While case is the most widely known feature of morphosyntactic alignment (as much as that is known), it is by far not the only one. Word order, verb agreement, and syntactic pivot also get discussed in reference to morphosyntactic alignment, and so do the syntactic roles and (particularly marked) grammatical voices, though not to their full extent. This may seem like morphosyntactic alignment is in fact mostly covered, but there are yet broad gaps that go unmentioned (both the gaps themselves and what lies within them), and what is discussed, is often limited to more common or otherwise popular alignments, and very rarely are the stranger, less-grounded in known, established reality, alignments given any attention at all beyond the very surface, which is a bane to more experimental conlangers, or people who just want to know everything about a particular subject.
As the author here has certainly spent at least several hours thinking on this topic, hopefully this comparatively small segment complete with explanations and examples will be comprehensible as well as of use to others, who have presumably not thought about this topic nearly as much, and perhaps it will finally cease haunting him, without even the decency to at least pay rent.
Disclaimer: The Kaethonry is not a linguist—It is merely an enthusiast. As such, some terminology used or usage of already well-established terminology or explanations of either may be idiosyncratic or even "rough", but hopefully not incorrect or too difficult to understand.
I think your translator may be malfunctioning.
Morphosyntactic alignment describes how a language may treat the following:
And, sometimes, even:
There are five "basic" (primary) morphosyntactic alignments used to varying extent among Terra's natural languages, deemed as such due to their relative straightforwardness in explanation rather than how common or even how practical they may be. There are a few beyond this that are known to exist in natural languages, and yet others that can be conceptualised despite no attestation in any form except for maybe in some obscure constructed language.
Although it is not the focus of this page, there also (secondary) morphosyntactic alignments which describe how a language treats the two arguments of a monotransitive verb in comparison to how it treats the three arguments of a ditransitive verb.
Verb: A word that indicates what is happening in relation to any participant or participants. (Or, as you might know from primary school: An "action" word—Though, it's perhaps really a bit more complicated than that, but what isn't?)
Argument: The participant(s) which can be slotted into a particular position of a verb. (Ex. "The cat and the dog sleep" has one argument, despite having two participants, as they are both doing the one thing that the verb "[to] sleep" indicates. However, "The dog chases the cat" has two arguments—The dog who is chasing, and the cat who is being chased.)
Intransitive: A verb which has only one argument. (Ex. "The cat and the dog sleep", which cannot be "*The cat sleeps the dog" or anything similar.)
Transitive: A verb which has multiple arguments. "Monotransitive", for verbs with two arguments (ex. "The dog chases the cat"), having the one extra argument required to graduate beyond intransitivity, here assumed to be the default for transitive verbs, and "ditransitive" for verbs with three arguments (ex. "I gave the cat a fish"), and "tritransitive" if you feel like being spicy (ex. [ERROR: PREDICATE NOT FOUND]).
Ambitransitive: A verb that can have multiple arguments or only one, without doing anything special to it. (Ex. "The cat eats the fish" can just be "The cat eats", or "The dog breaks the window", which can become "The window breaks".)
Valency: A verb's valency is how many arguments the verb can take. Intransitive=Monovalent, Monotransitive=Divalent (or bivalent), Ditransitive=Trivalent, Tritransitive=Quadrivalent (or tetravalent), &c.
To help demonstrate the various aspects of the various morphosyntactic alignments, the dialect of Examplese known as Poftan (meaning "simple [type of] language") will here be employed, in addition to English or „English” examples. Its lexicon will be meted out as one progresses through this page as needed, or it can be found on its dedicated page.
This is the purely theoretical base which underlies each and every of the other aspects of morphosyntactic alignment. As such, this aspect has no tangible or independent features, manifesting only through the others.
U = Unitary (sole) argument of an intransitive verb (Typically S=Sole)
A = Agent-like argument of a transitive verb
P = Patient-like argument of a transitive verb (Typically O=Object)
F = Agent-like sole argument of an intransitive verb ("Factor", archaically in the sense of "Doer")
E = Patient-like sole argument of an intransitive verb ("Experiencer")
X = Oblique (non-core) argument
S = Subject = The sole argument of an intransitive verb, and whichever argument of a transitive verb is identified with it
O = Object = The argument(s) of a transitive verb which is not identified with the intransitive argument
Note: "P" is often automatically conflated with "O", but this is not necessarily the best practice for each language.
Nominative–Accusative: U=A→S≠P→O | The prototypically more agent-like argument of a transitive verb is treated the same as the the subject of an intransitive verb, making it the subject of a transitive verb and leaving the prototypically more patient-like argument as the object of the verb.
Ergative–Absolutive: U=P→S≠A→O | The prototypically more patient-like argument of a transitive verb is treated the same as the subject of an intransitive verb, making it the subject of a transitive verb and leaving the prototypically more agent-like argument as the object of the verb.
Tripartite: U→S≠A→Oa≠P→Op | Neither the prototypically more agent-like argument of a transitive verb nor the prototypically more patient-like argument are treated the same as the subject of an intransitive verb, leaving them both with equal claim to being the object of the verb—However, they cannot simply both be declared the object, at least not without any further specification, as they are still distinguished from eachother.
