Talk:Kihā́mmic - Revision history

Greatbuddha: /* Fusionality */

2013-07-03T15:35:51Z

Fusionality

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 3 July 2013
Line 17:		Line 17:

	[[File:Waahlis.png\|35px\|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis\|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 11:37, 3 July 2013 (CEST)		[[File:Waahlis.png\|35px\|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis\|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 11:37, 3 July 2013 (CEST)

			This language is only about as fusional, as say, hawaiian, which has pronouns that decline in 3 numbers and 4 cases. The language only has irregularities where pmm found case syncretism, for example, the genitive ending ii changes to iin before nouns ending in ii. And The case endings are extremely predictable. Even the definite article declines as a regular noun. I'm pretty sure that's allot less fusional than german.
			[[User:Greatbuddha\|Greatbuddha]] ([[User talk:Greatbuddha\|talk]]) 17:35, 3 July 2013 (CEST)

Waahlis: /* Fusionality */

2013-07-03T09:37:04Z

Fusionality

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:37, 3 July 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Also, I've found that wikipedia will classify american languages that fuse tam, subject and object person and number, valency, and dependancy into 1 or two unanalyzeable morphemes and have variable verb stems depending on context as "agglutinative", and Kihammic is nowhere near doing that much.		Also, I've found that wikipedia will classify american languages that fuse tam, subject and object person and number, valency, and dependancy into 1 or two unanalyzeable morphemes and have variable verb stems depending on context as "agglutinative", and Kihammic is nowhere near doing that much.
	[[User:Greatbuddha\|Greatbuddha]] ([[User talk:Greatbuddha\|talk]]) 00:44, 3 July 2013 (CEST)		[[User:Greatbuddha\|Greatbuddha]] ([[User talk:Greatbuddha\|talk]]) 00:44, 3 July 2013 (CEST)


			Well, if you consider German fusional, I think there is enough fusionality in this language to call it fusional. If you take a look at the declension of adjectives, it is apparent that the morphemes encode at least 3 categories. There is also a diversity and inconsistency of the affixes throughout the grammatical categories, quite typical to fusional languages.

			Remember that American linguists often have different classification systems to those of their European counterparts, and that Native American languages aren't located in the European substrate of languages and grammar.

			That said, the language does have quite a few agglutinative features, as most European languages.

			[[File:Waahlis.png\|35px\|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis\|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 11:37, 3 July 2013 (CEST)

Greatbuddha: /* Fusionality */

2013-07-02T22:44:15Z

Fusionality

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 2 July 2013
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Oops, forgot to sign, Greatbuddha! I fear he won't respond for a while - last time I heard from him, he was in France, headed for Siberia. Nevertheless, how come you don't find it very fusional? And I think he liked Quechua quite a bit, in fact. [[File:Waahlis.png\|35px\|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis\|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 23:33, 2 July 2013 (CEST)		Oops, forgot to sign, Greatbuddha! I fear he won't respond for a while - last time I heard from him, he was in France, headed for Siberia. Nevertheless, how come you don't find it very fusional? And I think he liked Quechua quite a bit, in fact. [[File:Waahlis.png\|35px\|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis\|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 23:33, 2 July 2013 (CEST)

			The morphemes aren't really fused, look at the paradigms. Most of the case markers are invariable, the plural marker is always -m-, look at the paradigms.
			Also, I've found that wikipedia will classify american languages that fuse tam, subject and object person and number, valency, and dependancy into 1 or two unanalyzeable morphemes and have variable verb stems depending on context as "agglutinative", and Kihammic is nowhere near doing that much.
			[[User:Greatbuddha\|Greatbuddha]] ([[User talk:Greatbuddha\|talk]]) 00:44, 3 July 2013 (CEST)

Waahlis at 21:34, 2 July 2013

2013-07-02T21:34:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 2 July 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Fusionality==
	Are you sure kihámmic is a fusional language? It doesn't strike me as more fusional than say, quechua. Was this modeled after quechua?		Are you sure kihámmic is a fusional language? It doesn't strike me as more fusional than say, quechua. Was this modeled after quechua?


	Oops, forgot to sign, Greatbuddha! I fear he won't respond for a while - last time I heard from him, he was in France, headed for Siberia. Nevertheless, how come you don't find it very fusional? And I think he liked Quechua quite a bit, in fact. [[File:Waahlis.png\|35px\|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis\|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 23:33, 2 July 2013 (CEST)		Oops, forgot to sign, Greatbuddha! I fear he won't respond for a while - last time I heard from him, he was in France, headed for Siberia. Nevertheless, how come you don't find it very fusional? And I think he liked Quechua quite a bit, in fact. [[File:Waahlis.png\|35px\|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis\|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 23:33, 2 July 2013 (CEST)

Waahlis at 21:33, 2 July 2013

2013-07-02T21:33:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 2 July 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Are you sure kihámmic is a fusional language? It doesn't strike me as more fusional than say, quechua. Was this modeled after quechua?		Are you sure kihámmic is a fusional language? It doesn't strike me as more fusional than say, quechua. Was this modeled after quechua?


			Oops, forgot to sign, Greatbuddha! I fear he won't respond for a while - last time I heard from him, he was in France, headed for Siberia. Nevertheless, how come you don't find it very fusional? And I think he liked Quechua quite a bit, in fact. [[File:Waahlis.png\|35px\|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis\|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 23:33, 2 July 2013 (CEST)

Greatbuddha: Created page with "Are you sure kihámmic is a fusional language? It doesn't strike me as more fusional than say, quechua. Was this modeled after quechua?"

2013-07-02T17:20:15Z

Created page with "Are you sure kihámmic is a fusional language? It doesn't strike me as more fusional than say, quechua. Was this modeled after quechua?"

New page

Are you sure kihámmic is a fusional language? It doesn't strike me as more fusional than say, quechua. Was this modeled after quechua?