ŗahrih raçnann

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
ukfl
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 20
Joined: 01 Apr 2018 21:03

ŗahrih raçnann

Post by ukfl »

I'm still new at designing conlangs and hope I can get some help from those with much more experience and knowledge on the subject. I'm designing a prime language that I can use as a starting point for developing a language family. The idea is that the language begins deliberately designed by the deities who created the people making up the first civilization in my world. As the people act more as automatons than individuals, who are literally incapable of acting outside their designated functions, the language is geared more toward communicating tasks and functions than anything else. The language family will develop once the immutable control of the deities is broken and the people are able to behave as individuals and to choose their own functions and paths, consequently resulting in a change in the language as well.

As I see this exercise not only as developing a usable conlang but also to grow my experience and knowledge on the subject, I would like to post what I've done thus far and get feedback on how I can make it better. Thank you in advance for your help
Edited on May 22, 2020

ŗahrih raçnann
Phonology
b d c k g m n ɲ ʀ ɾ v s ç x h ʎ ɺ
b d c k g m n ń ŗ r v s ç x h j l

p’ t’ q’ s’
p’ t’ q’ s’

i u e o ɛ ɔ a ɒ
i u e o ě ö a ä

Allophones
I suck at allophones and would appreciate help on this one.

Phonotactics
  • CV(C)
  • Primary stress falls on initial syllable
  • Secondary stress falls on penultimate syllable, but only when there are three or more syllables
  • Stems do not have stress
Alignment
Nominative-Accusative

Word Order
  • Subject-Object-Verb
  • Case markings that distinguish between subject and object allow for variant OSV order without ambiguity.
  • Adjectives and numerals precede immediately the noun or noun phrase to which they refer.
  • Adverbs succeed immediately the verb or verb phrase to which they refer.
  • Indirect objects succeed the main action verb or verb phrase that acts on them, following any adverbs.
  • Auxiliary verbs are placed after the action verb.
  • Genitive noun phrases are placed before the possessed noun.
  • Titles and honorifics occur before the referent.
  • Subordinators appear at the end of subordinate clauses.
Last edited by ukfl on 22 Apr 2020 17:01, edited 3 times in total.
ukfl
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 20
Joined: 01 Apr 2018 21:03

Re: ŗahrih raçnann

Post by ukfl »

Morphology
Nominal Inflection
The language uses a complex system of marking nominal inflections. Nouns are marked as collective or singular via articles that decline based on whether the relevant noun is nominative, accusative, or dative, or whether the noun has no case. The underlying logic to the system is that individuality among the gods' creations does not exist, and thus entities are dealt with almost entirely as groups within the language.

So for example, nouns are marked as either collective (the universe of the thing in question) or singular (a subset of the universe of that thing), and as either exclusive or inclusive of that group. In this way, a nominative collective-exclusive noun is "a specific part" of the universe of that thing, a nominative collective-inclusive noun is "the whole universe or close to" of that thing, nominative singulative-exclusive is "a specific subset" of that thing even down to the individual, and nominative singulative-inclusive is the "Whole of that subpart or close to it."

Another way to think of it is the difference between speaking as though in reference to the whole world, versus in reference to a region of the world, to a state, or to a city.

Nouns
Nouns are formed by combining a stem word with a grammatical class affix and one or more noun case affixes. Noun stems are drawn primarily from a corresponding verb stem by the addition of a consonant to the end of the verb. Noun stems may consist of combinations of multiple verb and other noun stems.

