With regard to syntax, the Basque resembles all agglutinative languages.
The juxtaposing technique we may call an “agglutinative” one, if we like.
They spoke an agglutinative language, and resembled the Chinese very much both in physical type and in character.
Their absence, however, is readily explained by the persistence of the agglutinative principle, which renders them unnecessary.
The main differences shown by these varieties are agglutinative differences.
The Sumerian language was of agglutinative type, radically distinct both from the pure Semitic idioms and from Egyptian.
Their language was "agglutinative monosyllabic," with mingled Nigritic and Semitic characteristics.
Chinese belongs to the former class of languages, the "monosyllabic," Turkish to the latter, the "agglutinative."
Agglutinative languages do not often possess special adverbial endings.
By the theory the monosyllabic is lower than the agglutinative, and inherently less useful.
