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.