E f+AOk-sto Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>: > Is there a term for languages where you have essentially one-to-one > correspondence between morphemes and grammatical categories, but forgoes > agglutinating accretion of suffixes in favour of mutations and infixes? I think that'd just be a fusional polysynthetic language. Doesnt the idea of mutations undermine the idea of one-to-one mapping? If something has mutated, then it expresses both its original meaning and and the mutation's meaning, doesnt it? *Muke! -- http://frath.net/ E jer savne zarj+AOk- mas ne http://kohath.livejournal.com/ Se imn+AOk- koone'f metha http://kohath.deviantart.com/ Brissve m+AOk- kol+AOk- ad+AOI-.