Grammatical Classes
The language makes use of the following 16 grammatical cases:
  • Class I - hard inanimate things that have not been worked, moved, or harvested.
  • Class II - soft inanimate things that have not been worked, moved, or harvested.
  • Class III - hard tools and built things that can be moved by one or two hands.
  • Class IV - soft tools and things that can be moved with just the fingers.
  • Class V - animals that move with two or more appendages, primarily in walking fashion
  • Class VI - animals that move by jumping or flying
  • Class VII - animals that move by shaking their bodies, like snakes, fish, snails, and worms
  • Class VIII - unseen things that move through space, like wind and speech and immaterial things that can be seen or felt, like fire or heat
  • Class IX - things used to store or carry other things, like vessels
  • Class X - inanimate things from which animate things grow, such as seeds and roots
  • Class XI - plants untouched or unmoved
  • Class XII - plants touched, moved, or harvested
  • Class XIII - things worked that cannot be moved or cannot be moved without great difficulty
  • Class XIV - things consumed as food
  • Class XV - social and physical aspects of people
  • Class XVI - things coming from or existing in relation to the gods
Noun Cases
Nouns are marked for one or more cases. The issue of multiple cases occurs primarily when combining nominative, accusative, or dative cases with other cases such as genitive, locative, etc.
  • Nominative
  • Accusative
  • Dative
  • Genitive
  • Ablative
  • Allative
  • Locative
  • Inessive
  • Exessive
  • Comitative
  • Vocative
  • Instrumental
  • Abessive
Pronouns
I'm still trying to work this one out. For the moment, I have first, second, and third person marked by number (collective v. singulative) and case (see list above). Given the nature of the language, I'm now wondering if it would make more sense for there to be greater specificity in first-second-third person. Aside from the usual we/us, I/me, you, he/she/it, they/them pronouns, are there any other pronouns that I should be considering?

Articles
Definite and indefinite articles are placed before the relevant noun or gerund. Articles decline according to grammatical number, noun class, and case (in this instance, nominative v. accusative v. dative). A question I have here regarding the placement of articles in a sentence given word order (for this language SOV). Not being a strong grammarian myself, how do I know where to place an article for a gerund?

Adpositions
Generally, I understand what adpositions are (insofar as they pertain to my native language of English). I'm just not sure how adpositions should work in this language, such as how they work for gerunds versus a relatively simple noun. Ultimately, my concern is that what I'm going to end up with is simply a cipher for English adpositions and not adpositions appropriate for the conlang I'm developing. Some help here would be greatly appreciated.
Last edited by ukfl on 22 Apr 2020 16:59, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

Re: ŗahrih raçnann

Post by gestaltist »

ukfl wrote: 29 Jan 2019 16:02 Phonology
  • b d c m n ɲ ʀ ɾ ç h ɺ ʎ
  • s' p' t' q'
  • i u e o a
This is a very strange consonantal inventory. I guess if humans are programmed to speak like this due to the gods making them, it's fine, but this whole thing would collapse the second natural processes start to happen.

What jumps out as weird:
  • ejectives with no corresponding pulmonic consonants
  • no /t k/ is strange in itself (almost unheard of) but no /t k/ while having /d c/ is doubly strange
  • /ç/ as the sole non-glottal pulmonic fricative is weird, especially that you have /s'/
  • you have no /l/ while having /ɺ ʎ/
  • you have no /j/ while having all these palatals
If this is your conscious choice because the gods didn't care about the human vocal tract and just liking the sound of these particular phonemes, fine. But what you have doesn't look naturalistic, so if your intent was for gods making a reasonable language, I'd suggest making it a bit more normal.
Allophones
I suck at allophones and would appreciate help on this one.
You're safe to ignore allophonies for now, I think.
[*] Light syllable: open syllables and syllables closed by laterals or taps
[*] Heavy syllable: syllables closed by non-lateral and non-tap consonants
Do you make use of syllable weight anywhere? I haven't seen any mentions. Also, coda consonants almost always contribute to syllable weight. If they don't, it's usually the least sonorous ones, i.e., voiceless stops. Having a syllable with a lateral coda be light seems wrong to me. But I am not sure you're actually using this system so perhaps it doesn't matter.

