Re: Sketch of Germanech 4/4: Syntax
| From: | Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, December 6, 2001, 7:37 |
|---|
En réponse à Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg.rhiemeier@...>:
> >
> > No V2 requirements like in German or Dutch? Too bad, it would have
> been
> > quite a nice feature :))) .
>
> You mean something like German "Den Hund biss der Mann nicht"?
> German can do that because it has distinct nominative and accusative
> articles in the masculine. There is no such distinction in Germanech
> (except in 1st and 2nd person pronouns), hence there can't be both SVO
> and OVS.
>
Dutch doesn't have case distinctions either, and yet it's V2 in clauses and V-
final in subclauses (well, sort of, or at least less than German), and though
I'm a new speaker of the language (he he, I'm finishing the 3rd week of my
classes of Dutch), I don't have any problem understanding sentences, even when
the subject and the object are swapped. Subject agreement on the verb, or the
form of a pronoun when it's present, are enough to disambiguate any problematic
case.
And by the way, V2 doesn't mean only SVO and OVS, VSO is also possible when
another complement than the object is put in front of the verb (like: "Op
zaterdag geef ik de cadeautjes aan mijn neefjes" litterally: "On saturday give
I the presents to my nephews").
The V2 requirement is IMHO one of the neatest feature of Germanic languages
(too bad English lost it :)) ), and I don't think it would be unnatural to
implement it in Germanesh. It would certainly give it a very special feel.
>
> An OVS construction, however, could have prevented the loss of cases.
>
As I've seen, the personal pronouns have remnants of cases. In Dutch, that's
also the only remnants of cases there are. And yet it's a V2 language.
> >
> > Here again, no V-final requirements on subordinate clauses? I would
> have
> > been a
> > nice feature, and not implausible at all since Latin used to be
> verb-final
> > too.
>
> Yes, but early Romance strongly tended towards SVO, and when the cases
> were lost, SVO became fixed.
>
True, but with the Germanic influence, the tendency could have been
counterbalanced in subclauses, even though not in principal clauses, bringing
the same system as in present-day Dutch (which by the way is not strictly verb-
final in subclauses and compound tenses. You can add one complement after the
final verb, if it's considered of some importance, or if it would put to much
space between the verb and the subject. I see it as a kind of focussing).
> > The influence of the Germanic substrate could have kept the verb in
> final
> > position in subclauses.
>
> Possible; but the alternative OSV order would have worked against it.
> Sure, they don't really conflict; but a language that has SOV in
> subclauses and allows OSV in main clauses seems too confusing to be
> stable.
>
Then again, by making the verb-second requirement in main clauses, you get out
of trouble.
Of course, that's just ideas I'm throwing out. It's your language and I won't
pretend to guide you in what you have to do. I just thought V2 in main clauses
and V-final in subclauses would make the language more original and Germanic,
still not losing its Romance soul :))) .
Christophe.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.
Replies