Turkish can combine an entire sentence into one word, so why is it considered agglutinative and not polysynthetic?<br><br>Also what is to be said of a language like German, which is more isolating than say, Russian, but has a very fusional adjective declension (and to some extent verbal conjugation) system and heavy agglutination?,(reply>), @Mistran5lation Turkish can make a sentence that is only one word long, but it doesn't do that MOST OF THE TIME, the way polysynthetic languages do. For example, Georgian isn't even a polysyntetic language, and its verbs can agree in person (and thus leave out pronouns for) up to five nouns at once.,(reply>), Yes it is a totally meaningful word,(reply>), @TheBycara Can "konuş-" exist as a stand-alone word, though? The stem in "hablo" is "habl-" and doesn't change no matter what conjugational form it's in, so I think what makes it fusional is the fact that "habl-" and "-o" can't exist as separate entities, whereas in English, "speaking" is an example of agglutination because "speak" can be a word on its own. But I'm not sure.,(reply>), @Mistran5lation I think Turkish is not polysynthetic neither fusional because even if you link any suffixes to the word, there are no change on the stem %99 of the time. Even if there is one it is so minor (And that is just losing the last vowel before the suffix). Categorisation is not about the combining an entire sentence in just one word, more about forming the words and changes in both stem,  also prefixes and suffixes.<br><br><br>For fusional example, hablo ,in Turkish "konuşurum". The stem is "konuş-" doesn't effected by adding suffixes. "-ur" for present and "-um" for first person.<br><br><br>And here it is one extreme example :) <br><br><br>Uygarlaştıramadıklarımızdancasına = As if you are among those whom we could not civilize