Talk:Fusional language

message: From the article:
: A good illustration of fusionality in language is the Latin word boni, "good men". The ending -i denotes masculine gender, nominative case, and plural number. Changing any of these features requires replacement of the suffix -i with something else.
This last sentence isn't even true because boni is also "of the good man" (genitive, masculine, singular) and "of the good thing" (genitive, neuter, singular).  Perhaps a better example would be "bonus", because for that one you really do need to replace the suffix to change gender, number, and case.  I'm going to change this.  –Andyluciano 19:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad example for Latin 

message: I'm not sure the topic here is described properly (and regardless it is certainly not clear). Specifically what is the article really trying to say is the key difference between inflection and agglutination? Among other things using German as a prime example of a strictly "inflectional" language seems like an odd choice (granted I have seen this done in other places but it seems illogical). It is hard to argue that German is not "agglutinative". In fact it is German's ability to built complex words from simpler words that is one of its most powerful features and some scholars have argued that's what makes it a good language for science and philosophy (i.e. that you can easily create a word for a new concept that is intrinsicly clear without having to go to a lot of effort to define it). But at the same time German is also a substantially inflected language (albeit perhaps not as much as some languages).
Latin and its descendants, by contrast, can easily be said to be almost entirely free of any agglutinative nature. It is difficult to find examples of anything agglutinative in their writings (there are some examples but they are exceptional).
Anybody who is more of a linguist than I am want to comment?
--Mcorazao 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this described properly? 

message: "Fusional languages are generally believed to have descended from agglutinating languages"
This sounds rather like WP:AWT to me!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.164.155 (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel? 

message: I'm asking for someone to add at least a few more examples of fusional language, because after reading this article, I still have no idea what it is. --V2Blast (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after reading the Agglutinative language page, I think I have an idea of what it is. Words in agglutinative languages can be clearly separated into the individual morphemes (each of which has a clear meaning), but the separate morphemes in words of fusional languages are less clear (as demonstrated by the "otouto" Japanese example on the Agglutinative language page). This page should have a similar example, so the difference can be made clear. --V2Blast (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More examples? 

message: The first paragraph is probably intelligible to a linguist, or someone with a deep interest in language.  However, it is not even remotely accessible to a general audience.  I waded through the first paragraph for several minutes, and I still couldn't figure it out.   Dwbullok (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This might be a useful article if you already know what an inflective language is 

message: I'm not an expert in these questions, but it doesn't sound like a very scientific statement that English is a "nearly analytic" language. A perfectly analytic language would not have any inflection at all. "Nearly analytic" would be analytic with just one or two little exceptions. But English has inflection everywhere: two comparative forms plus an adverb form for most adjectives, two number forms for most nouns, between three and eight forms for verbs.
English is the most analytic of all European languages and in comparison to say German or Russian it has very little inflection. These are the languages that we normally compare English to, and therefore we might figure that English is "nearly analytic", while objectively it's not. Well, not in my (non-expert, as I said) point of view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.40.203.117 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  English "nearly analytic" 

message: The examples of fusional Indo-European languages explicitly excludes Bulgarian. This is incorrect. Bulgarian has lost most of the Proto-Slavic declension, but plurals are still formed in a variety of ways while the remnants of the vocative case are clearly fusional. Example: vocative Kalino has the nominative ending -a from Kalina changed to -o. The masculine version of the same name is Kalin, in vocative Kaline. In addition, Bulgarian has fully retained the Proto-Slavic verb conjugation and it is as fusional as is the modern Spanish conjugation.
So I am removing the exclusion statement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazibara (talk • contribs) 08:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian