Print

Print


To me, a native speaker of an SVO language and a fluent speaker of an 
SOV language, any order seems mostly logical. I'm not thinking about it 
as a flow, but rather as a unitary statement. With a verb-final 
language, for instance, you list the participants and then state what 
action they take part in - just as logical, at least to me. Verb-initial 
is simply that in reverse. Subject and object are both inputs, and the 
verb is the process that occurs involving them - SOV is reverse Polish 
notation, VSO is frontways Polish notation; or maybe, SOV requires you 
to declare all of your variables in advance. This becomes even more 
clear in languages with topic/focus-driven word order, where the 
ordering of the list of participants has nothing to do with the roles 
its contents are assigned - the list is just a list, nothing more, and 
the morphology is what tells you how to relate the listed participants 
to the action the list is appended to.

It seems to me almost entirely coincidental that SVO can be perceived as 
a flow. I don't think the flow is at all what's going on underlyingly - 
I think a sentence is intended, probably even in SVO languages, to be 
nothing more than a statement of an action and its participants. The 
flow interpretation may be part of the motivation to move to SVO from 
something else (though I bet topic/focus word ordering has more to do 
with it), but once SVO is established, I suspect that it's not anything 
special - it's just a list that happens to be discontinuous.


On 2018/04/24 20:32, Michael Martin wrote:
> I had decided to make my conlang either VSO or SOV simply because I wanted
> to do things differently from English. But I've finally developed my conlang
> to the point of making very simple sentences and I've found that I don't
> really like these word orders. To be honest, they feel very illogical to me.
>
>
>   
>
> I realize this is likely only my native-English-speaker's bias but SVO word
> order just makes the most logical sense to me. To my mind it exactly follows
> the actual flow of how things happen. The subject initiates the action, the
> action happens, and the object is effected by the action - SVO. My
> perception may also be colored by my engineering education. Subject is the
> input, verb is the process, object is the output. (Not a perfect analogy,
> granted)
>
>   
>
> With verb initial or verb final, the flow just doesn't seem to work. But I'm
> open to new ways of thinking and so I wanted to ask anyone whose native
> language is verb initial or verb final, how do you perceive the flow of
> sentences? Do you perceive SVO to be odd or weird?
>
>   
>
>   
>
> *	Michael - [log in to unmask]
>
>