You say there are no final consonants -- other than /m/ I take it?

Also why would final syllables homophonous with a number suffix be a
problem? Most languages tolerate that kind of small ambiguities, especially
if the suffix in question has to be added anyway. Take the Swedish word
_öken_ 'desert': it looks like the definite form of a common noun _*ök_,
yet it is indefinite, its definite form being _öknen_.


torsdagen den 17:e april 2014 skrev Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]>:

> >>In my conlang Siye, 'I baptized him' (a Terrestrial concept) could use
> /pata/ borrowed from English, /ilepatapuna/, or >>/su/tu-sum-nu/ 'cause him
> to go under' /iletupusumnuna/ 'I baptized him'.
> >Really, the Siye speakers drop codas in loans?  That seems like it would
> cause an immense amount of homonymy if >there were any coda-rich languages
> (like English) around that they were borrowing from.
> >On the other hand, I see you posting examples with verb stems like _li_
> eat.IMPFV and _yo_ eat.PFV and a whole >bunch of other monosyllables and I
> wonder if Siye utterances are already massively ambiguous due to homonymy
> >anyway.  Or are these atypically short verbs?  Or is disambiguating
> information carried in other parts of the verbal >word or of the sentence?
>  Or... ?
> >Alex
> /pata/ is from /baptaiz/. Siye does not allow final consonants, but I
> suppose the borrowing could be /patasa/ - it's CV and does not end in a
> syllable homophonous with any of the grammatical number suffixes. The
> missionaries coined it from English - perhaps, as you intimate, it was not
> their finest hour. The term that will survive is probably /iletupusumnuna/,
> a reworking of the word 'to drown' - sometimes with /sakikem/ 'in water',
> added. Many of the words such as 'to go' are context-dependent and as such
> are translated by different English verbs. I will concede that some words,
> if they were written down and found later in isolation, would be confusing.
> To answer another question, there are no coda-rich languages on Mars. But
> then twenty-eight million Martians on the equator (out of thirty million
> equatorials) cover two languages.
> /li/ and /yo/ are not the whole verb - the superlative directional /na/
> has to be present to render the meaning 'eat'.
> With the ablative directional /su/ it is 'vomit', with the allative
> directional /tu/, 'swallow'.
> With the causative suffix /sum/ and the directional /na/, it means 'feed'.
> /li/ with the sublative directional /nu/ means 'to die' and is
> intransitive (unlike all of the transitive examples above) -
> /li-nu/ is imperfective and therefore takes the suffix /ma/.
> The imperfective equivalent is /ke-nu/ and therefore takes the aspect
> suffix /ma/.
> /ke/ without a directional suffix or with /na/ is the perfective form of
> 'build' and takes the aspect suffix /na/.
> The imperfective of 'to build' is /nu-0/ or /nu-na/ with the imperfective
> aspect suffix /na/.
> Now, it is true that the imperfective form of the verb 'to give' was also
> /nu/ (until 2196 or so), but in that case it takes the directional suffix
> /su/.
> The perfective form of the verb is /mu-su/.
> And so on.
> Or taking another tack, /eyoputuna/ 'he swallowed it' and /eyoputuma/ 'he
> will listen to it' might look the same, but a Siye-speaker would know that
> the perfective suffix /-na/ indicates the verb li/yo, and the imperfective
> suffix /-ma/. indicated the verb yo/sa.
> It was very complicated to set up (thank God for dictionary software!),
> but believe me, I weeded out most of the homophony by cross-referencing
> aspect, transitivity, directionality, and use of the extensive case system
> (what's the use of designing an original 10-case system if I wasn't going
> to use it)
> There are plenty of two- and three-syllable verbs, but it is easier for me
> to keep the examples short. If it would be more helpful, I can use them in
> examples from now on.