The Collablang Take II (Check first post oft)

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Ear of the Sphinx
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1587
Joined: 23 Aug 2010 01:41
Location: Nose of the Sun

Re: The Collablang Take II (Check first post oft)

Post by Ear of the Sphinx »

Want we a inclusive/exclusive distinction?
What about having only 1. person, inclusive/exclusive and singular/plural distinction?
I vote for no grammaticalized evidentiality
Me too.
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
User avatar
MrKrov
banned
Posts: 1929
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 02:47
Location: /ai/ > /a:/
Contact:

Re: The Collablang Take II (Check first post oft)

Post by MrKrov »

roninbodhisattva wrote:I say we have a simple singular/plural distinction in nouns that is optional and then obligatory cross-reference of this on the verb. God no paucals.
Optional singular-plural noun distinction, no cross-referencing.
In all nouns? How should plurality be encoded? An affix? A particle? A clitic?
People nouns, prefix.
What arguments should verbs agree with?
The better question is: what arguments shouldn't verbs agree with?
How many tenses/TAMs? Encoding?
Binary tense distinction. Aspects: eh. Moods?
Affixes.
Want we a inclusive/exclusive distinction?
Nah.
Speaking of which, how will we handle pronominal subjects? Objects? Obliques?
Verbal prefixes, prefixes and prefixes.
I vote for no grammaticalized evidentiality
I want at least three.
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5671
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48
Contact:

Re: The Collablang Take II (Check first post oft)

Post by Micamo »

I want at least three.
I vote 25!
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter
Thakowsaizmu
runic
runic
Posts: 2518
Joined: 13 Aug 2010 18:57

Re: The Collablang Take II (Check first post oft)

Post by Thakowsaizmu »

Haha, wow. We were nine pages in and never managed a single word [xP]

Sorry to necro, just having fun rereading this ancient thread.
Post Reply