112
edits
Talk:Kihā́mmic: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Fusionality
mNo edit summary |
Greatbuddha (talk | contribs) |
||
| 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) | |||