So, I thought I'd make a thread on Isyan. Originally, I was going to do one on its conjugation, but I thought that if I have to ask for feedback on another aspect of the language, I should just make this a general thread (plus, I post way too much on the general discussion thread). Here we go: (it's going to be a little more for me, kind of like how some people make threads for their language progress)
Is it cheaty to use an agglutinative conjugation system? I, personally, think so because there's no challenge.
I'm liking the aspects being agglutinative, but I think I should change how to form the subjunctive (maybe conditional, too).
The old way was to add -n to all forms: kan (that I were), kuan (that you were), kion (that he/she/it were), etc…
But once it comes to aspects on the verb, it begins to look ugly and, unlike Japanese (has a similar system), it doesn't work for Isyan.
I'm thinking that I have one set of endings for the indicative, one for the subjunctive (personal endings). This way it's less clumped.
Here's the indicative endings (present;past;future): (sorry for no table, I don't know how)
I— a; o; u
We+— ia; oi; ie
Wex— iav; oi; ui
You— ua; uo; ua
You2— ya; ui; uie
You all— yav; ui; uav
You (formal)— i; it; iu
You2 (" ")— ija; iti; iye
You all (" ")— iju; iti; iui
He— io; oe; e
Them2— iv; oen; ei
They all— ijo; oen; av (difference between oen as singular subjunctive and as third person plural past is through context (currently))
I'm thinking, since the indicative is just the endings for nominative, genitive and dative (present, past, future, respectively), I should make the subjunctive take the endings for acc, abl, and ine. But this would cause difficulties for the third person which doesn't take the declension endings.
Last edited by Koko on 2018-02-05, 0:53, edited 1 time in total.