Zompist Bboard Again

I think it makes sense.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 3:01 am I think it makes sense.

It makes sense to me.

Still iffy about third person forms of the verb being "vowel" prefixes rather than the original ta-, but it gives a nice contrast to the conjunct forms. I also feel like animacy distinction in the verb marking is pointless since the language marks animacy with case suffixes. On the other hand, redundancy is always a plus.

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 2:30 pm Still iffy about third person forms of the verb being "vowel" prefixes rather than the original ta-, but it gives a nice contrast to the conjunct forms. I also feel like animacy distinction in the verb marking is pointless since the language marks animacy with case suffixes. On the other hand, redundancy is always a plus.

It is completely natural for languages to have 'unnecessary' redundancy, I should note.

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:44 pmDoes it make sense to have distinct person markers for animate versus inanimate or should it be more along the lines of human versus nonhuman?

Well, you can make a split anywhere on the animacy hierarchy of course.


JAL

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 5:37 pmIt is completely natural for languages to have 'unnecessary' redundancy, I should note.

Speaking of which, it does somewhat bug me that the first and second person forms differ only in place. Perhaps it's just me, but /n/ and /m/ sound quite similar and easily confused in noisy settings. Apart from that, the inflections look quite neat.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 3:28 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 5:37 pmIt is completely natural for languages to have 'unnecessary' redundancy, I should note.

Speaking of which, it does somewhat bug me that the first and second person forms differ only in place. Perhaps it's just me, but /n/ and /m/ sound quite similar and easily confused in noisy settings. Apart from that, the inflections look quite neat.

To me coda /n/ and /m/ have a tendency to be conflated by both turning into vowel nasalization or changing POA's, but onset /n/ and /m/ are quite distinct in most cases.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 4:15 pm

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 3:28 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 5:37 pmIt is completely natural for languages to have 'unnecessary' redundancy, I should note.

Speaking of which, it does somewhat bug me that the first and second person forms differ only in place. Perhaps it's just me, but /n/ and /m/ sound quite similar and easily confused in noisy settings. Apart from that, the inflections look quite neat.

To me coda /n/ and /m/ have a tendency to be conflated by both turning into vowel nasalization or changing POA's, but onset /n/ and /m/ are quite distinct in most cases.

and even when they can't audibly be distinguished, /n/ and /m/ are easy to tell apart with some added lip-reading, and specifically for the pronouns here I have to imagine context also playing a huge role in differentiation.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 3:28 pm Speaking of which, it does somewhat bug me that the first and second person forms differ only in place. Perhaps it's just me, but /n/ and /m/ sound quite similar and easily confused in noisy settings.

Isn't this very pattern quite common in Amerindian languages?

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 3:28 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 5:37 pmIt is completely natural for languages to have 'unnecessary' redundancy, I should note.

Speaking of which, it does somewhat bug me that the first and second person forms differ only in place. Perhaps it's just me, but /n/ and /m/ sound quite similar and easily confused in noisy settings. Apart from that, the inflections look quite neat.

https://wals.info/chapter/137

---

I have devises a set of rules

• Verb is "topicalized" (for lack of better word) by default (i.e. Verb-first order)
• There can only be one topicalized constituent
• Topicalized constituents can be either subject, object, or oblique

I have thus the following word orders

• VSOX (subject is most animate, object is equal or less animate) - the least-marked order
• VOSX (object is most animate, subject is equal or less animate) - can't think of better way to say "if both S and O are same animacy, either order is allowed"
• SVOX (subject is topicalized, animacy irrelevant)
• OVSX (object is topicalized, animacy irrelevant)
• XVSO (oblique is topicalized, subject is most animate, object is equal or less animate)
• XVOS (oblique is topicalized, object is most animate, subject is equal or less animate)

Is this naturalistic? The language is nominative accusative if that means anything.

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 6:09 pmhttps://wals.info/chapter/137

Well then, that does look pretty definitive. My mistake, I guess.

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 6:09 pm I have thus the following word orders

• VSOX (subject is most animate, object is equal or less animate) - the least-marked order
• VOSX (object is most animate, subject is equal or less animate) - can't think of better way to say "if both S and O are same animacy, either order is allowed"
• SVOX (subject is topicalized, animacy irrelevant)
• OVSX (object is topicalized, animacy irrelevant)
• XVSO (oblique is topicalized, subject is most animate, object is equal or less animate)
• XVOS (oblique is topicalized, object is most animate, subject is equal or less animate)

Is this naturalistic? The language is nominative accusative if that means anything.

This is pretty much the situation in many Nilotic languages, most notably Dinka, except that the V-initial word orders are much more restricted there. Also they tend to have weird alignment situations: Dinka itself, for instance, uses the much-vaunted ‘Austronesian alignment’, with the preverbal NP being the NP distinguished by the verbal marking.