ukfl wrote: 29 Jan 2019 16:26 Grammatical Gender
I need help here. Initially, I was thinking of breaking grammatical gender into four classes (inanimate things, animate things, godly things, and everything else).
Each case would be marked as shown below. But given how the language is intended to be outward and function based, I'm wondering if it would make more sense to expand the number of classes. Also, I'm not sure if I'm doing grammatical gender correctly in the first place, so I may need some help there as well.
What would constitute "everything else"? Logically, you can classify anything as inanimate or animate. I would say that if you're just starting out, stick to a limited number of noun classes/genders. The main use for having noun classes is agreement. You mention that articles agree for noun class, but do adjectives agree with nouns for gender? Do verbs?
Pronouns
I'm still trying to work this one out. For the moment, I have first, second, and third person marked by number (collective v. singulative) and case (see list above). Given the nature of the language, I'm now wondering if it would make more sense for there to be greater specificity in first-second-third person. Aside from the usual we/us, I/me, you, he/she/it, they/them pronouns, are there any other pronouns that I should be considering?
Well... you don't have a masculine/feminine distinction, so you probably shouldn't have "he/she/it". You should have 3rd person animate, 3rd person inanimate, etc., instead. I recommend the Wikipedia article on pronouns for an idea of what other types of pronouns you need. The ones you list are just personal pronouns.
Adpositions
Generally, I understand what adpositions are (insofar as they pertain to my native language of English). I'm just not sure how adpositions should work in this language, such as how they work for gerunds versus a relatively simple noun. Ultimately, my concern is that what I'm going to end up with is simply a cipher for English adpositions and not adpositions appropriate for the conlang I'm developing. Some help here would be greatly appreciated.
I feel I needed several years to get semi-decent at conlanging so don't be too hard on yourself. Create your English cipher and you'll make it less English while you learn new stuff. Regarding adpositions, your language is SOV so they'd be more likely to be postpositions (come after the noun).
ukfl
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 20
Joined: 01 Apr 2018 21:03

Re: ŗahrih raçnann

Post by ukfl »

Verbs suck. A lot. And I apparently suck at making a system for them.

Verbs
Given that this society's people exist solely to perform functions for their deity overlords, there is no perception of linear time, thus no tense use for verbs other than inference from the context of the speaker/listener. Verbs are inflected according to grammatical gender, person, number, and aspect. (As I'm not really getting how voice or mood work, at least not enough to be able to account for them in this system, they are absent for the moment.) Since the PIE verb system aligns closest with what I'm aiming for, I'm borrowing somewhat from it.

Verbs consist of a root and affixes. The root conveys a basic idea, while a prefix encodes gender, person, and number (the two together constitute a verb stem). An ending prefix encodes aspect. Furthermore, verbs are inflected according to their transitivity (transitive v. intransitive).

Aspect
  • Simple - instant or immediate actions
  • Temporal
    • Inchoate - indicates the beginning of an action (inferential future tense)
    • Progressive - indicates an action progressing toward completion
    • Cessative - indicates the ending of an action (inferential past tense)
  • Iterative - expresses continuous repetition
  • Gnomic - does not limit the flow of time to an particular conception
  • Gnomic
Copulas
Not sure what I'm doing with this one or even how to really go about it.

Adverb
At the moment, I'm thinking of simply using some kind of affix to turn verbs into adverbs, but I'm not sure if that is the right way to go.
ukfl
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 20
Joined: 01 Apr 2018 21:03

Re: ŗahrih raçnann

Post by ukfl »

This is a very strange consonantal inventory.
I'm aiming for strange for the prime language, and then shifting toward less strange as it evolves. Part of it is out of sheer curiosity regarding what will come out on the other side of the process.
What jumps out as weird:
  • ejectives with no corresponding pulmonic consonants
  • no /t k/ is strange in itself (almost unheard of) but no /t k/ while having /d c/ is doubly strange
  • /ç/ as the sole non-glottal pulmonic fricative is weird, especially that you have /s'/
  • you have no /l/ while having /ɺ ʎ/
  • you have no /j/ while having all these palatals
If this is your conscious choice because the gods didn't care about the human vocal tract and just liking the sound of these particular phonemes, fine. But what you have doesn't look naturalistic, so if your intent was for gods making a reasonable language, I'd suggest making it a bit more normal.
Thank you for your response and assistance. Some of the wonkiness is intentional, and the deities aren't too concerned with ease in the life of their mortal minions. The ejectives without corresponding pulmonic consonants was a conscious decision on my part, as the deities intend to make a clear distinction in the language between their realm and the mortal one. My intention is to have the ejectives immediately shift to pulmonic consonants once the people are no longer under immutable control. I think I'll keep /t/ and /s/ out of the phonology for this prime language, but quickly evolve toward it in subsequent daughter languages. Would it make sense to have /k/ and /c/, since their sounds are rather close to each other (i.e. /b, d, c, k/ for the stops)?

