Circumstantial Voice Question

[Okuno]

So, I'd really like to use circumstantial voice in my latest lang, but I'm not sure about its particular structure. As I have it now, it really just moves an oblique to subject and leaves the normal object(s) alone:

I ate the pie with a fork -> A fork was eaten the pie with.

So, it this actually reasonable? Or do I need (based on natlang circumstantials) to delete every other argument (and end up with "A fork was eaten with")?

Also, a similar sort of question about applicatives: what arguments need I delete to make room for the oblique, if any?

[Vardelm]

It looks like you're on the right track, although I don't know tons about the circumstantial voice.

I'm not sure about its particular structure. As I have it now, it really just moves an oblique to subject and leaves the normal object(s) alone:

Based on what you have here, the subject of the normal, active voice is also removed so that the oblique (the circumstance) can be moved into the subject position. In the circumstantial, the subject of the active - the agent - could be reintroduced as an oblique, perhaps using a preposition or case meaning "by" or "from".

I ate the pie with a fork -> A fork was eaten the pie with.

You might (I'm guessing here) be able to phrase this as "A fork was with-eaten the pie".

So, it this actually reasonable? Or do I need (based on natlang circumstantials) to delete every other argument (and end up with "A fork was eaten with")?

Looks reasonable, and I don't see why you would have to remove the object. That might be an additional option or requirement, but I would think it will completely depend on how you want the voice to work.

Also, a similar sort of question about applicatives: what arguments need I delete to make room for the oblique, if any?

Well, Wikipedia's article on the applicative voice says it "promotes an oblique argument of a verb to the (core) object argument, and indicates the oblique role within the meaning of the verb". So, you would need to remove the original object, move the oblique to the object position, and somehow indicate in the verb what the relationship of that oblique was.

So, I'd really like to use circumstantial voice in my latest lang...

Something you should think about is why the language needs a circumstantial voice. AIUI, languages that have a circumstantial voice have it because there are syntactic or other constraints that prevent them from expressing the same idea in some other form. In the above example, for instance, you might say in English "A fork was used to eat the pie." It's not exactly the same thing, but it gets the idea across in a way that isn't too cumbersome. Languages that have a circumstantial voice may not be able to express it in that manner. This isn't to stop you from including it, but thinking of the reason why it's included is a good idea.

I hope that's helpful.

[Okuno]

Yeah, that was extremely helpful. I'll have to think about my applicatives, though.

The thing with this lang is that its verbs have a static number of arguments, and voice is the only way to change it. Replacing arguments of a transitive verb with dummy pronouns only lasts so long before it gets tiresome ._.

The other thing is that people often just find weird ways of saying crap, particularly to differentiate themselves from other people, so I'm not so worried about why there are cool constructions, more how those constructions developed so that the result looks like it has traces of different constructions.

And actually, since it's an isolating lang, I'm not going to actually integrate the sort of oblique into the verb, but leave it alone, more like (my new favorite sentence) "It was not said anything about".

[Hwunitum]

Check out Classical Nahuatl - you can have up to three objects in a single verb: one is the "main" one and the other two are subsidiary - order of suffixes tells you which is the primary (last-added suffix = primary object). Note that it can look as if there's only one object because with one exception there can only be one specific (as opposed to generic) object pronoun shown overtly in the verb.

Nictlātia = ni-c-tlātia I-it-hide "I hide it."

Nictlātīlia = ni-c[-c]-tlātī-lia I-him-it-hide-applicative "I hide it from him."

Notice only one object appears, but with a generic object you can have nictlatlātīlia = ni-c-tla-tlātī-lia I-him-stuff-hide-applicative "I hide things from him."

[äreo]

Reminds me of what I do with Ksso, where topic and focus can be marked along with case, giving

Enna vukkemu'o tiilao koota.
1S-TOP fork-INSTR-FOC pie-ACC ate
I ate the pie with a fork.

Vukkemuna en(a)'o tiilao koota.
fork-INSTR-TOP 1S-(NOM-)FOC pie-ACC ate
I ate the pie with a fork.

Vukkemu'o tiilao koota.
fork-INSTR-FOC pie-ACC ate
A fork was eaten the pie with.

If that helps any.