Word order in Ɣu is a rigid VSO (for finite forms anyways, let's not enter
the details of infinitive clauses here), unless the copular verb, that also
serves for existential constructions, is associated to a noun phrase with
adjectives (in the singular) and without a definite realis article (1):
1. *Tan ei jus ñi*
1. 3s-be.PRS the cat small
2. "The cat is small"
2. *Tan jus ñi*
1. 3s-be.PRS cat small
2. "A cat is small" OR "there is a small cat"
3. *Tan ki jus ñi*
1. 3s-be.PRS some.IRR cat small
2. "(let's put that) a cat is small" OR "(let's say that) there is a
So to clarify the predicative reading, the verb comes between the noun and
- *Jus tan ñi*
- *Ki jus tan ñi*
With the plural or collective, the inversion is unnecessary, because
attributive adjectives agree in number with the noun and not predicative
1. *Túvan júsu ñívu*
1. 3p-be.PRS cat-PL small-PL
2. "There are small cats"
2. *Túvan júsu ñi*
1. 3p-be.PRS cat-PL small
2. "The cats are small"
I have for the time being no strategy for emphasis, save perhaps for some
adverbs. There is case marking but it has no effects on word order.
Do note though that in relative clauses, the relative pronoun (identical in
form to the definite article) is in the same place we'd have expected the
constituent of a main clause after its syntactic role:
- *Amóɣe véte nimacnéko éiva*
- 1s-see-PRS man-PAT 1px-APPL-speak-REC REL-BEN
- "I'm seeing a man we talked with (recently)"
2017-09-01 15:24 GMT+02:00 Chris Peters <[log in to unmask]>:
> I've recently been considering this from a natlang perspective.
> Romance languages (I'm passable in Spanish, and I understand
> French/Italian/etc. are similar) are SVO by default in a simple declarative
> sentence. They switch to SOV if the object is a pronoun. A sentence
> becomes VSO if you're asking a question -- but OVS if you're asking a
> question with a pronoun object.
> Japanese is SOV by default, but has an OSV option if you want to emphasize
> the subject for some reason.
> Variations like these intrigue me as well.
> From: Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf
> of C. Brickner <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 7:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Word order
> How strict are you in maintaining the word order you have given to your
> conlangs? What are the reasons that you deviate from this word order? I'm
> especially interested in SVO.