Re: V2 languages

JOEL MATTHEW PEARSON wrote:
Fascinating information snipped.  Thanks.

>
> The order in Teonaht appears to be:
>
>         X-Tense-S-V-Y
>
> where S = the subject, Tense = the separable tense prefix, V =
> the main verb, X = some class of elements the nature of which
> eludes me (although it definitely includes direct objects), and
> Y = everything else.  If we regard the tense prefix as a sort
> of "pre-verb", and (crucially) if X can be no more than one
> constituent, then Teonaht would count as a V2 language - albeit
> a funny kind of V2 language, where certain classes of constituents
> (e.g. subjects) are barred from occupying the preverbal position.
No, it won't work.  Subjects are not barred from occupying initial
position, but verbs are.  You will never see a verb initial sentence.
And the constituents before the verb can be many, keeping it from
being a V2 language:

        1)  The man in the park he walks.  An acceptable T. sentence
                that focusses on man.  SOV structure fudged a little
                by the repetition of the subject in the pronoun.

        2)  The fish the mother cooks.  The "standard" T. sentence.
                I don't know why they prefer this... I can't even
                tell if it focusses on fish.  I think it does.
                You can tell that it isn't the fish cooking the mother
                because the pronoun isn't repeated.  Also, article
                would be in "object" case for mother.

                "The fish the mother it cooks."  Fish cooks mother.

        3)  The dog did he pet.  Okay, looks like a V2 sentence.  This
                is only an illusion, because actually the structure of
                T. prefers that the verb always follow the subject.
                This means that the tense particle must not be considered
                really a part of the verb.

        4)  The man the dog in the park on a hot day did/will/does usually
                        he pet.  Acceptable sentence, the cases straightened
                        out by the use of the articles.


Verbs are allowed to precede the subject only in subordinant clauses:

        5)  The dog they saw bit he/who the boy.
        (They saw the dog who bit the boy.


        I sometimes think T. is slightly monstrous.  It has outlandish
        rules that really actually need to survive the test of usage,
        and it was invented by a non-linguist.  Conlang is the best thing
        that has happened to T. for it is put to the test in exercises that
        help see if these original rules really work.

        For instance:  I am having one hell of a time with the arbitrary
        migration of the genitive affix and the plural affix to either
        the beginning or the end of words.  This seemed clever twelve
        years ago, but it creates the damnedest ambiguity sometimes.
        Especially the genitive affix which can be diverinyn, "park's,"
        or _verinynid_.  Sometimes the suffix will sound like a prefix
        for the following word.  I've struggled with this for years.
        "The Law of Detachability."  It arose primarily for metrical
        reasons.  _Verinyned_ is clunky: VERA-nee-nid, or worse:
        Veh-RAH-nee-nid.  _Diverinyn_ restores the more normal
        pen-penultimate stress in a more natural way:
                        Dih-VER-ih-neen.
        Teonaht writers prefer having this option.

Sally