Also, frankly I don't understand bahihs's system, like at all. Mind trying to explain again in a different way?
Sure, no problem (though keep in mind that it is all kind of unnecessary since verbs do exist in the dwarven dicitonary).
Basically the idea is: we eliminate verbs. That's it.
That leaves us with only with nouns and adjectives, which gives us: "ideas"and "things" (nouns) and "qualities" (adjectives)
Then we can use a set of words (something like prefixes or articles) to denote when a noun or adjective is meant in the sense of an
action (i.e a verb). Depending on the prefix/article we use, tense is indicated.
This means that any noun or adjective can be turned into a verb with the addition of a specific prefix.
Now for some examples to clear everything up:
First lets go back to my original example, the sentence was:
"Urist needs alcohol to get through the working day"
The problem here, is that the verbs "to need" and "to get" don't exist in the dwarven dictionary. However the nouns "greed" and "burden" do. Thus we can use these nouns in combination with the appropriate prefix/article, to transform them into verbs.
Now, lets say that the word/prefix "ash" indicates that the next word (a noun or adjective) is intended to be interpreted as an action happening right now (i.e the present tense) and that the word "ore" indicates that the next word is to be interpreted as an verb in the infinitive form.
Then (in english): Ash greed = "greeds" (or, "is greedy for/wants/desires") and Ore burden = "to bear" (or, "to endure/to get through")
Now in dwarven: ash dal = ash greed = "greeds" and ore okon = ore burden = "to bear"; where dal = greed and okon = burden in dwarven.
Finally the full sentence:
"Urist needs alcohol to get through the working day"
"Urist ash dal ucat ore okon ducim alod"
It sounds and looks a bit better if you compound the prefix with the noun-verb:
"Urist ashdal ucat oreokon ducim alod"
A few things to note:
1. I am using S-V-O here
2. There may be better words to express "needs" than "greed" but I just used the first thing I found in the dictionary
3. In order to combine this with Uronym's method, you would simply use the word "past", "future" and "present" (if they exist in the dictionary) as the articles/prefixes to denote actions (instead of the arbitrary "ash" and "ore"). Thus, "I bore it" (as in something heavy) could be: past-burden, or in dwarven: getokon
Now having said all that, Dirst provides compelling evidence showing that word roots are not as straightforward as I (and most of us, I think) thought (e.g verbs don't necessarily originate from nouns), not to mention the phonetic concerns we also have to deal with. However, I still believe that this idea could work for generating verb forms from nouns, so long as we are careful.
Ideographic runes are a pain, but I do agree with the analysis. It would allow long messages to be written quickly and can be a kind of art in itself for the engraver/craftsman (i.e calligraphy).