Hallo conlangers!

On Wednesday 06 June 2012 09:03:29 Philip Newton wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I'm tempted to do a thumbnail statistical analysis of kinds of plural
> > forms that exist in the languages I'm aware of.
> Inuit has -(i)t, with your front vowel and coronal unvoiced stop. (The
> -i- gets dropped if there are already two vowel morae in a row.)
> (And niftily has a dual marker that involves a chroneme! Namely
> "(:)k", again with the ":" getting dropped if there are already two
> vowel morae.)

These number markers are very similar to the Uralic *-t/*-i-
and *-k, and also to IE *-s and *-h1.  Some linguists hold
(for reasons that go beyond these number markers and actually
aren't bad) that all these languages are distantly related.

(ObConlang: The Old Albic plural -i and dual -u are also
related to these.)

> > *suffix -im or -oth
> Which I think correspond to -in and -a:t in Arabic, and to -in and
> -iet in Maltese.

I think so, too; but I am not an expert in Semitic diachronic

Common western conlangers' notions of which sounds feel
"appropriate" for plural markers are skewed by the languages
most westerners are familiar with, and most of them are IE
languages which have either -s or -i as plural markers.
Some languages have plural markers that sound completely
different, such as Yukaghir -p.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
"BÍsel asa …am, a …am atha cvanthal a cvanth atha …amal." - SiM 1:1