What do you call this, and does it actually occur?

[alice]

A system in which the nominal arguments do not inflect for case, but their roles in the clause are indicated by the inflection on the verb. For example, where "foo" is the verb and A B C are nominal arguments:

• A B foo-bar: A does foo to B
  B A foo-baz: B does foo to A
  A B C foo-widget: A does foo to B with C as an indirect object
  B C A foo-serali: B does foo to A with C as an indirect object

Note that the nominal arguments must appear in the same order, but the verb can appear anywhere.

[Ulrike Meinhof]

Looks like Autronesian alignment with word order taking the role of the case markers. I don't think it exists, but don't take my word for it.

[zompist]

Yes; see "Bipersonal inflection" in your handy copy of the LCK, p. 73. Swahili is a good example. The noun class affixes serve to link the arguments with the verb affixes. (I'm not sure if it applies to indirect objects though.)

Another example, rather exotic I'm afraid: French, which does include indirect objects in the system.

[sirdanilot]

Trio, a Carib language from Surinam (south america), does not mark case on nouns but instead uses 'portmanteau' affixes to the verb.



Example:

"Weta."
w-eta-X
1->3-hear-I.PST
"I heard him."

"Jeta."
j-eta-X
3->1-hear-I.PST
"He heard me."

So even though this does not explicitly mark case on the verb, it does have the same effect; the only difference between these two sentences is made on the verb.

[Niedokonany]

Navajo does sth similar, but adding animacy, which determines the order of arguments (and it's called direct-inverse).

[Radius Solis]

The crucial piece of information you haven't given us, Nancy, is the nature of the verbal affixes.

1. Do they vary by noun class, person, and/or number of A, B, or both? Then you probably have agreement.

2. Do they vary mainly by animacy of A, B, or both? Then you probably have a direct-inverse voice system.

3. Do they vary by semantic role (agent/patient/etc) of whatever the first argument is? Then you probably have Austronesian alignment.

4. Do they vary by multiple of these parameters? Then you have a mixed system.

[alice]

I think it's #3: the point is that the affix says what roles (subject, direct object, indirect object) each noun argument plays in the clause; or equivalently what order the roles appear in among the nouns.

[WeepingElf]

I like the way you use serali as a metasyntactic variable.

[alice]

I like the way you use serali as a metasyntactic variable.

Well, it had to be something non-boring...

[Corumayas]

I think it's #3: the point is that the affix says what roles (subject, direct object, indirect object) each noun argument plays in the clause; or equivalently what order the roles appear in among the nouns.

I don't think that's what your examples are doing though. The only difference in order is where the indirect object goes in the third and fourth ones.

[Chuma]

I did something similar to this in the Choir Conlang, but with case marking instead of word order. So there are verb forms which say things like "the ERG argument is the subject and the ABS argument is the object", "the ERG argument is doing something to himself", "the ERG argument is the object and the listener is the subject" etc. I thought of it as a kind of voices. Your first two examples could basically be seen as active and passive, right?

[alice]

Your first two examples could basically be seen as active and passive, right?

Yes, but by themselves that wouldn't be very interesting, thus the third argument.

[Nortaneous]

Why can't you say A B foo-baz or B A foo-bar? How do you decide which word order and inflection to use? If it's based on topicality, then you have a trigger system.

Your first two examples could basically be seen as active and passive, right?

I don't think so. There's no valency reduction. (Valency counts only core arguments, right?

Are there any natlangs where valency reduction in passives is optional? That is, where you can say A foo-PASS B and A foo-PASS, keeping B as a core argument, instead of needing to add an adposition or whatever to make it an oblique argument?

[Chuma]

Don't know of any natlang where that happens, but it's hardly unrealistic to imagine the "by" dropping.

[Echobeats]

• A B foo-bar: A does foo to B
  B A foo-baz: B does foo to A

You've varied two things in the source language (word order and verbal affix) but only one in the translation (semantic roles of A and B). Why isn't the second one B A foo-bar? Is it gender agreement? If so, which noun does agreement follow?

[alice]

• A B foo-bar: A does foo to B
  B A foo-baz: B does foo to A

You've varied two things in the source language (word order and verbal affix) but only one in the translation (semantic roles of A and B). Why isn't the second one B A foo-bar? Is it gender agreement? If so, which noun does agreement follow?

Urk - I got confused! Both of these should mean "A does foo to B".

[merijn]

To me it sounds like you're describing something very much like Indonesian. From my memory in Indonesian where A and B are noun phrases and X is a verb:
A men-X B means A does X to B
A di-X B means B does X to A
and also
A pronoun X means pronoun does X to A.