia@:@ p@ s@ m- o P-- S--- A'liath