1

As I was beginning to study some Esperanto, it immediately became clear that the language used the same morphemes without significant modification. Therefore, on further research, concluded that it was agglutinative.

Alongside the feature of agglutinative languages having numerous affixes, are there additional properties I have overlooked? And may English be considered somewhat agglutinative or fusional?

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    Would this be more suitable for the linguistics stack?
    – danch
    Commented Apr 13, 2018 at 20:45
  • 2
    English has almost no inflection, so it's neither fusional nor agglutinative, but rather analytic. The reason Esperanto has no significant paradigmatic irregularity is because it was designed that way. But modification of morphemes is not a good test for agglutination; you need to look at the paradigms.
    – jlawler
    Commented Apr 14, 2018 at 1:58
  • 3
    Agglutinative languages have many one-dimensional paradigms that can be stacked together in a word, like Turkish verb inflections; fusional paradigms are usually multi-dimensional, like Latin noun inflections.
    – jlawler
    Commented Apr 14, 2018 at 1:59
  • 1
    Please make it an answer and then append to it by commenting. Plus is this not a see Wikipedia first question?
    – WiccanKarnak
    Commented Apr 14, 2018 at 6:06

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.