Talk:Kiitra(╒└:╠:.╨.─)

Determiners
Notice you use a single determiner, like many Germanic languages. This can be confusing, however, so two suggestions...

1) separate into proximal (close, this/these) and distal (far, that/those)

2) keep a single determiner, but have your words for here/there used to distinguish distance

Intereasting use of here/there to replace subjective pronoun form, real clever!

Thanks, whoevery you are, and good idea. The second suggestion would keep things consistent, so I'll edit grammar section now Lamikorda (talk) 17:19, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

(Anon, please sign yourself so we can thank you)

You could, if you want, add a third level to the distinction, as in "this/that/yonder man" 21:54, October 8, 2012 (UTC) ~) The Elector, Darkness Immaculate

Well, I've stuck with the #2 option suggested; it's consistent with other patterns in the language, especially the general overview about Kiitra Lamikorda (talk) 22:40, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Sure 11:46, October 9, 2012 (UTC) ~) The Elector, Darkness Immaculate

Numbers
Ever considered spicing up the kiitra number system a little bit. I've noticed most conlangs use the english superbase 10^3 system (1,000, 1,000,000, 1,000,000,000) but there is also the japanese 10^4 system (1,0000, 1,0000,0000, 1,0000,0000,0000) or the indian 10^2 system (1,00 1,00,00, 1,00,00,00), or you could even try a system that names every power of ten (never heard of a languge that does that though). Numbers seem to be the thing that are most rarely innovated on in conlangs. Greatbuddha (talk) 00:34, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Greatbuddha: This is a new topic, so I've moved it thusly. Now, on to the question...

My main focus is making Kiitra conversational, both in use in my upcoming book, and for people who want to try learning and speaking to one another if they so desire. To that end, I have names for numbers all the way to the trillions -- but if you look carefully, there is no "superbase" notation as you describe. Granted that can get awkward with large numbers, but I'm also of the opinion that one doesn't necessarily adopt any particular convention just to "spice things up." If you read my reply to the question of determininers, you'll see I try to follow a consistent structure of syntactic logic and thought.

So, I'll give some thought to the "superbase notation" issue, but (a) it's not a priority right now, and (b) it should flow with the backstory narrative of this conlang, not someone else's desire for novelty.Lamikorda (talk) 10:17, October 19, 2012 (UTC)