If I were to add /z/ and /x/ to the fricatives, would that help offset the single /ç/?

Would /l/ and /ɺ/ occur in the same phonology? They seem rather close to me, but then I'm not great at forming some of the sounds out loud.

/j/ will need to wait at the bus stop until the language evolves.

Do you make use of syllable weight anywhere? I haven't seen any mentions. Also, coda consonants almost always contribute to syllable weight. If they don't, it's usually the least sonorous ones, i.e., voiceless stops. Having a syllable with a lateral coda be light seems wrong to me. But I am not sure you're actually using this system so perhaps it doesn't matter.
My initial purpose in differentiating between syllable weights was to give some means for evolving the language (e.g. one sound changes when it's part of a heavy syllable one way but a different way if part of a light syllable). I think it would be interesting to incorporate the weights into the prime language itself, I'm just not sure how that would be accomplished.

What would constitute "everything else"? Logically, you can classify anything as inanimate or animate. I would say that if you're just starting out, stick to a limited number of noun classes/genders. The main use for having noun classes is agreement. You mention that articles agree for noun class, but do adjectives agree with nouns for gender? Do verbs?
I didn't think about adjectives agreeing with nouns for gender, but at the moment I'm thinking verbs will. What if I trimmed it down to a simple dichotomy: godly things v. everything else? However, is it natural for languages to evolve new cases? Most (if not all) of what I've seen are languages shrinking the number of classes as they evolve, not adding them. I would like for the daughter languages to have greater versatility in their noun classes than just two.

Well... you don't have a masculine/feminine distinction, so you probably shouldn't have "he/she/it". You should have 3rd person animate, 3rd person inanimate, etc., instead. I recommend the Wikipedia article on pronouns for an idea of what other types of pronouns you need. The ones you list are just personal pronouns.
Good point, thank you.

I feel I needed several years to get semi-decent at conlanging so don't be too hard on yourself. Create your English cipher and you'll make it less English while you learn new stuff. Regarding adpositions, your language is SOV so they'd be more likely to be postpositions (come after the noun).
Okay, thank you.

Once again, I appreciate the response.
User avatar
Creyeditor
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5091
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: ŗahrih raçnann

Post by Creyeditor »

ukfl wrote: 29 Jan 2019 16:02
ŗahrih raçnann
Phonology
  • b d c m n ɲ ʀ ɾ ç h ɺ ʎ
  • s' p' t' q'
  • i u e o a
Allophones
I suck at allophones and would appreciate help on this one.
Maybe I'm to late, but there is another way of "fixing" the consonant inventory, without adding or substracting phonemes. You can use allophony. Let me show you one way of doing it. Feel free to use the same method with a different result though.

In the first stop, I map your sounds to a more basic sound that they could be an allophone of. This step is not deterministic. Most sounds can alternate with a lot of different other sounds.

[m n ɲ] -> /m n ɲ/
[b p' d t' c q'] -> /p p' t t' k k'/
[ç s' h] -> /s s' h/
[ɺ ɾ ʎ ʀ] -> /l r ʎ ʀ/

This is still an interesting inventory, but not too strange in itself. Now we try to find conditions under which the phonemes we wrote up can match the sounds you proposed.
The first allophony we have to deal with is /p t/ -> [ b d]. Voiceless consonants often become voiced between vowels, so we could write a rule (where V=any vowel)

/p t/ -> [ b d]/V_V

The next allophony are the place alternations of your dorsal stops: /k k'/ -> [c q']. Let's first split it up and make it more symetric: /k k'/ -> [c c'] and /k k'/ -> [q q']. Consonants can change their place of articulation to palatal, if they are adjacent to an /i/. Let's say in your case, e.g., that the velars become palatal if they immediately follow an /i/. We can write this rule as:

/k k'/ -> [c c']/i_

The second part of this process is the uvular place of articulation. I looked at the PBase and it seems that in some natural languages you backen a velar to a uvular after the low back vowel /a/ or/o/. Let's just assume that happens in your lang, too.

/k k'/ -> [q q']/a,o_

The next rule we need a condition for is /s/ -> [ç]. Since we already have found some process where sounds become palatal, we can just reuse the context, i.e. the change could be restricted to environments immediately after /i/. This would give the following rule.

