Re: free word-order conlangs

Thanks for writing.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:43:00 -0400, Patrick Littell <puchitao@...>
wrote:

>On 7/17/06, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
[Speaking of the conlang Adpihi and perhaps also of the conlang Reptigan]
>>Words may be re-ordered within phrases; phrases may be re-ordered within
>>clauses; and clauses may be re-ordered within sentences.
>
>This sort of nonconfigurationality -- order is free but constituency
>is still respected --
I'm glad you understood me.  Perhaps I was being clearer than I feared.

>is a more common than the Warlpiri sort.  Moreso
>at the clause and VP level than within the NP level, I believe.  (That
>is, it's more likely to be able to rearrange clauses (like in, say,
>English) and arguments of verbs (like in, oh, lots of languages) than
>play around with the order inside NPs.)
But -- forgive me if I've misunderstood -- isn't there some Australian
language in which words can indeed completely leave the NPs and move
anywhere in the clause?  And can't that happen to more than one NP in the
same clause, and to more than one word in the same NP?

Perhaps the language I am thinking of is Warlpiri.

>Maybe there's some sort of implicational hierarchy.
Maybe there is.

>If a language allows some argument-scrambling, it also allows some
>clause-scrambling; if it allows scrambling of words within NPs, it
>also allows the previous two, and if it allows free scrambling ala
>Warlpiri, any of above will be possible.
Either I've misunderstood you (always a possibility), or the implicational
hierarchy is stastical rather than absolute, or the implication doesn't run
in the direction you've just stated.

Some languages allow you to move clauses around within sentences, but not
to move phrases around within clauses.
Some languages allow you to move phrases around within clauses, but not to
move words around within phrases.
Some languages allow you to move clauses around within sentences and also
allow you to move phrases around within clauses, but do not allow you to
move phrases out of their "home" clauses within the sentence.

Maybe there's an implicational universal that if a language allows you to
move phrases around within clauses, it must also allow you to move clauses
around within sentences -- I don't know how to bet on that.

However, I bet that if a language allows you to move phrases out of
their "home" clauses within the sentence, then it also allows you to move
phrases around within the clause, and allows you to move clauses around
within the sentence.

Some languages allow you to move phrases around within clauses, but not to
move words around within phrases.
Some languages allow you to move phrases around within clauses and also
allow you to move words around within phrases, but do not allow you to move
words out of their "home" phrases within the clause.

Maybe there's an implicational universal that if a language allows you to
move words around within phrases, it must also allow you to move phrases
around within clauses -- I don't know how to bet on that.

However, I bet that if a language allows you to move words out of
their "home" phrases within the clause, then it also allows you to move
words around within the phrase, and allows you to move phrases around
within the clause.

>>But complete and total "scrambling" is much dis-preferred.
>>I'm not sure yet I won't allow words to "leave their home phrases" and
>>move around the clause.
Since I'm speaking of two diachronically related conlangs, maybe it will be
possible in one and impossible in the other.

>>I can't even imagine why I would want to allow phrases to "leave their
>>home clauses" and move around the sentence. Does that occur in any
>>natlang? If so, does anyone on-list have an example?
>
>I can only give it to you in translation -- I don't know where the
>paper with the originals is, or whether I still have it, and the
>author is too busy for me to bother right now -- but a word can "leave
>home" in Russian to be fronted, as in 3 below.
>
>1. I met interesting-ACC boy-ACC today. (Neutral)
>2. Interesting-ACC boy-ACC I met today (Emphasis on the interesting boy)
>3. Interesting-ACC I met boy-ACC today. (Emphasis on the interestingness)
Cool beans!  Thanks.

(Still leaves open the question of "why", though.)

>I think there's only one topic slot for the sort of thing illustrated
>in 3, though.  I don't think you're allowed to have multiple
>"runaways" all leaving their "homes" at once.
Adpihi will be a little the same.  Any constituent can be moved to the
front; or any constituent can be moved to the end.  Under some
circumstances I think it may be possible to move any constituent to one
margin of the clause/sentence and also move any other constituent to the
other margin.  But I have not yet decided whether all of the remaining
constituents can be re-ordered arbitrarily and simultaneously.  I don't
have a "motivation" for that yet.

>So there's one motivation for allowing a constituent to escape its
>parent constituent, even in a limited fashion.
Consider it's _me_ you're replying to; have mercy on my limitations, and
please be explicit; _what_'s the motivation again?  That the most
emphasized "thing", whether it is an immediate constituent or something
smaller (a constituent of a constituent) -- that is, whether it's a noun-
phrase or a word within a noun-phrase -- can be moved to the front (even if
that means breaking up the middle-sized constituent of which it is part)?

>-- Pat
Thank you, Pat.

-----
eldin

Reply