112
edits
Talk:Proto-Tigol: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
Greatbuddha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:"I'd assume that all nouns have to have their posessor indicated or something.": What do you mean/how would that come about? [[User:Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd|Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd]] ([[User talk:Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd|talk]]) 05:44, 16 November 2013 (CET) | :"I'd assume that all nouns have to have their posessor indicated or something.": What do you mean/how would that come about? [[User:Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd|Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd]] ([[User talk:Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd|talk]]) 05:44, 16 November 2013 (CET) | ||
:"in languages that have them they tend to be highly regular" - On the other hand languages w/ (possessor+possessive class) are a thing, so there is no reason why you couldn't have (possessor+number). [[User:Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd|Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd]] ([[User talk:Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd|talk]]) 06:51, 16 November 2013 (CET) | :"in languages that have them they tend to be highly regular" - On the other hand languages w/ (possessor+possessive class) are a thing, so there is no reason why you couldn't have (possessor+number). [[User:Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd|Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd]] ([[User talk:Ílchőfti Lēmáthīd|talk]]) 06:51, 16 November 2013 (CET) | ||
Byhighly regular I mean that the suffixes do not change their forms much when they are added to a noun. | |||
[[User:Greatbuddha|Greatbuddha]] ([[User talk:Greatbuddha|talk]]) 18:19, 16 November 2013 (CET) | |||