VS/SVO was Re: <No subject>
|From:||Roger Mills <romilly@...>|
|Date:||Friday, August 23, 2002, 15:19|
Rob Nierse wrote:
> Here's something I've been puzzling over for a while. Are there any
>languages which have different word orders on a consistant basis for
>transitive and intransitive verbs? Enamyn is currently APV / SV (although
>with a wide range of permitted variations), but I would like to change itto
>APV / VS. I can think of some marginal examples in English; for instance,
>"Here comes the bus," but most intransitive English sentences are SV,rather
>than VS. So are there any natlangs (or conlangs, for that matter) that havea
>significant difference in order between transitive and intransitive
>I tried to make a language that was VS with intransitive verbs and SVO with
>transitive verbs. SO I had sentences like:
>tlatoa tzila go I = 'I go'
>potla tzila give I = '(someone) gives to me
Kash allows inversion of simple S-V sentences, but generally not of
S-V-(IO)-(DO), but it's not consistent and used more for stylistic
variation. There is, however, a formal difference in emphasis (since in SV,
V has the main stress; in VS, S has it), hence:
(normal/default) çenji yahóko (name 3s/cough) 'Shenji coughed'; it would
also be the answer to "What did Shenji do?" whereas
yahoko çénji 'Shenji coughed' would answer "Who coughed?"
But colloquially this distinction is largely ignored, or could be expressed
by putting the main stress on the first word:
çénji yahoko (answers 'who coughed?')
yahóko çenji (answers 'what did S. do?')
>Later on only subjects that had no control (or were non-volitional) came
>after the verb.
Ah. I hadn't thought of that. Good idea.
>In the end, while translating, I forgot about the whole thing.
>Because I wanted this language to be one were I could easily translateinto,
>I dropped it and all sentences are now SVO.
Oddly enough, I seem to be heading in the opposite direction, with a
preference for intrans. VS.....