I think it's just easier to make the deity suffix -ya.
TVTropes Nuzlocke Thread. - Arceus Help Us All.So do y'all not think a vowel length distinction is feasible anywhere, or do you just not like it here?
What topic do you think we should tackle next? Pronouns?
"There's an amazing feeling to being able to say things in your own language." - ZizozIt's feasible (I mean, real languages use it), but it's also one of the weakest ways vowels can be distinguished.
So any language that has a vowel length distinction has to depend on context to know what it's doing. That's not a bad thing, almost all languages depend on context quite a lot, but we ought to realize it'll happen more if we use this distinction.
I think we should organize what we have. However...
A simple pronoun system could work as follows:
Have words for first-person, second-person singular, second-person plural, third person singular, third-person plural.
Combine them to produce other pronouns: e.g. I-you or I-you-he/she/it or I-you-they for inclusive we, I-he/she/it or I-they for exclusive we. This produces a lot of possible distinctions with only five basic words.
Yeah, I was going to suggest reducing the number of particles to four by using a plural particle.
I-plural would imply a Hive Mind, though.
I like this simple system! I also, however, like my in/exclusive-we distinction. Perhaps inclusive refers to tropers, and exclusive to non-tropers? Thus we'd have:
| I (implicitly a troper) | I (marked for not-troper-ness) |
| we (implicitly tropers) | we (marked for not-tropers-ness |
and the same in second and third persons. Do you like this idea?
"There's an amazing feeling to being able to say things in your own language." - Zizoz@LK: So basically the equivalent of the dreaded "this troper".
TVTropes Nuzlocke Thread. - Arceus Help Us All.Yes, only grammatically legitimised! I don't know how that idea occurred to me, but I'm glad it did.
"There's an amazing feeling to being able to say things in your own language." - ZizozThey should.
And it would be used in cases where one intends to keep their identity unknown as well.
TVTropes Nuzlocke Thread. - Arceus Help Us All.Our term for "That Troper" should be a combination of the word for "Did Not Do The Research" and the word for "editor/troper". The Other Troper should be a combination of our word for "Shown Their Work" and "editor/troper".
edited 1st Oct '10 6:13:13 PM by AlirozTheConfused
Never be without a Hat! Hot means heat. I don't care if your usage dates to 1300, it's my word, not yours. My Pm box is open.Oooh, how about pejorative and, er, whatever-the-opposite-is (laudative?) affixes? Thus "third-person-pejorative" is "That Troper" and "third-person-laudative" is "The Other Troper."
So you're proposing three levels of troper-ness - troper-with-handle, Unknown Troper, and non-troper? Sounds good to me!
edited 2nd Oct '10 6:01:30 AM by LKtheGreat
"There's an amazing feeling to being able to say things in your own language." - ZizozThe more we can base things in 3, the better.
For singular and plural, I would say that we should have three, not two. Singular, Plural , and Infinite/Zero/uncountable.
Singular: Normal. The singular of Example would be our word for example.
Plural: How about we go with "n", rather than "s" in most cases. For example: the plural of example would be "examplen" rather than "examples".
Infinite/zero/uncountable: I think we could have a prefix or thimng to add to the start of the word. Maybe "Nexample" for the infinite/zero/uncountable for example? In some languages, putting N at the front of something negates it.
Like "Nill" for "will", leading to phrases like "will I, nill I" or "willy nilly".
Never be without a Hat! Hot means heat. I don't care if your usage dates to 1300, it's my word, not yours. My Pm box is open.I had been leaning towards having no grammatical number at all - just some optional words meaning "some," "many," etc. However, I do like your system, and using Rule of Three in our grammar is such a deliciously troper-like thing to do!
"Infinite/zero/uncountable" seems a bit wide, though. How about drop the zero and have the third form be only infinite/uncountable? Thus we'd have "example," "examples," "all examples everywhere." I know I'm rambling at this point, but it never occurred to me to use the general mood of verbs (which I think I mentioned earlier somewhere) on nouns. Yay for stream-of-consciousness grammar-ing!
"There's an amazing feeling to being able to say things in your own language." - ZizozFor Wiki Words and Pot Holes there should be a form to say them.
Would the numberless tense be used to quantify Beyond the Impossible?
EDIT:Ooh, ooh, can we make tropish numbers base 11?
edited 5th Oct '10 10:10:24 PM by VincentGaribaldi

I like the "just writing" vs. "creative writing" distinction.
Also, we did establish that there would be two lengths of vowels - i.e. "a" vs. "aa." There are plenty of natural languages that manage to keep this distinction, but if you object I suppose we could rediscuss it. As I recall that was part of the back-and-forth between Zizoz and me that pretty much no one else took part in.
"There's an amazing feeling to being able to say things in your own language." - Zizoz