stupid Finnish-based alignment

[TehranHamburger]

So I was reading this analysis on Finnish grammar and it gave me an idea, the author basically argues that Finnish displays a split-alignment in the pronouns and normal nominals where the normal nominal system isn't nominative-accusative, rather, it simply assigns the 'nominative' case to the most prominent verbal argument, subject or object which is usually the subject, and the 'accusative' to all the other ones.

Which gave me this idea: A split alignment along the line of 'definite animate' (DA) and indefinite animate and inanimate (X). Since all pronouns are definite animate, this is a generalization of an alignment split across pronominal vs nominal. We have four verbal arguments: Active, Stative, Direct, Auxiliary.

Active: Used for the DA subject of a transitive clause and most DA sole arguments of an intransitive clause
Stative: Used for the DA object of a transitive clause and some DA sole arguments of an intransitive clause
Direct: Used for the X subject of a transitive clause, the X sole argument of an intransitive clause and the X object of a transitive clause iff the subject is DA. That is to say, if the subject does not already consume the direct argument position.
Auxiliary: Used for the X object of a transitive clause iff the subject is X. That is to say, if the subject already consumes the direct argument position.

This leads to some interesting sentences:

Māozia wūazi nakatu (SOV)
Cat-ACT dog-DIR see-3SG
The cat sees a dog.

Māozia nakatu wūas (SVO)
Cat-ACT see-3SG dog-STAT
The cat sees the dog.

Māozi naka wūazin (SVO)
CAT-DIR see dog-AUX
A cat sees a dog.

Māozi naka wūas (SVO)
CAT-DIR see dog-stat
A cat sees the dog.

With word order changes and cases indicating definiteness since stative and auxililary come behind the verb while active and direct in front of it.

[cromulant]

Would this be OK?:

Māozia nakatu wūazi (SVO)
Cat-ACT see-3SG dog-DIR
The cat sees a dog.

It's got the direct case coming after the verb, which you said in your last sentence couldn't happen. Yet the conditions for using the direct case are all there: the dog is "the X object of a transitive clause iff the subject is DA". Putting the object before the verb doesn't change this.

[finlay]

it may be necessary to stop and consider just how marked the sentences with indefinite subjects are, though. they are so ridiculously unlikely to naturally occur.

[TehranHamburger]

Would this be OK?:

Māozia nakatu wūazi (SVO)
Cat-ACT see-3SG dog-DIR
The cat sees a dog.

It's got the direct case coming after the verb, which you said in your last sentence couldn't happen. Yet the conditions for using the direct case are all there: the dog is "the X object of a transitive clause iff the subject is DA". Putting the object before the verb doesn't change this.

It's possible, but not the natural word order. Direct and Active tend to come before the verb.

it may be necessary to stop and consider just how marked the sentences with indefinite subjects are, though. they are so ridiculously unlikely to naturally occur.

Depends, etymologically animate definite derives from essentially saying 'He the cat'. Originally the split only ran across pronouns vs normal nominals where this difference is more likely to occur and in fact does occur in Finnish to some extent:

- Minä näen koiran[acc] (I see a dog)
- Minun tulisi nähdä koira[nom] (I should see a dog, literally 'mine would come to see a dog')
- Minä näen hänet[acc] (I see him)
- Minun tulisi nähdä hänet[acc] (I should see him).

Essentially in this language, definite animate arose from merging pronominal endings into the noun as a definite article, hence drawing them into the accusative alignment with the pronouns.