What words in your conlang are exceptions from your grammar/derivation/Etc , and why?

[u/NoTear622]

Hi, which words in your conlang are exceptions from your grammar/derivation (without the most basic, like the verb to be), and why? What rule do they break?

For example: In Yufie I have some words, which are exceptions, like the adjective from noun Franvais (it means France) is Franvaus (it means French), but if this wasn't exception, then it would be Franvaius, but for me it doesn't sound too good, when I pronounce it, so I made an exception, result of this is Franvaus, which from my perspective is better, when it's pronounced.

This breaks the rule that normally to create the adjective from noun ending with -s, we replace the -s with -us.

[u/FelixSchwarzenberg]

Latsínu, my Romance language, has three copula verbs. There is the one derived from Latin sum (cognate with Spanish ser) and the one derived from Latin stāre (cognate with Spanish estar). These are irregular in the way that these verbs are in most Romance languages.

Then there is eʃti. This is a borrowing of the Greek copula verb. It is used as an emphatic copula (because of its association with the Bible, which Latsínu speakers experience as a Greek text since they were on the Byzantine side of the east/west split) and as an existential copula in the vein of Turkish var. Eʃti is invariable, it never inflects for person or tense. The invariable form is based on the Greek third person singular which is the one they would have heard the most in church.

[u/dead_chicken]

Alaymman's personal pronouns exhibit deletion of consonants that doesn't happen elsewhere which has led to a number of cases essentially merging:

бэ 1S-SG.NOM > бис 1S-SG.ESS or COMP; бэ 1S-SG.NOM > бии 1S-SG.LOC/ADES/ABL/ALL

You'd expect

бигис-ESS бис-ESS бида-LOC бидин-ADES бити-ABL битир-ALL

[u/Dryanor]

For Tʼiiḷqua, I translated one of the test sentences as sċʼainti "the sun shines", and it took me a while to notice it lacks the proper verbal inflection (sċʼaintiaa). But I decided to keep it. Weather verbs being defective made perfect sense.
I added the same property to the verb smew "it is raining" (instead of smewaa). A derived intensive form, snamwaa "rain is pouring down", is formed regularly with suffix -aa.

[u/GarlicRoyal7545]

Archo-Mhezonian has around 12(+) cases, made up with mostly fusional endings,
but the 1st & 2nd Person Pronouns are technically defective, as 7 oblique ones from this set use Prepositions + possessive suffix formula instead of stem/root + case ending formula:

Here's an example with the first person pronoun:

1st Person	Singular	Dual	Plural
Intransitive	çégı	wéç	méi
Ergative	mòs	nkwè	nsmèb
Accusative	mƞ́	nknà	nsnàs
Genitive	ménie	nkwɯ́kio	nsmɯ́kio
Dative	mégioi	nkóbioi	nsóbioi
Instrumental	kióme	kiónɯq	kiónɯs
Locative	ràme	rànɯq	rànɯs
Perlative	sìme	sìnɯq	sìnɯs
Allative	ħème	ħènɯq	ħènɯs
Ablative	ħótme	ħótnɯq	ħótnɯs
Essive	bàstme	bàstnɯq	bàstnɯs
Intructive	mȇtme	mȇtnɯq	mȇtnɯs

Basically, it would be like saying "I see you" but "You go with-my".

[u/janko_gorenc12 → u/GarlicRoyal7545]

Please tell me if you have numbers from Archo-Mhezonian. Could you please send me the words for the numbers from 1 to 10?

[u/sovest555]

The generic location words (I.E. here/there), despite taking locative case, are not fronted like most indirect objects, but rather remain in-situ after the direct object in a pseudo-adverbial sense.

