What to do with this morpheme
Anthologica Universe Atlas / Forums / Department of Creativity / What to do with this morpheme

? twabs fair maiden
posts: 228
, Conversational Speaker message
I originally had a sound change suffixing /s/ onto the end of most words ending in a stop. Then I realized that I liked having both forms in -s and forms without it. Hence, the ancestor language has a suffix -tɑ that ends up becoming an -s tacked onto, ideally, 50±20% of (at least) nominals, which is probably then either a noun class or another set of inflections.

The question then becomes: what did it mean in the parent, and what does it mean in the daughter? Something like gender or another noun class seems to me unlikely to be marked with a suffix on that much of the vocabulary; something like collectivity seems unlikely to show up that often; using it as an intensifier seems like a good idea but I don't know what that could become in the daughter, and as I write this I come up with the idea of using it to mark definiteness, at which point I would normally delete the post, and go with that, except for (1) I kind of wanted an article, and (2) I'd also like to hear any better ideas people might have.
? hwhatting posts: 105
, Sophomore message
quoting Tsar Нють, Function:
Something like gender or another noun class seems to me unlikely to be marked with a suffix on that much of the vocabulary;

Why do you think so? Look at how many words in Romance languages end in -o or -a, or how many words in Arabic end in -at(un). 

? Hallow XIII Primordial Crab
posts: 539
, 侯 of Crows at Basel
message
Or in general, marked-nominative languages (look at icelandic, pretty much every word ends in -ur or -a).
? twabs fair maiden
posts: 228
, Conversational Speaker, /ˈajwʌ/
message
quoting hwhatting, Disinterest:
quoting Tsar Нють, Function:
Something like gender or another noun class seems to me unlikely to be marked with a suffix on that much of the vocabulary;

Why do you think so?

Small reference frame? But yeah, I'll give a greater consideration to that. Although... I do kinda like the idea of having three ways to mark definiteness (the third is a sort-of-definiteness distinction on the verb in the third plural.)
quoting Hallow XIII, Monsignor of Crows at Basel:
Or in general, marked-nominative languages (look at icelandic, pretty much every word ends in -ur or -a).

But... but my language isn't marked-nominative :-(
? Hallow XIII Primordial Crab
posts: 539
, 侯 of Crows at Basel
message
Newt, it's clearly evolving in this direction ~
? Rhetorica Your Writing System Sucks
posts: 1292
, Kelatetía: Dis, Major Belt 1
message
How about... a normalizer? Like an intensifier, but underscoring the idea of average, normal, or typicalness, whereas an unqualified noun would encompass a broader range of possibilities.
? twabs fair maiden
posts: 228
, Conversational Speaker, /ˈajwʌ/
message
quoting Rhetorica, Illúbequía: Dis, Major Belt 1:
How about... a normalizer? Like an intensifier, but underscoring the idea of average, normal, or typicalness, whereas an unqualified noun would encompass a broader range of possibilities.

Definitely an interesting idea... but this would become a second set of inflections, ideally, although it *could* be interpreted as a different degree of definiteness, and hmm.