Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>:
> > I think's it's agglutinating you're thinking of. Actually, most newbie
> > conlangs I've seen are ripoffs of European languages.
>
> Yes; but using agglutinating rather than fusional morphology to express
> the Standard Average European grammatical categories. Pretty much
> like, well, Esperanto.
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?
Andreas