Transitive–Intransitive: U→S≠A=P→O | Neither the prototypically more agent-like argument nor the prototypically more patient-like argument of a transitive verb are treated the same as the subject of an intransitive verb—Instead, they are treated the same as eachother, leaving them both as objects of the verb.
Direct (Neutral): U=A=P→S | Both the prototypically more agent-like and the prototypically more patient-like arguments of a transitive verb are treated the same as the subject, and, naturally, the same as eachother. None of these are an object of the verb.
One of the ways that morphosyntactic alignment can reveal itself is by where it places an argument in relation to the verb. Some-to-many languages will place the verb before or after all three types of arguments concerned here, but for the sake of this, the verb will be placed between arguments when it is maximally useful in order to better show off a given alignment. For these examples, it will also be assumed that the subject wants to be in front of the verb.
køna ↔ person
kaire ↔ wolf
piru ↔ chicken (hen)
vrun ↔ sleep
yan ↔ eat
e ↔ and
Verbs will be static, unchanging in form (no "sleep" vs. "sleeps"), and no articles (the, a/an) will be used in Poftan.
UV + AVP → SV(O)
The prototypical agent (wolf) of a transitive verb (eat) is placed before the verb, as is the subject (person) of an intransitive verb (sleep), while the prototypical patient (hen) is placed after the verb.
English: The person sleeps and the wolf eats the hen.
Poftan: Køna vrun e kaire yan piru.
UV + PVA → SV(O)
The prototypical patient (hen) of a transitive verb (eat) is placed before the verb, as is the subject (person) of an intransitive verb (sleep), while the prototypical agent (wolf) is placed after the verb.
„English”: The person sleeps and the wolf eats the hen.
Poftan: Køna vrun e piru yan kaire.
Note that, despite how it may look, the wolf is still the one eating and the chicken is still the one being eaten. Nothing abnormal happening here! Though, a chicken would definitely eat a wolf if it could.
UV + VAP → [S{V]OaOp} (Nom–Acc leaning) | UV + VPA → [S{V]OpOa} (Erg–Abs leaning)
The prototypical agent (wolf) and the prototypical patient (hen) are both placed after the transitive verb (eat), contrasting with the subject (person) of the intransitive verb (sleep), which is placed before the verb. The order of the agent and the patient is consistent, allowing them to be distinguished on the basis of word order. This example will have the agent go first, for the slight increase in familiarity compared to having the patient go first.
„English”: The person sleeps and eats the wolf the hen.
Poftan: Køna vrun e yan kaire piru
Be careful to not confuse this for having an omitted subject in the latter verb! The person is not involved in the eating in any way—Not that I'm sure what "The person eats the wolf the hen" would mean, besides maybe using "eat" to mean "feed", I suppose. Regardless, the person is not feeding anyone nor eating anything, as they are safely sound asleep and are on schedule to experience sleep paralysis in about 4-6 minutes.
UV + VAPPA → [S{V]OO}
The prototypical agent (wolf) and the prototypical patient (hen) are both placed after the transitive verb (eat), contrasting with the subject (person) of the intransitive verb (sleep), which is placed before the verb. The order of the agent and the patient is irrelevant and arbitrary, as they are not distinguished from one another, instead obligatorily using context for any possible differentiation. For the sake of balance, the patient will go first, but syntactically it makes no difference either way.
„English”: The person sleeps and eats the wolf the hen
Poftan: Køna vrun e yan piru kaire.
Again, take care to not mistake this for having an omitted subject; the person still has approximately two or three minutes away until their appointment. Also note that yan piru kaire and yan kaire piru both mean the same thing—That both the wolf and the hen are participants of the eating, without any specification as to who is taking which role. Fortunately in this case, it can generally be assumed that the chicken is being eaten by the wolf and not the other way around.
UV + APPAV → S(S)V
The prototypical agent (wolf) and the prototypical patient (hen) are both placed before the transitive verb (eat), as is the subject (person) of the intransitive verb (sleep). The order of the agent and the patient is irrelevent and arbitrary, as they are not distinguished from one another, instead obligatorily using context for any possible differentiation.
„English”: The person sleeps and the wolf the hen eats.
Poftan: Køna vrun e kaire piru yan.
As with Transitive–Intransitive alignment, there is no differentiation in meaning between kaire piru yan and piru kaire yan.
[TBA]
-d (nouns) ↔ -(e)m [Accusative (Patient) Marker]
-p ↔ -(e)k [Ergative (Agent) Marker]
-n ↔ -(e)m [Duative (Transitive Participant) Marker]
Note: -(em) is being reused because it works well enough for English, but for Poftan, it works better for all the markers to be unique, as it does not have a default.
The transitive agent (wolf, he) and the intransitive subject (person, they) are unmarked in the nominative case, while the transitive patient (hen, her) is marked with the accusative case.
English: They sleep and he eats her.
„English”: The person sleeps and the wolf eats the henem.
Poftan: Køna vrun e kaire yan pirud.
