On Dec/26/2002, Danny Wier wrote:
> Well you're on the right track. Remember that Proto-Indo-European became
> inflected after various alternations of an originally agglutinative form.
I didn't know that. Curious :-)
> Semitic languages are more inflectional, particularly in all those verb
> forms; they change vowel configurations. But even those has agglutinative
Have these changes any fixed rules? I guess so, just wondering
aloud :-) Any examples?
> No language is completely inflecting, agglutinative or isolating, of course;
Well, yes, that's something that I've already understood.
Anyway, it's hard to make a conlang with enough elements of the three
kinds to be realistic :-m
> I still am confused as to how you *properly* define "inflecting language". I
> just know agglutinative means the attachment of bound morphemes and
> isolating means the use of co-words with independent meaning (like Chinese).
I think that I was confusing agglutinative and isolating. By
"agglutinative" I understood what "isolating" really is O:-) Now it all
makes a bit more sense :-)
--
Roberto Suarez Soto