Talk:Kihā́mmic: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 21:34, 2 July 2013
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?
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. 
Waahlis 23:33, 2 July 2013 (CEST)