Once I get around to writing it, this article will contain information about basic syntax containing Verbs/Agents/Patients and not much more. The other thingies might end up moved to other articles.
Brief version which I intend to rewrite to be more eloquent:
- Sentence-final position grants focus
- Generally speaking, words increase in salience towards the end of the sentence
- Words can take up any role until otherwise specified
— Example: "mommo" - to chew(v)/chewing(n)/chew(l)y(mod), and even chewing noise though this isn't universal
- Agents/Patients in one sentence want to be on opposite sides of something if they can, in our case a Verb
- Verb person/number is marked on the Agent, if at all
— when A is not the lone argument
— when it's not inferred that A is the agent from context
— when A is a lone argument but needs to be marked as not being an unmarked patient (despite context?)
- Verb time is marked with a modifier (marked with an unmistakeable THIS INDICATES VERB TIME mark) directly preceding the Verb
Ambiguous: cut me.A | I am choppy / I cut
Ambiguous: now cut me.A | I am current (trendy?) and choppy / I am cutting
Unambiguous: now.TIME cut me.A | I am cutting
- Patients are usually only marked when emphasizing them (marking explicit involition, as opposed to indifference or endorsement)
- When a Verb is placed in focus it is VERY important and overrides the patient's preference of being unmarked. Agent and patient are now both marked unless the information their marking carries (e.g. who the A/P is and that the first argument is not a modifier (adj/adv) to the second) is obvious from context or irrelevant.
tree me.A cut is ambiguous between tree.ADJ me.A cut and tree.P me.A cut
— Also, without marked time, a Verb and an unmarked Patient preceding it can become ambiguous between doing Verb Patient-ly and doing Verb to Patient. Sometimes this ambiguity is fine, sometimes it's not; in any case it's something to be aware of.
- Unmarked patients receiving focus is the most neutral A/V/P structure (they are not being emphasized, hence the focus is not particularly strong either)
- V/P only structures (passives!) do their own thing. They disregard whether P is marked as P or not (this is used for clarification only), and instead use focus for marking, and that sort of opposite to how emphasis works on volition otherwise:
— Patient focus indicates patient indifference or endorsement
— Verb focus indicates patient involition
— Emphasis may be done with dummy Agent particles (the sentence then behaves mostly like it would with full VAP).
- V/A only structures don't do anything remarkable.
— V in focus emphasizes that the verb is particularly important.
— A in focus (last) is the most neutral construction
— Emphasis may be done with dummy Patient particles (re).
- Two marked arguments = Two arguments experiencing the same thing separately
- One marked argument, one argument before it marked with a see_next_for_markers marker = Two arguments experiencing the thing together
— This pseudo-"and" particle class is called α at the moment. It comes in various flavours, many of which skip ahead to the next or previous or contextual something to fetch its markers, which can be used for various creative things.
—- Examples of αparticle behaviours:
—— Prev/Next focus
—— Prev/Next (of same class/behaviour)
—— Prev/Next PROX/OBV case
—— Prev/Next answer to question (clause/content)
—- Example, with arbitrary stuff: thingone-ABC thingtwo-ABC ≈ thingone-α thingtwo-ABC
- Replying to questions with answer interjections/particles that do not fit can indicate an unwillingness to answer, or a willingness to answer under different circumstances:
— "Yes" to a content question: Content exists / Might elaborate later
— "No" to a content question: Decline to answer
— "While/During" to a time inquiry: Some time