It just occurred to me that "another" is kind of strange in English.
Here's the relevant distribution:

(a) I want a different cookie.
(b) I want another cookie.
(c) *I want an another cookie.
(d) ?I want an other cookie.
(e) I want the other cookie.
(f) *I want different cookie.

So "another" isn't properly an adjective, or it would have the
same distribution as "different".  Yet I get the sense that "an other"
is different from "another".  The thing that bothers me is that
you clearly can't say "an another", unless "another" is some sort
of brand name.

Here's the relevant conlang bit.  In Kamakawi, transitive
sentences work like this:

Ka mata ei i nawa.
/past see I OBJ. fish/
"I saw a fish."

The /i/ always precedes the object.  It sometimes can appear
as /ie/ or /iu/, depending on the definiteness and plurality of
the following noun, but /i/ does it for indefinite objects.

I have a series of nouns that are supposed to be derived from
a combination of this /i/ particle and a noun.  It forms what I've
called instance of action nouns, or object nouns, or various types
of nouns, something like this:

tei "to dance" > itei "(a/the) dance"
moi "guava tree" > imoi "guava fruit"
kavaka "to write" > ikavaka "book"

In a sentence, you would do it this way:

Ka hava ei i imoi.
/past eat I OBJ. guava/
"I ate a guava."

Have I done this wrong?  Should there be no object marker?
I wouldn't have thought so, but thinking about "another" has
given me pause.  Any thoughts?

"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison