Talk:Kihā́mmic

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)

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. 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.

Waahlis 11:37, 3 July 2013 (CEST)