razlem wrote:I've never been good with agglutinating languages. I think Mandarin is easier than Spanish.
Angos is mostly isolating, with very few synthetic features.
Atluk wrote:What type is your conlang?
Atluk wrote:I don't think Spanish is agglutinating, but fusional instead. I could be wrong, though.
Levike wrote:Atluk wrote:What type is your conlang?
I'd say it's still inflecting.
As the conlang progressed it got less and less inflecting since I really didn't see the point in for example nouns agreeing with their adjectives. Or for example it started with having 4 genders and now the only distinction I make is animate vs inanimate. Maybe eventally I'll get rid of that as well since I don't need an ending telling me that a rock is... well not a person.
it might end up agglutinating because all my prepositions are now postpositions and each of my grammatical cases are more like postpositions that got glued to their noun.
Dormouse559 wrote:That line of logic can be used to call any linguistic feature pointless. And yet languages have these features anyway. I listed some possible benefits to having gender in an earlier post. My third point is that redundancy, saying things we already know, is built into human language; it's not a defect.
Atluk wrote:Gender kinda is pointless. Like you said, you don't need a suffix to no something is inanimate.
Atluk wrote:I stand corrected. While it may be true that I don't need an inflection to know that a noun is feminine, I can just say "La gata" to refer a female cat instead of just saying "female cat." By the article and suffix, I know it is a girl cat.
Dormouse559 wrote:Long time, no see, Llawygath. Welcome back.
On the relative pointlessness of sex-based gender, I'll direct you to another post I've made lately.
I'd just add two things:
1) Avoid conflating "masculine/feminine" with "male/female". One pair is a linguistic concept, the other a biological one. And also avoid conflating a noun with the object it describes. In French, the word "table" is in the feminine grammatical gender. That does not mean that tables themselves are somehow feminine, nor does it mean they are of the female sex. Neither of those things is the point. See my previous post (in this thread or the linked one) for more on that.
2) The names "masculine" and "feminine" are totally arbitrary. If we called these genders something else, like Gender A and Gender B, they'd still function the same way, but there'd be a lot fewer misconceptions about them.
Levike wrote:Atluk wrote:I stand corrected. While it may be true that I don't need an inflection to know that a noun is feminine, I can just say "La gata" to refer a female cat instead of just saying "female cat." By the article and suffix, I know it is a girl cat.
Yes, this and what Dormouse said, for my conlang I considered it's not reason enough, like why categorise all nouns this way, just because it can clear things up for a minority of them. Matter of taste after all.
The same case is with conjugating verbs by person, why have them when you can just put its pronoun before it, much easier to understand and learn, one could say, but I kept this feature because I felt it's more convenient for me to put a letter at the end of the verb and indicate the person this way rather then to use the whole pronoun each time which sometimes even has 2 syllables.
Atluk wrote:That is what I like about Spanish. I can say "Hablo" meaning "I speak" without putting "yo" in front of it. I guess that why all of my conlangs had conjugating verbs.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest