Re: draqa syntax - help please?

H. S. Teoh wrote:

>At first, I thought my conlang was an active language -- and indeed, it
>does resemble an active language in marking noun cases semantically.
No, definitely not an active language.

>So my question is... what *is* this system??
The system doesn't correspond to anything I've ever seen in a
natlang.  That's one reason I like it.  It's definitely original.

>This is a hard choice to make. My conlang could be any of SVO, VSO, VOS,
>OVS in its "preferred" word order. If you account for moving words around
>for emphasis/focus, it can be any order at all!
When determining word order type, you look at the order found in neutral
contexts; ie, as devoid of emphasis/focus as you can.  If you didn't you
could call English OSV -- which doesn't make much sense to me.  (Example,
"That book I really liked!") That does not always help, of course, because
there is a lot more to word order in some langs than focus.  For example,
Algonquian languages play animate and inanimate nouns on opposite sides of
the verb, regardless of subject/object status.  It may be best for you just
to ignore the "standard word order" topic altogether, if it isn't relevant.


===============================
Marcus Smith
AIM:  Anaakoot
"When you lose a language, it's like
dropping a bomb on a museum."
   -- Kenneth Hale
===============================