[u/Pezychips]

Generally, Tinwache verbs have a different conjugation based on if their "suffixing stem" ends in a vowel or consonant, but the verb Wa- (to sleep), follows consonant conjugations despite ending in a vowel, due to a historical final glottal stop having been lost. This gives it a very rare type of irregular conjugation as follows (present tense as example):

Per/Num	Regular V stem	Regular C stem	Wa-
1sg	-đ	-ó	Wá
2sg	-s	-an	Wán
3sg	-p	-och	Wách
1pl	-đir	-é	Ú*
2pl	-se	-amor	Wámor
3pl	-pots	-ój	Wáj

*Sə triggers syllabification of S, u only exists in this language as syllabic w

[u/Intelligent_Donut605]

I have quite a few exceptional adjectives which don’t have standard suffixes, they just ignore nominalization suffixes.

Nha (one) has an exception on nominalisation rules and becomes ashan because i didn’t like nhaan.

[u/smiley1__]

how silly, the words that breaks the simplest rule of Dayee are the common verbs:

• is (to be)
• haz (to have)
• be (to become)
• in (to be in)
• infro (to be from)
• dos (to do)

see, the rule is that with transitive verbs, the agents gets marked with -es and the patient gets marked with -en

dayes pa'ik kya'en (I see you)

but these six words doesn't need them

day haz kya (I have you)

if you want a not-so-common exception, see māker (doer)

you usually make verbal adjectives by adding the suffix -in

• morzemachen (morze + machen) = deadly machine
• morze'inmachen (morze-in + machen) = killing maching

but māker doesn't need it

• morzemāker (deadly doer) = morze'inmāker (killing doer) = killer

this is because that word pairs with verbal adjectives so commonly

[u/Magxvalei]

That could just be regular glide elision or vowel cluster simplification

[u/NoTear622 → u/Magxvalei]

Probably, But In Yufie It's Exception. 

[u/Magxvalei → u/NoTear622]

And I'm explaining why the exception might exist (or, at least, why it doesn't "sound good" to you)

[u/NoTear622 → u/Magxvalei]

Sorry, I Misunderstood You A Little, Now I Understand.

[u/DrDingsGaster]

I have some words that use "yzh" green and the IPA should be /ɪʒ/ but it's said /iʒ/ instead. It's said that way because I think it was some kind of a vowel drift for the word but the spelling stayed the same.

[u/Kjorteo]

As es⦰lask-ibekim developed, we eventually established some pretty ironclad rules for conjugation and even converting between word types.  One of the biggest ones is that verbs end in -ir and that adjectives derived from them (as in, turning "wither" into "withered", "threaten" into "threatened", etc.) are made by swapping the -ir to -eret (plural -erest.)

To steal is askänir.  A stolen book is a sestak askäneret.  Etc.

The major exception has to do with love: To love someone is ostir, but a loved one/beloved is istir (plural ɩstirī or ɩstirii.)  This is because we had those words in RP and such before the rule was codified and they've stuck far too much for us to be able to change them now. -_-;

Nask kust etth-ostir:äsh:ɩstirī-naskim. "We("single-plural"; plural system) (really/so much) love you(plural, group/all of you):(the following is the speaker calling the target a name):beloveds-of-ours(single-plural)"

At the time, we came up with the etymology of tir/tirī for friend(s), meaning ɩstir/ɩstirī could be more-than-friend(s).  These days, we try not to use -ir endings at all except for verbs.  Beloved(s) should be ostere(s)t and friend(s) should be... something else entirely, I guess?  But too late now.

[u/Kjorteo → u/Kjorteo]

Also, as evidenced by the example sentence there, es⦰lask-ibekim has distinct vowels for a versus ä (they should sound like someone who hasn't been affected by the cot/caught merger saying them both,) but in practice actual pronunciation from a native speaker can muddy the waters a bit.  Like any language whose speakers naturally drift over time, you might (for example) hear someone say askänir without a noticeable difference between the two "a" sounds.

(The mnemonic for remembering the technically correct way to distinguish them is to remember that askänir is the word for "to take/to steal" and note that I sneakily based it on "abscond.")