Directional Verbs and Particles in K'aach

[Akubra]

In K'aach, the conlang I'm currently working on, I'm considering introducing the concept of directional verbs and particles. These elements would play a crucial role in conveying precise meanings related to movement, orientation, and intention. Directional verbs in K'aach inherently imply directionality and are modified by directional particles to specify the nature of the action. Let me explain:

The verb "waay" can mean "to move towards" or "to move away from" a reference point, depending on the particle that immediately follows it:
"waay tzi" means "to move towards" the reference point (= "to come").
"waay na" means "to move away from" the reference point (= "to go").

Beyond movement in relation to a reference point, this principle would also apply to:

• Horizontal movement (forward/backward)
• Lateral movement (left/right)
• Vertical movement (up/down)

These movements can also be used figuratively (e.g., moving up in position, moving forward to the next grade, etc.).
I'm debating whether to include time within this concept, and what that would actually entail. Additionally, goal-oriented particles might be incorporated, but I'm still exploring this idea. Here are some examples:

Movements in relation to a reference point:
Waay tzi Joon. (John is coming)
Waay na Joon. (John is going away)

Horizontal movements:
"Ts'a'aj" can mean "to move forward" or "to move backward".
"Te" indicates a forward movement; "pu" indicates a backward movement.
Ts'a'aj te Joon ti' keya. (John is pushing the table forward.)
Ts'a'aj pu Joon ti' keya. (John is pulling the table back.)

Goal-oriented actions (tentative):
"Winik" means "to work"
winik kuk: to work (action performed with the end goal of achieving a specific result, e.g., with the goal of completing a task)
winik jaal: to work (action performed as preparation for another action, e.g., as preparation for a project)
winik maak: to work (action performed for a particular purpose or reason, e.g., to earn money)

I've been weighing the pros and cons of this broad concept, and with some help, I've come up with the following:

Why directional verbs and particles are a good idea:

• Reduces the number of verb roots to learn, streamlining the language.
• Allows for nuanced distinctions and detailed descriptions of actions.
• Creates a predictable and logical language structure.
• Reflects a worldview emphasizing directionality and movement.
• Provides compact expressions by embedding directional information.
• Enhances the language's depth and expressiveness.
• Systematic patterns can aid learning and comprehension.
• Reduces irregularities and simplifies grammar.

Why directional verbs and particles might not be a good idea:

• Can lead to misunderstandings, especially in complex sentences or rapid speech.
• Requires constant processing of directional particles, increasing mental effort.
• Most natural languages use distinct verbs for opposing actions, making this system feel less intuitive.
• Separate verbs for opposing actions are often more concise and immediately clear.
• Can complicate translating texts into other languages.
• Speakers might develop colloquial shortcuts, diverging from the formal structure.
• Maintaining a consistent system can be challenging, with potential for irregularities.

Note: Of course, when I mention speakers and learning the language, this is purely hypothetical.

What are your perspectives on using these directional verbs and particles? Do you think the benefits outweigh the challenges, or vice versa? Share your comments, questions, and insights below. I'm eager to learn from your feedback.

[Visions1]

• 1) Most natural languages use distinct verbs for opposing actions, making this system feel less intuitive.
  ...
  2) Speakers might develop colloquial shortcuts, diverging from the formal structure.

This is actually a pretty basic feature of Germanic languages, though it's often extended metaphorically. Morphemes like this are also found in languages in the Mojave as affixes. So I take issue with the first part of 1.
2 is awesome though.

I say the benefits balance the cons and you could take it either way, though I personally love this.

[TBPO]

It's interesting idea, but I prefer using affixes for opposite actions or using cases such as ablative or allative.