Re: draqa syntax - help please?

Ajin-Kwai wrote:

>Hey, i've finally figured out a simple way to describe draqa syntax, but
>don't really know what to call it or how to properly label the terms.  I
>wonder if anyone out there could help me out...
>
>Basically, there is no distinction between Noun and Verb; parts of speech
>are Particle and Root.  Particles can be bound or unbound.  Many Bound
>Particles double as Roots; and any Root can take any Bound Particle.
>
>The best way describe draqa syntax is to say that it has one basic form:
>
>Predicate - Relator - Argument
>
>The Predicate is mandatory.
>The Argument is of secondary importance, optional.
>The Relator explicates the relationship between the Predicate and
>Argument, and is optional.
-----<snip numerous examples>-----

>So, what kind of syntax is this?  Would this language be described as VOS,
>VSO, etc?  Is there a better way to explain all this?  Thanks for any help
>:)
Although Draqa syntax is quite out-of-this-world, there is a lot in it
that reminds me of Boreanesian syntax. Boreanesian is a trigger language,
like many West Austronesian natlangs. Like Draqa, the basic form of
Boreanesian syntax is also predicate followed by a core argument (none
core arguments are more or less incorporated into the predicate). Also,
like Draqa, it is useless to think in terms of subject/object since such
a distinction does not exist and since distinction in valency is
non-existent.

A very brief demonstration of Boreanesian syntax is in order. If I were to
say "The stork eats the frogs in the field", the literal Boreanesian
translation could (depending on what argument is the topic) be either; "The
stork is the frog's eater in the field", "The frog is the stork's food in
the field", or "The field is the stork's frog eating place". This a lot
like Draqa IMHO.

Like Draqa, the concept of subject/object is almost meaningless. Problem is,
the concept of subject/object is so deeply imbedded in linguistic theory that
it becomes a necessity to think in those terms. In trigger languages like
Tagalog (Filipino), this is especially problematic. The solution I have seen
in the literature is to universally treat the triggers (i.e., the focus
argument) in trigger langs as the subject and all other non-oblique arguments
as object. This is the same principle I have adopted for Boreanesian. What I
have done when I want to describe Boreanesian syntax in terms of word order
types is to say that Boreanesian is VOS because the most pragmatically neutral
position for predicates is in first position while the trigger argument is in
last position. It then makes sense to say that O is in between V and S -- hence
VOS. In Tagalog, the solution is quite messy and results in an answer saying:
VSO, sometimes VOS, and occasionally SVO -- all depending on what argument is
focused or topicalized.

Basically, its all a matter of adapting to what linguistic theory has to offer.
In your case, you could say both VSO and VOS, i.e. predicate initial with
arguments following in any order depending on.....   remembering to define the
terms to suite both your language and linguistic theory. Another alternative,
especially as it seems Draqa is an alien language, is to make up your own
theories. In this case, your hands are completely free -- and you can just
ignore most of what I have just written ;)

BTW, I like what you have done.

-kristian- 8)