How is Otherness to Be Construed with Yorùbá Words?

Thoughts in Progress. Do Not Quote. 

1: We may designate the four basic terms as: ọ̀tọ̀; ẹ̀yà; ẹ̀ya; òmíràn/òmín-ìn.

2: For now, I want to separate the fourth term, òmíràn/òmín-ìn, because I am not able to outline its phonological components. In English translation, the word typically serves as the equivalent of "another" set (entity), abstract or concrete, time or place.

3: Now to the other three: (i) ọ̀tọ̀ (being apart);  (ii) ẹ̀yà (being in/of a sort); (iii) ẹ̀ya (being in/of a derivation).

*We could say these are the basic forms of differentiation in the language.

4: Phonologically, the root terms (or syllables): (i) tọ̀; (ii) yà; (ii) ya. Each word is transformed into a nominal phrase in 2 above with low toned, back vowel, prefixes: /ọ̀/ and /ẹ̀/

5: English translations of the ideophonic root terms are: (i) tọ̀: pursue, trace, follow, urinate; (ii) yà: separate or turn (verb), draw (graphically), deviate, defecate; (ii) ya: tear (off, away), exceed (overflow)

• I am struck by the scatological entailments of terms of otherness and difference. That itself deserves a different analysis. But that is for later. For now, let us just note that Yorùbá language uses other root oxymorons as in pa (to hatch and to kill).

6: Only 3(i) and 3(ii), typically in agglutination, make it to transitive declarations: (i) yàtọ̀: be different; (ii) ìyàtọ̀; difference, differentness (properties of the different); (iii) ẹ̀yà: the different, or differentiated

7: Question: How does difference come about grammatically? Affixations of breaking off (duplication, reduplication, addition, deletion, diminution, enlargement, etc.) are attached to yà and tọ̀ in different combinations: ọ̀tọ̀ọ̀tọ̀; lọ́tọ̀ọ̀tọ̀, yà sọ́tọ̀, pín sọ́tọ̀ọ̀tọ̀, bù lọ́tọ̀lọ́tọ̀. The most common terms are bù, pín, yà, ṣe, kó.

• I am leaning towards concluding that difference, grammatically speaking in Yorùbá, results from gestures and processes of making.
• However, I am not able to say that the differentiated (ẹ̀yà), in Yorùbá speech pragmatics, necessarily constitutes the other. The class of the differentiated belongs to the set of òmíràn (of anothers) that do not, in themselves, constitute the other (ọ̀tọ̀).
• Why say that? Well, it is grammatical to say "ẹ̀yà kan náà ni wá" (one sort of 'differentiateds' we all are). It is ungrammatical to say "ọ̀tọ̀ kan náà ni wá," a statement whose unintelligibility is reflected in its untranslatability.

What's the point of all these? I am beginning to think that otherness should be subjected to otherness analysis.

You have been warned. Quote at your own peril.