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 6:09 pm I have devises a set of rules

• Verb is "topicalized" (for lack of better word) by default (i.e. Verb-first order)
• There can only be one topicalized constituent
• Topicalized constituents can be either subject, object, or oblique

I have thus the following word orders

• VSOX (subject is most animate, object is equal or less animate) - the least-marked order
• VOSX (object is most animate, subject is equal or less animate) - can't think of better way to say "if both S and O are same animacy, either order is allowed"
• SVOX (subject is topicalized, animacy irrelevant)
• OVSX (object is topicalized, animacy irrelevant)
• XVSO (oblique is topicalized, subject is most animate, object is equal or less animate)
• XVOS (oblique is topicalized, object is most animate, subject is equal or less animate)

Is this naturalistic? The language is nominative accusative if that means anything.

This seems quite naturalistic to me myself.

I like the flexibility

ʾIḫūt ḳābam kapâs ʾarśēki (V-S-O-X)
"The king poured water into his vessel" (neutral, default)

ʾArśēki ʾiḫūt ḳābam kapâs (X-V-S-O)
"into his vessel, the king poured water"

Ḳābam ʾiḫūt kapâs ʾarśēki (S-V-O-X)
"it was the king who poured water into his vessel"

Kapâs ʾiḫūt ḳābam ʾarśēki (O-V-S-X)
"it was water that the king poured into his vessel"

do you have declensions or something to determine the function of each word...

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 8:49 pm I like the flexibility

ʾIḫūt ḳābam kapâs ʾarśēki (V-S-O-X)
"The king poured water into his vessel" (neutral, default)

ʾArśēki ʾiḫūt ḳābam kapâs (X-V-S-O)
"into his vessel, the king poured water"

Ḳābam ʾiḫūt kapâs ʾarśēki (S-V-O-X)
"it was the king who poured water into his vessel"

Kapâs ʾiḫūt ḳābam ʾarśēki (O-V-S-X)
"it was water that the king poured into his vessel"

So if I'm reading right, this is purely a change of word order, not a different marking on fronted consitutents right?


JAL

xxx wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 3:05 am do you have declensions or something to determine the function of each word...

Yes. In earlier posts here I have shown them.

jal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 3:55 am

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 8:49 pm I like the flexibility

ʾIḫūt ḳābam kapâs ʾarśēki (V-S-O-X)
"The king poured water into his vessel" (neutral, default)

ʾArśēki ʾiḫūt ḳābam kapâs (X-V-S-O)
"into his vessel, the king poured water"

Ḳābam ʾiḫūt kapâs ʾarśēki (S-V-O-X)
"it was the king who poured water into his vessel"

Kapâs ʾiḫūt ḳābam ʾarśēki (O-V-S-X)
"it was water that the king poured into his vessel"

So if I'm reading right, this is purely a change of word order, not a different marking on fronted consitutents right?

Just change of order. The fronting of constituents in an otherwise verb-first head-initial language is marker enough.

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 6:56 am

jal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 3:55 am

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 8:49 pm I like the flexibility

ʾIḫūt ḳābam kapâs ʾarśēki (V-S-O-X)
"The king poured water into his vessel" (neutral, default)

ʾArśēki ʾiḫūt ḳābam kapâs (X-V-S-O)
"into his vessel, the king poured water"

Ḳābam ʾiḫūt kapâs ʾarśēki (S-V-O-X)
"it was the king who poured water into his vessel"

Kapâs ʾiḫūt ḳābam ʾarśēki (O-V-S-X)
"it was water that the king poured into his vessel"

So if I'm reading right, this is purely a change of word order, not a different marking on fronted consitutents right?

Just change of order. The fronting of constituents in an otherwise verb-first head-initial language is marker enough.

Not sure I agree. For instance, this sentence could be interpreted with two different constituent orders:

Ḳābam ʾiḫūt kapâs ʾarśēki
"it was the king who poured water into his vessel" (S-V-O-X)
"it was the king who the water poured into his vessel (O-V-S-X)

Obviously in this case the correct interpretation is the former, but there are other sentences which might be much more ambiguous.

(If your answer is, ‘the interpretation is always deduced from context’ — that’s fine, plenty of natlangs do that too. But you need to explicitly specify that that’s what you want.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 7:14 am

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 6:56 am

jal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 3:55 am

So if I'm reading right, this is purely a change of word order, not a different marking on fronted consitutents right?

Just change of order. The fronting of constituents in an otherwise verb-first head-initial language is marker enough.

Not sure I agree. For instance, this sentence could be interpreted with two different constituent orders:

Ḳābam ʾiḫūt kapâs ʾarśēki
"it was the king who poured water into his vessel" (S-V-O-X)
"it was the king who the water poured into his vessel (O-V-S-X)

Obviously in this case the correct interpretation is the former, but there are other sentences which might be much more ambiguous.

(If your answer is, ‘the interpretation is always deduced from context’ — that’s fine, plenty of natlangs do that too. But you need to explicitly specify that that’s what you want.)

The second interpretation is impossible since the verb is marked with an animate subject prefix and water is inanimate-marked.

Between animates, the situation is still unambiguous since the nominative is -m and the accusative is -s.

---

Though I'm now not sure how much the V1 default in Vrkhazhian obeys the various theoretical approaches used to explain the occurence of V1 in real languages. Especially when SVO is a possible but apparently marked order.