rubs wrote:[But I want a really bizare language
"Bizarre" is not the same thing as "incredibly complex".
If you want a "bizarre" language, I would say that the easiest way to go about it is to determine what categories are commonly found in languages and then discard those in favour of other ones. Most languages have a singular/plural distinction? Okay, instead I'll have a tripartite distinction between "not enough", "enough", and "too much".
I get your point, — Already did that with my idea for my nouns instead of having genitive[with a much more complex syntax that's meant to be reflect across the entire language]
completely different syntax, but the syntax is so complicated I’m not sure I personally understand it.
Bizarre I was under-specific bizarre but sharing some traits with Northamerican-Languages which I love.
Rather I want a language with the specific character of being a very complex and precise language.
Most languages inflect verbs to show relative time? Okay, then I'll inflect them to show absolute time of day (e.g. whether an action took place or will take place in the morning or the afternoon, with no indication of whether this is today, tomorrow, or yesterday). Things like that make your language bizarre,
…… Not what i was going for but the general principle is correct.
not just heaping on more inflectional complexity.
Well yeah I get that point, but… I want a hyper-logical alien language,
[if I meant logical as in regular or simple, you'd think it'd be hype not to
just call it a pidgin or creole they can be strange too]
I oversimplified it by calling it an inflectional language.
not for you but for myself.
it can be used to be more "bizarre" provided you're okay with their language being more bizzare to us, than ours is likely to be too them.
[not withstanding that we'd have a much different syntax and so forth]
rubs wrote:I read it i'm just not sure what specific question to ask
Maybe try creating an example sentence to see if you've understood the explanation.
rubs wrote:Well i'd need to know at-least something about the agreement pattern to ask something more specific, or at-least know what to ask.
You keep saying "the agreement pattern" as if there were only one. As I said, the pattern is different in different languages. That's why you need to work on coming up with more specific questions.
For instance, Osage doesn't have subject and object inflections, it has agent and patient ones. This is important because some verbs are stative
and use patient inflections to indicate the subject. (In addition, there are doubly-stative verbs which use patient inflection to express both subject and
object.) This is completely different from the polypersonal agreement of, say, Basque (an ergative language) or Swahili (an accusative one). Then Swahili isn't like these other languages either since it has an elaborate noun-class system which requires agreement on the verb. And so.
Think more about what you want to do, then you should be able to come up with some questions on how it can be done.
Well, I know some use a single affix to give both subject and the object, I read it I think I need some time to digest your post.
asides that how would one integrate obviation, into a relatively rudimentary system,
i'll answer my own question by looking it up.
I’ve got a solid feel part of my noun structure,[referring only to those structures that correspond to the genitive]
introductory explanation would involve a few slides overview
but to make it quite simple it could it uses a syntax that can be described in terms of one of seven types of relationship as a tree structure that isn't allowed to be mirrored, in itself multiple times in which further the branches at any point can be grouped or ungrouped, and this produces syntactically different structures.
the rest i'm not so sure how to structure my Cases.