I don't know what to do with my verbs

[Ahzoh]

I'm completely torn over the position of person markers on the verbs, whether they should be prefixes or suffixes. The decision matters because, due to stress placement rules and diachronics, it drastically changes the shape of the verb and limits the position of other morphemes.

I have below full conjugation tables for both options, in the order of strong, initial-weak, middle-weak, and final-weak:
https://www.frathwiki.com/User:Ahzoh#WIP_Verb_System

More: show

suffixconjugation.png (37.99 KiB) Viewed 1846 times

More: show

prefixconjugation.png (15.29 KiB) Viewed 1846 times

Most of my issue revolves around either lacking room for derivational affixes or tense-mood affixes(or both) without affecting prosody too much and creating clunkiness.

The prefix route looks nice but then there becomes no room for additional tense-moods. Additionally it looks like a straight rip from Akkadian:

More: show

allthemorphemes.png (117.12 KiB) Viewed 1846 times

---

If I stay with the suffix route, I had contemplated a notion of using gemination to create a verb that behaves as a relative clause (REL) instead of as predicative (PRED) expression, though that again limits my options for derivation affixes.

Code: Select all

      REAL    /  IRR     / JUSS
PRED: paraḫ-  / -praḫ-   / parḫa-
REL:  parraḫ- / -parraḫ- / parraḫa-

      REAL    /  IRR    / JUSS
PRED: yanad-  / -īnad-  / yanda-
REL:  yannad- / -innad- / yannada-

      REAL    /  IRR    / JUSS
PRED: ˀeded-  / -ēded-  / ˀedde-
REL:  ˀedded- / -edded- / ˀeddede-

      REAL    /  IRR    / JUSS
PRED: ṣāb-    / -ṣāb-   / ṣāba-
REL:  ṣâb-    / -ṣâb-   / ṣâba-

      REAL    /  IRR    / JUSS
PRED: lēb-    / -lēb-   / lēbe-
REL:  lêb-    / -lêb-   / lêbe-

      REAL    /  IRR    / JUSS
PRED: madī-   / -mdī-   / māda-
REL:  maddī-  / -maddī- / maddâ-

      REAL    /  IRR    / JUSS
PRED: kemē-   / -kmē-   / kēme-
REL:  kemmē-  / -kemmē- / kemmê-

[Frislander]

Why not both? A prefixal conjugation that's kinda the 'default' but which alternates with a suffixal conjugation when there's a modal prefix (say e.g. non-future and future prefixal, while the comissive, counterfactual and jussive are suffixal). There's some of that going on in Semitic, but also the Algonquian Independent/Conjunct distinction is similar as well. Indeed, just having a shift between the conjugations without any other funky business stem-wise can be used to mark a semantic contrast in itself (e.g. you could have the non-future be prefixal, while the future be one of a family of suffixal conjugations).

[Ahzoh]

Why not both? A prefixal conjugation that's kinda the 'default' but which alternates with a suffixal conjugation when there's a modal prefix (say e.g. non-future and future prefixal, while the comissive, counterfactual and jussive are suffixal). There's some of that going on in Semitic, but also the Algonquian Independent/Conjunct distinction is similar as well. Indeed, just having a shift between the conjugations without any other funky business stem-wise can be used to mark a semantic contrast in itself (e.g. you could have the non-future be prefixal, while the future be one of a family of suffixal conjugations).

I avoid having both also to avoid ripping off Semitic. Plus there is no motivation; it happens in Semitic because the suffix conjugation originates from the Stative/participle form of verbs.

Hmm, it could work.

maybe.png (20.51 KiB) Viewed 1823 times

Another issue is what to do about voice. I thought to just not have any valence-changing operations but apparently no language completely lacks some means of changing valency (even if its means are periphrasal/syntactic).

Now i'm perfectly willing to rip off Semitic by geminating middle radicals to indicate causative, but I've also wanted form adjectives this way. But on top of the confusion of forms, i'd also have no way of forming adjectives from causatives.

