mrbaggins wrote:There are two tools in life, duct tape and WD40. If it moves and shouldn't, use the tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
Hobgoblin wrote:It's a disgustingly simple language, being that 4 out of 6 conjugations in the present tense are the SAME THING
An apparently exceptionless generalization is that human nouns are more likely to have plural marking than non-human (espcially inanimate) nouns . Thus, three further logically possible types, in which inanimate plurals would occur more widely than human plurals, are not attested:
7. Plural only in inanimate nouns, obligatory
8. Plural only in inanimate nouns, optional
9. Plural in all nouns, optional in human nouns
gmalivuk wrote:Hobgoblin wrote:It's a disgustingly simple language, being that 4 out of 6 conjugations in the present tense are the SAME THING
You do realize the irony of making this statement in English, right? Where 5 out of 6 conjugations in the present tense are the same thing, and 6 out of 6 in the past are as well? And in total a regular verb has only four morphologically distinct forms?
Felstaff wrote:Serves you goddamned right. I hope you're happy, Cake Ruiner
Silas wrote:Read your post; didn't like it. Ever think about whether subjects are always necessary?
Besides, if you look closer (in the 'suffixes' link), there's a 1st-person suffix, -izg, which can be appended with the plural suffix -u. Azubizguluk: I'll kill them all.
Users browsing this forum: BudaiZho6p and 3 guests