/s/ -> [ç]/i_

The next allophonic pattern we want to describe is /l r/ -> [ɺ ɾ], so both alveolar liquids become taps. We could again see this as a case of lenition and let it apply between vowels. This would give us the following rule:

/l r/ -> [ɺ ɾ]/V_V

Now we have solved two problems at once. We have normalized your phoneme inventory and added the missing allophony. Addionally, we kept some of the sounds you wanted. If you want to you can play around with this idea. I think it's worth exploring.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
ukfl
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 20
Joined: 01 Apr 2018 21:03

Re: ŗahrih raçnann

Post by ukfl »

Thank you for the reply and information. Sorry it has taken so long to respond. Life got crazy. Let me work out what you've suggested and get back with you. Thank you again.
ukfl
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 20
Joined: 01 Apr 2018 21:03

Re: ŗahrih raçnann

Post by ukfl »

Another newbie question:

How do affixes in a language evolve with sound changes? For example, let's a say a language uses affixes for declension, so that (making up something on the fly):

-lem is added to a root to mark a noun as allative
-kit is added to a root to mark a noun as locative

Again, just making stuff up, let's say we have two words (hewlemili and utilkitcorn) that evolve over time, so that they become:

hewelmli (/e/ and /l/ switch places)
utiliktro (/i/ and /k/ switch places)

Would the aforementioned affixes change as well based on the sound change, so that they become -elm and -ikt, or would they change based upon the respective root to which they are attached during the language's evolution? If the latter, how would the language maintain a system for declension?
User avatar
Sequor
sinic
sinic
Posts: 438
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13

Re: ŗahrih raçnann

Post by Sequor »

ukfl wrote: 22 Apr 2020 01:53Would the aforementioned affixes change as well based on the sound change, so that they become -elm and -ikt, or would they change based upon the respective root to which they are attached during the language's evolution? If the latter, how would the language maintain a system for declension?
Languages across time tend to be pulled toward basically two directions at the same time.

- On the one hand, there's the pressure from sound changes to create forms that are sensitive to the sounds nearby (allomorphs) or the specific word at hand (exceptions / exceptional patterns, and more narrowed down, irregular words).

- On the other hand, there's the pressure to create systems that make some sense, at least for the most part or for a lot of words or subcategory of words, and this is done by means of analogy and forced regularization.

For example, from Latin to Old Spanish, there was a metathesis of dl > ld and dn > nd, as in catēnātum > *[kadˈnado] > candado. And this affected the unstressed pronoun lo after imperative verbs, creating an irregularity: amāte illum > *[aˈmad lo] > amaldo. The regular pattern was naturally just amās illum > ámaslo. Another irregularity showed up after infinitives, where rl > l: > ʎ, as in amāre illum > *[aˈmaɾ lo] > amallo [aˈmaʎo].

However, the pressure from analogy of most verbs followed by a pronoun, which did not have such exceptions (amad / amar + me: amadme, amarme), was such that these irregular patterns were eliminated in favour of straight concatenation. Thus you get modern Spanish amadlo and amarlo where previously there was amaldo and amallo.

Sometimes the irregularities can stay though. I have an uncle-in-law who grew up in a rural village near Concepción, Chile, and he actually still says amallo [aˈmaʎo] in his dialect. He doesn't retain amaldo though.

Another thing that can happen is that one affix splits into two, after being reinterpreted with a new meaning or use in its irregular form, then spreading to other words. (From Latin to Old Spanish, the ending -uī of habuī was reinterpreted with a different separation as -abuī, which then spread to other verbs like tenuī > *t-abuī > OSp tove, and stetī > *st-abuī > OSp estove, and credidī > *cr-abuī > OSp crove.) Or maybe it enters in competition with a cognate affix in a nearby dialect (as with Spanish -uelo vs. Catalan/Occitan -ol, borrowed into Spanish in words like español, originally a diminutive (insult?) among Catalans for people west of them in the peninsula). Many other such things.
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.
ukfl
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 20
Joined: 01 Apr 2018 21:03

Re: ŗahrih raçnann

Post by ukfl »