[Creyeditor]

Now i'm perfectly willing to rip off Semitic by geminating middle radicals to indicate causative, but I've also wanted form adjectives this way. But on top of the confusion of forms, i'd also have no way of forming adjectives from causatives.

Maybe this is a feature not a bug. Technically, you often form the causative of a change-of-state form of an adjective, i.e. to be tight -> to become tight (to tighten, intr.) -> to cause to become tight (to tighten, tr.). So if you have a way to derive change-of-state forms from adjectives, maybe these could serve as the base for causatives of adjectives.

[Ahzoh]

Now i'm perfectly willing to rip off Semitic by geminating middle radicals to indicate causative, but I've also wanted form adjectives this way. But on top of the confusion of forms, i'd also have no way of forming adjectives from causatives.

Maybe this is a feature not a bug. Technically, you often form the causative of a change-of-state form of an adjective, i.e. to be tight -> to become tight (to tighten, intr.) -> to cause to become tight (to tighten, tr.). So if you have a way to derive change-of-state forms from adjectives, maybe these could serve as the base for causatives of adjectives.

Not looking to derive causatives from adjectives, but adjectives from causatives. So "tightened" from "to tighten", "strengthened/fortified" from "to strengthen/fortify", etc.

[Frislander]

Now i'm perfectly willing to rip off Semitic by geminating middle radicals to indicate causative, but I've also wanted form adjectives this way. But on top of the confusion of forms, i'd also have no way of forming adjectives from causatives.

Maybe this is a feature not a bug. Technically, you often form the causative of a change-of-state form of an adjective, i.e. to be tight -> to become tight (to tighten, intr.) -> to cause to become tight (to tighten, tr.). So if you have a way to derive change-of-state forms from adjectives, maybe these could serve as the base for causatives of adjectives.

Not looking to derive causatives from adjectives, but adjectives from causatives. So "tightened" from "to tighten", "strengthened/fortified" from "to strengthen/fortify", etc.

I'd say those are proximately derived from passives in English anyway (passives of causative verbs maybe, but I don't think that's the meaningful detail here). I also don't see it as an issue to use the same morphological operation for both forms anyway.

[Ahzoh]

I'd say those are proximately derived from passives in English anyway (passives of causative verbs maybe, but I don't think that's the meaningful detail here).

I wasn't referring to how English does things when I said what I said, but only the semantic meanings. Although I suppose the morphological adjective in Vrkhazhian would effectively be a participle.

I don't have a morphological or periphrasal passive.

I also don't see it as an issue to use the same morphological operation for both forms anyway.

Suppose not, but if the causative D-stem is parraḫ- and the adjective of G-stem is parraḫ- then the adjective of D-stem would have to be parrarraḫ- and that's just plain ugly.

[Creyeditor]

Now i'm perfectly willing to rip off Semitic by geminating middle radicals to indicate causative, but I've also wanted form adjectives this way. But on top of the confusion of forms, i'd also have no way of forming adjectives from causatives.

Maybe this is a feature not a bug. Technically, you often form the causative of a change-of-state form of an adjective, i.e. to be tight -> to become tight (to tighten, intr.) -> to cause to become tight (to tighten, tr.). So if you have a way to derive change-of-state forms from adjectives, maybe these could serve as the base for causatives of adjectives.

Not looking to derive causatives from adjectives, but adjectives from causatives. So "tightened" from "to tighten", "strengthened/fortified" from "to strengthen/fortify", etc.

Why do you need to derive adjectives from causatives?

[Ahzoh]

Maybe this is a feature not a bug. Technically, you often form the causative of a change-of-state form of an adjective, i.e. to be tight -> to become tight (to tighten, intr.) -> to cause to become tight (to tighten, tr.). So if you have a way to derive change-of-state forms from adjectives, maybe these could serve as the base for causatives of adjectives.

Not looking to derive causatives from adjectives, but adjectives from causatives. So "tightened" from "to tighten", "strengthened/fortified" from "to strengthen/fortify", etc.

Why do you need to derive adjectives from causatives?

Because I derive deverbal adjectives from normal verbs, normally with a passive, resultative, or attributive meaning. The causative is a derivation, not an inflection.