Talk:Lalakhmet

Are you really writing /t͡s/ as ? Joersc (talk) 22:18, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I like the way it looks. Also, it's an a priori, so I can write it anyway I want.

Maxseptillion77 (talk) 00:40, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur: you can use whatever you want for either types of conlang. Doesn't diminish the fact that  don't really make for a coherent or logical sequence. Your evidentiality system doesn't at all follow how evidentiality systems work. Are the glorious and ominous specifically only for abstract ideas? Is a monster masc/fem. or omin. instead? Lots of questions :v 09:00, October 23, 2015 (UTC)~ ~) The Elector, Darkness Immaculate

You do have a point with being that it should be one diacritic or just a letter, but why ? <ż> is [d͡z], so  is [d] + [d͡z], so geminate: and the same with . Honestly,  makes the least sense, but it flows with the devoicing and fortifying of [l] to [ɬ].

I don't know how to do evidentiality, so I made it up. Is this a good article to read for evidentiality?

Also, sorry, I forgot to expand on this " Gender paradigms are not noun specific except with some nouns (father, mother, sister, etc (these have separate words))." What I'm trying to say is that gender is usually applied for a connotational difference to create words. As in, the word for monster could just be "person" in the ominous gender. Or, if I wanted to make a separate word for "monster," then it would be intrinsically bad, so I'd only exist in the masculine for a male, feminine for a female, or neuter for a monster with a non-descript gender. If that makes sense o3o.

Also, please ask questions (aka, criticize harshly). The more you critique criticize, the better it becomes if I can't answer you.

Maxseptillion77 (talk) 18:39, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Then how is that a gender system? Gender is a way to classify nouns. Does that not look like a derivational system? ED