Morphemes!

I came up with a list of all grammatical (inflectional) morphemes. Here it is:

VERBS

  • 1.SG: I
  • 1.PL.INCL: we (including the hearer)
  • 1.DU: we both
  • 1.PL.EXCL: we (excluding the hearer)
  • 2.SG.F: you (addressing female)
  • 2.SG.M: you (addressing male)
  • 2.PL: you
  • 3.SG.F: she
  • 3.SG.M: he
  • 3.PL: they
  • INF: infinitve
  • STV: stative
  • STV.PST: stative + past tense
  • PRF: perfective aspect
  • PRF.PST: perfective aspect + past tense
  • IPFV: imperfective aspect
  • IPFV.PST: imperfective aspect + past tense
  • INT: intensive
  • ATT: attenuative
  • NEG: negative
  • VOL.DIR: wanted & planned
  • VOL: wanted & unplanned
  • DIR: unwanted & planned
  • DEO: unwanted & unplanned
  • EPIS: epistemic (“What may be”)

NOUNS

  • ABS: absolutive
  • ERG: ergative
  • DAT: secundative
  • PREP: prepositional
  • ALL: allative (“motion to”)
  • ABL: ablative (“motion from”)
  • LOC: locative

Each grouping is mutually exclusive. The members from different groups may be stacked. Here’s a worst case scenario:

walk-1.SG-PRF.PST-INT-NEG-VOL.DIR-EPIS ALL-2.SG.F

“I may have not intensely been walking to you, whilst wanting and planning it.” Whatever that is supposed to mean.

I just noticed that, despite derivational morphemes, the structure of the nouns is quite simple. So maybe I resurrect the idea of joining the verb with all its constituents.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Morphemes!

  1. I know that one of the great things about conlanging is creating what one would like to see in language, but I do think it’s important to keep in mind how easy it is to develop “ALL the morphemes” syndrome. If the goal of your conlang is to create a personal masterpiece, then this matters little. But if you want others to use your conlang, it is imperative to keep simplicity and clarity in mind, in addition to creating a usable reference grammar.

    That being said, I do have a personal affinity for the idea of highly inflected langs. It definitely helps eliminate ambiguity!

    • You could argue that an agglutinative language is less clear than the contracted style of an inflectional language. But I think that it is nice to have the categories not conflated into each other, but neatly seperated, which is clarity for me.
      The “ALL-the-morphemes”-syndrome is well known to me 🙂 But I don’t think that these are too many of them. Well… I still need to come up with an actual realisation of these.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s