Eldin has a good point here. Language speakers tend to reduce redundancy if for solely the reason of not wanting to use those tongue muscles. . Maybe have repetitive structures be prefixed, so something likeeldin raigmore wrote:Well, that would make it like trying to alliterate in Swahili, or trying to rhyme in Latin. In other words; not difficult.LinguoFranco wrote:I have an idea for a language that uses suffixes for inflections and prefixes for derivational morphology. One issue that I am having so far is that it can get hysterically redundant. For example, "vuti" means to eat. and "vivuti" means "food" because the prefix "vi-" makes a verb into a noun. So "I eat food is "Uka vuti vivuti." Of course, you'd normally just say "I eat."
I'm not sure the redundancy is a bug instead of a feature. An L1-speaker's tolerance-setting for "hysterically" might be a good deal less strict than yours.
My advice (to the degree that I can even actually give advice) would be to go for it if you want to.
Trying to avoid saying the same thing the same way too many times in a shortish utterance is something speakers of languages with lots of synonyms -- i.e. English -- can (and some do) have as a goal.
It might be a worthwhile experience for you to develop this conlang along the lines it's already taking.
But of course, the only real advice is "do what you want as long as it fits your design goals; and your design goals are whatever you say they are".
Uka vuti vi
1SG eat NOM
"I eat food"
Sometimes its important to have a construction that can concisely say that, even if redundant. What if I wanted to shout at the chef "I eat food, not garbage!". The most realistic construction I can see would be just retaining the nominalizer, but cutting off the verb.