zompist bboard

I just came up with a new morphosyntactic alignment where active, stative, ergative, and accusative are all different.

Is this original?

Could you give some examples of it in action?

Examples are absolutely necessary. There's an incredibly high likelyhood you've got something else or are using terms nonstandardly.

examples or it didn't happen

Are you referring to a system with different cases for (1) "active" intransitive arguments (S_a), (2) "stative" intransitive arguments (S_p), (3) transitive subjects (A), (4) transitive objects (P)? As far as I know this doesn't happen in any real world languages, but notionally it could happen.

(Technically calling cases (1) and (2) "active" and "stative" would be non-standard, as these cases strictly speaking should also be available with transitives, but if there was a language with such a system these labels would be as good as any other.)

Seven Fifty wrote:Are you referring to a system with different cases for (1) "active" intransitive arguments (S_a), (2) "stative" intransitive arguments (S_p), (3) transitive subjects (A), (4) transitive objects (P)? As far as I know this doesn't happen in any real world languages, but notionally it could happen.

(Technically calling cases (1) and (2) "active" and "stative" would be non-standard, as these cases strictly speaking should also be available with transitives, but if there was a language with such a system these labels would be as good as any other.)

Yes I am. This is exactly what I am referring to. Additionally, it is polysynthetic, so really, it's "affixes" for those. This also means that "I was given" puts "I" in a different case than "He gave me", providing an excellently elegant way of doing the passive voice.

Do you mean that passives use a fifth set of pronominal markers? Or is the "passive" set the same as one of the four other sets?

In either case, in terms of plausibility, I'd say this sounds quite unlikely though not totally impossible. There's only a small handful of natural languages that are even tripartite, and I don't think any natlangs have the system you've described. (If you're asking whether it's been done before in a conlang, I don't know the answer to that.)

No, the passive of "He gives me" (give.3sg-ERG.1sg-ACC) would be "I am given" (give.1sg-STAT). So you would use the S_p for the passive voice. If you wanted to do "I am given by him" you could add an ergative 3sg on to the verb phrase.

baradsonoron wrote:No, the passive of "He gives me" (give.3sg-ERG.1sg-ACC) would be "I am given" (give.1sg-STAT). So you would use the S_p for the passive voice. If you wanted to do "I am given by him" you could add an ergative 3sg on to the verb phrase.

What would be the construction for "give" with a direct and an indirect object, i.e. "he gave me a book" / "I was given a book" / "a book was given to me"? I assume you know that in most European accusative languages, it would be the direct object ("the book") that's in the accusative case and it alone can be promoted to subject by passivization, while the indirect object ("me") requires rephrasing / change of verb to be promoted to subject?

hwhatting wrote:

baradsonoron wrote:No, the passive of "He gives me" (give.3sg-ERG.1sg-ACC) would be "I am given" (give.1sg-STAT). So you would use the S_p for the passive voice. If you wanted to do "I am given by him" you could add an ergative 3sg on to the verb phrase.

What would be the construction for "give" with a direct and an indirect object, i.e. "he gave me a book" / "I was given a book" / "a book was given to me"? I assume you know that in most European accusative languages, it would be the direct object ("the book") that's in the accusative case and it alone can be promoted to subject by passivization, while the indirect object ("me") requires rephrasing / change of verb to be promoted to subject?

He gave me a book, I was given a book by him. No "a book was given to me".

baradsonoron wrote:He gave me a book, I was given a book by him. No "a book was given to me".

Well, that means your language would be quite the outlier among natlangs. As I said, you'll find passives for the direct object "a book (kiss, handshake, gift) was given" much more frequently in natlangs than passives for the indirect object "I was given". English is unusual for being able to passivize both, your language would be even more unusual for not being able to promote the direct object via passivization at all, while doing that for the indirect object.

Also I would think that a ludicrously explosive alignment system like yours would tend to come with very free pivot rules, not with restrictive ones.

Well, this will be a weird language. Also, did I mention all the morphemes are consonant clusters and there are zero phonemic vowels (technically morpheme boundaries are articulated with a small pause, but in actuality they will be articulated with /a/).

Ah, so it's one of these reality-defying artlangs.

Which explains why you asked whether your system was original rather than anything else, in which case I only have to say that if that's your poster feature for alien-ness I have seen much better.

It's not, it's just for fun. But I was curious as to whether anybody else had thought of it.

EDIT: How much better? Enlighten me.

EDIT EDIT: Sorry, I messed up earlier. You cannot passivize indirect objects. However, the alignment system is different, such that the thing being given is the "secondary" object and the thing to which it is given is the "primary" object. So, in the phrase "He gave me the book", "me" is the primary (read direct) object and "the book" is the secondary (read indirect) object. This system DOES exist in natlangs.

hwhatting wrote:

baradsonoron wrote:He gave me a book, I was given a book by him. No "a book was given to me".

Well, that means your language would be quite the outlier among natlangs. As I said, you'll find passives for the direct object "a book (kiss, handshake, gift) was given" much more frequently in natlangs than passives for the indirect object "I was given". English is unusual for being able to passivize both, your language would be even more unusual for not being able to promote the direct object via passivization at all, while doing that for the indirect object.

That all depends. If it's a secundative (=dechticaetiative) language (treating recipients as primary objects), the norm would be to promote the recipient (rather than the theme) to subject of a passive. For example, Algonquian languages, which are secundative, do this, e.g. Ojibwe ogii-mamawaan "s/he took (X) from him/her/them (obv)" (3-PAST-take-DIRECT-OBV) vs gii-mamawaa "s/he had (X) taken from him/her" (PAST-take-PASSV).

Whimemsz wrote:

hwhatting wrote:

baradsonoron wrote:He gave me a book, I was given a book by him. No "a book was given to me".

Well, that means your language would be quite the outlier among natlangs. As I said, you'll find passives for the direct object "a book (kiss, handshake, gift) was given" much more frequently in natlangs than passives for the indirect object "I was given". English is unusual for being able to passivize both, your language would be even more unusual for not being able to promote the direct object via passivization at all, while doing that for the indirect object.

That all depends. If it's a secundative (=dechticaetiative) language (treating recipients as primary objects), the norm would be to promote the recipient (rather than the theme) to subject of a passive. For example, Algonquian languages, which are secundative, do this, e.g. Ojibwe ogii-mamawaan "s/he took (X) from him/her/them (obv)" (3-PAST-take-DIRECT-OBV) vs gii-mamawaa "s/he had (X) taken from him/her" (PAST-take-PASSV).

It is dechticaetiative.

He got you, you really believed that was a real word didn't ya B)

R.Rusanov wrote:He got you, you really believed that was a real word didn't ya B)

Daechtiti... whatever is a real word.

Rusanov isn't worth your time.

This is getting rather off topic... why doesn't everybody keep criticizing me for wierd morphology?

Because you just stated that you have departed from all rules. At that point the only feedback you will get is possibly whether people like it or not.

Sir Gwalchafad wrote:Because you just stated that you have departed from all rules. At that point the only feedback you will get is possibly whether people like it or not.

An excellent point. Out of interest, what better features have you seen for alienness? I need inspiration.

The best alien langs organize information differently. This can range from the interesting case of a STACK:POP language I once saw to simply taking a look at Theta Roles and more or less universal argument structures and finding a way of dissolving them.

Allowing all verbs other than the copula to take exactly one argument. This argument can be used by any number of verbs.