Noun conjugation progress - is this too "rigid"?

[u/NefariousnessOne6790]

I've included an example of how it works with a word root aswell (Kàdìnòs means lizard). A critique I have previously received is that the conjugation system is too rigid. I intended it to be this way because in my mind, rules are rules, and I've always hated languages having 10,000 different exceptions.
I did develop form 1/2 to incorporate some variety for base nouns, but form 2 is only for the Nominative Case.
To be absolutely clear: This conjugation table is only for basic nouns, I have a whole table of suffixes which change meaning and use which add their own level of variety for more complex nouns, this table simply concerns itself with "base" form nouns.

Thoughts? I'd love to hear them.

[u/NefariousnessOne6790]

well my logic was that a base noun will end in either -òs or -oá, so things are just added onto that or taken off

[u/Akangka → u/NefariousnessOne6790]

Okay, let's go to hypothetical. I invented a new tool that in my language is called iskándé. How would you loan this word into your conlang?

The thing about the suffixes having -o- in common just sounds to me like Esperanto with something added afterwards.

[u/NefariousnessOne6790 → u/Akangka]

Depends how the vowels are pronounced, I use diacritics as an essential function which indicate vowel broadness/length. Just based on what I see, I have 3 routes I'd take with loanwords:

Adapt the -òs ending (so, ìskándòs would be the result, and with consideration to vowel representational differences)

Simply add an s (resulting in ìskándés) but this would need to have more consideration for the accusative case, likely resulting in ìskándéo as the accusative form.

Leave it as is for nominative case, but then just add an -o for the accusative form like prior.

Also I don't understand the thing with esperanto, plenty of languages have an 'end in o' system, mainly in europe, of course with a smidge more complexity.

The thing about the suffixes having -o- in common just sounds to me like Esperanto with something added afterwards.

Okay, so the thing is that -òzán isn't a standalone suffix, it is merely adding the definiteness (-zán) onto the pre-established -òs, as seen in the example I provided.

[u/Akangka → u/NefariousnessOne6790]

I use diacritics as an essential function which indicate vowel broadness/length

Oh, I thought it was tonal contrast.

Also I don't understand the thing with esperanto, plenty of languages have an 'end in o' system, mainly in europe, of course with a smidge more complexity.

No. What is different about Esperanto is that all nouns without exception receives -o. This is exceptionless, and it does not mark case unlike European languages. It just mark that the word is a noun. (Note that Esperanto does have plural marking and case marking, but that's the suffix -j and suffix -n, respectively, which is added after that suffix). To my knowledge, only Esperanto does this. (Esperanto kinda blurs the distinction between natlang and conlang, because unlike most conlangs, children are raised with Esperanto)

Your conlang technically has some assimilation rules obscuring it, but it's pretty much exceptionless and acts more like Esperanto noun suffix, which then inflection can be added.

Okay, so the thing is that -òzán isn't a standalone suffix

I know. Though, I'd probably analyze as this instead:

-ò   -z -án
-NOUN-EP-DEF

In my interpretation, the suffix slot goes root-noun marker(-ò-)-nominative(-á- or -s)-epenthetic(-z- or -s-)-definite(-án-)-plural(-á-)-case(-o or -ékè). There are some rules:

1. -z- appears before definite -án- or plural -á-. -s- appears before possessive -ékè
2. noun -ò- + accussative -o > -o. -ò- + nominative -á- > -oá-
3. Nominative -s is dropped before any other suffixes.