The rich systems of verbal morphology in the world's languages is very impressive - and oftentimes, it seems nouns just cannot compete at all with some of the insanity that goes on with verbs.
Here's a first attempt at even slightly getting there:
- two levels of definiteness (not necessarily morphologically marked!)
- some kind of case-system, probably, but not necessarily
- a set of affixes with the following meanings, some of which are changed by definiteness. These are in complementary distribution:
- different demonstratives (can also be topic)
- 'another' ('the next' in the definite) (can be topic)
- no one ('the wrong one' in the definite)
- old ('the previous one' in the indefinite)
- big (in the definite, it can also mark the object of comparison, which can also have case?)
- sexual gender for animates
- this noun is only associated with the intended referent in some way (e.g. the noun is a possessor, or relative or 'a thing of this quality' etc)
- a marker that intensifies the adjective that is closest to the noun
- a set of affixes in complementary distribution that express
- mass noun
- in combination with "small", this signifies lots of independent, unaffiliated things of the same type; in combination with "big", this signifies lots of things that do act in some form of concord.
- whether to parse case suffixes as proper case suffixes or as general statements of type of motion without actual reference to the noun. Thus 'man-IMPROPER_CASE-in went' means 'the man went in' - in just has to settle on whatever noun it can if no other noun can carry it.
This is very much half-baked. But the idea of a language with really baroque nouns and rather simple verbs appeal to me.