Ser wrote: 22 Apr 2020 07:17 Languages across time tend to be pulled toward basically two directions at the same time ...
Okay, thank you for the information. I'll work on unpacking it to better understand it. At the moment, I'm still struggling to figure out how this works though, so please bear with me. This language makes use of 16 grammatical classes and 13 noun cases. Nouns are formed by taking the root and adding a suffix for the grammatical clas, and then adding one or more suffixes for each relevant noun case (unless nominative, where there is no declension). So for example:
  • mäd- /mɒd/ (a thing that exists, a material thing, a thing that is)
  • -hAn- /hAn/ (class I noun, consists of hard inanimate things that have not been worked, moved, or harvested)
  • -rBh- /ɾBh/ (class XI noun, consists of plants untouched or unmoved)
  • -ŗeg /ʀeg/ (locative case)
Which we can use to make the following:
  • mädhunŗeg /mɒdˈ.hunˌ.ʀeg/ (collectively, the ground)
  • mädrähŗeg /mɒdˈ.ɾɒhˌ.ʀeg/ (collectively, natural plants, forests, fields, etc.)
So in evolving the language, I'm assuming the whole word (root+class+case) is taken into account for how a word changes, such that running the above through some sound changes we get (for example's sake) madgoushu /madʒ.ouʃˈ.ʊˌ/ and mashouhu /maʃ.ɑɔhˈ.ʊˌ/. But the root and suffixes would change as well, correct? So that we get the following, using the same sound changes:
  • mash /maʃ/ (root)
  • -ots- /ot̼s/ (class)
  • -a- /a/ (class)
  • -u /ʊ/ (locative case)
  • mashotsa /maʃ.ot̼sˈ.aˌ/
  • mashau /maʃ.aˈ.ʊˌ/
Obviously, there is a discrepancy between the initial words' evolution and what we get evolving each of the parts separately and then recombining them. So is it a mix and match between the affixes changing within words and by themselves?
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: ŗahrih raçnann

Post by Omzinesý »

ukfl wrote: 29 Jan 2019 17:10 Verbs suck. A lot. And I apparently suck at making a system for them.

Verbs
Given that this society's people exist solely to perform functions for their deity overlords, there is no perception of linear time, thus no tense use for verbs other than inference from the context of the speaker/listener. Verbs are inflected according to grammatical gender, person, number, and aspect. (As I'm not really getting how voice or mood work, at least not enough to be able to account for them in this system, they are absent for the moment.) Since the PIE verb system aligns closest with what I'm aiming for, I'm borrowing somewhat from it.

Verbs consist of a root and affixes. The root conveys a basic idea, while a prefix encodes gender, person, and number (the two together constitute a verb stem). An ending prefix encodes aspect. Furthermore, verbs are inflected according to their transitivity (transitive v. intransitive).

Aspect
  • Simple - instant or immediate actions
  • Temporal
    • Inchoate - indicates the beginning of an action (inferential future tense)
    • Progressive - indicates an action progressing toward completion
    • Cessative - indicates the ending of an action (inferential past tense)
  • Iterative - expresses continuous repetition
  • Gnomic - does not limit the flow of time to an particular conception
  • Gnomic
Copulas
Not sure what I'm doing with this one or even how to really go about it.

Adverb
At the moment, I'm thinking of simply using some kind of affix to turn verbs into adverbs, but I'm not sure if that is the right way to go.
After around ten years of conlanging and nearly the same time of linguistic studies, I too still struggle with verbs. My choice in the languages that go any further is to keep the verb system relatively easy and manageable.

Many languages do without grammatical voice, languages with noun cases especially.

Your idea of agreement prefixes for all the genders/noun classes seems fine. Just keep the prefixes long enough to be able to code all the distinctions.

"Ending prefix". My understanding is that ending and suffix are synonyms, so ending prefix is not a thing. So are all the aspects listed above to be coded in your verb. You could consider skipping some, just to keep the lang manageable.

Transitivity is not an inflectional category. You can derive verbs with different argument structures though.
Causatives, anticausatives etc.

You can well form verbal adverbials (I use the term converb of them). Deverbalized verbs are generally called nonfinite. That is again a feature many languages do not have.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Post Reply