The transitive patient (hen, she) and the intransitive subject (person, they) are unmarked in the absolutive case, while the transitive agent (wolf, hik) is marked with the ergative case.
„English”: They sleep and hik eats she.
„English”: The person sleeps and the wolfek eats the hen.
Poftan: Køna vrun e kairep yan piru.
The intransitive subject (person, they) is unmarked in the intransitive case, while the transitive agent (wolf, hik) is marked with the ergative case and the transitive patient (hen, her) is marked with the accusative case.
„English”: They sleep and hik eats her.
„English”: The person sleeps and the wolfek eats the henem.
Poftan: Køna vrun e kairep yan pirud.
The intransitive subject (person, they) is unmarked in the intransitive case, while the transitive agent (wolf, him) and transitive patient (hen, her) are marked with the transitive case.
„English”: They sleep and him eats her.
„English”: The person sleeps and the wolfem eats the henem.
Poftan: Køna vrun e kairen yan pirun
The intransitive subject (person, they), transitive agent (wolf, he), and transitive patient (hen, she) are all unmarked in the direct case.
„English”: They sleep and he eats she
English: The person sleeps and the wolf eats the hen.
Poftan: Køna vrun e kaire yan piru.
TBA
ko ↔ I [First Person Singular Pronoun]
kor ↔ me
nu ↔ it, he, she [Nominative Third Person Singular Pronoun]
avrun ↔ wake up
friv ↔ to pet
pik ↔ to hit, to peck
hrak ↔ to screech
-at ↔ [First Person Agent Verb Marker]
-ir ↔ [Third Person Agent Verb Marker]
-om ↔ [First Person Patient Verb Marker]
-un ↔ [Third Person Patient Verb Marker]
-yh ↔ [First Person Unitive Verb Marker]
-øs ↔ [Third Person Unitive Verb Marker]
The verb agrees with the intransitive subject () or transitive agent (), ignoring the transitive patient ().
English: I wake up and I pet the chicken. The chicken pecks me and it screeches.
Poftan: Ko avrunat e ko frivat piru. Piru pikir ko e nu hrakir.
„English”: I wake up and I pets the chicken. The chicken peck me and it screeches.
Poftan: Ko avrunom e ko frivun piru. Piru pikom ko e nu hrakun.
„English”:
Poftan: Ko avrunyh e ko frivatun piru. Piru pikirom ko e nu hrakøs.
„English”:
Poftan: Ko avrunyh e ko friv piru. Piru pik ko e nu hrakøs.
„English”: I wake up and I pet the chicken. The chicken peck me and it screech.
Poftan: Ko avrun e ko friv piru. Piru pik ko e nu hrak.
English: I wake up and I dance. The wolf kills the chicken and it eats it. I go outside and I see the wolf. I hit the wolf and it runs away. I see myself and I hit the ground with a stick. I talk to a person and they hug me. The person carries a chicken and they go inside. They pet the chicken and I watch it.
Poftan: Ko avrun e ko laun. Kaire mot piru e nu yan nu. Ko extef e ko kes kaire. Ko pik kaire e nu aval. Ko kes fai e ko pik vure sap tikø. Ko sappen køna e li faum ko. Køna brag piru e li intef. Li friv piru e ko hylkes nu.
English: I wake up and dance. The wolf kills the chicken and eats it. I go outside and see the wolf. I hit the wolf and it runs away. I see myself and hit the ground with a stick. I talk to a person and they hug me. The person carries a chicken and goes inside. They pet the chicken and I watch it.
Poftan: Ko avrun e laun. Kaire mot piru e yan nu. Ko extef e kes kaire. Ko pik kaire e nu aval. Ko kes fai e pik vure sap tikø. Ko sappen køna e li faum ko. Køna brag piru e intef. Li friv piru e ko hylkes nu.
„English”: I wake up and dance. The wolf kills the chicken and it eats. I go outside and I see the wolf. I hit the wolf and runs away. I see myself and I hit the ground with a stick. I talk to a person and they hug me. The person carries a chicken and they go inside. They pet the chicken and I watch.
Poftan: Ko avrun e laun. Kaire mot piru e kaire yan. Ko extef e ko kes kaire. Ko pik kaire e aval. Ko kes fai e ko pik vure sap tikø. Ko sappen køna e li faum ko. Køna brag piru e li intef. Li friv piru e ko hylkes.
„English”: I wake up and dance. The wolf kills the chicken and eats. I go outside and I see the wolf. I hit the wolf and it runs away. I see myself and hit the ground with a stick. I talk to a person and they hug me. The person carries a chicken and they go inside. They pet the chicken and I watch.
Poftan: Ko avrun e laun. Kaire mot piru e yan. Ko extef e ko kes kaire. Ko pik kaire e nu aval. Ko kes fai e pik vure sap tikø. Ko sappen køna e li faum ko. Køna brag piru e li intef. Li friv piru e ko hylkes.
„English”: I wake up and dance. The wolf kills the chicken and eats. I go outside and I see the wolf. I hit the wolf and it runs away. I see and hit the ground with a stick. I talk to a person and hug. The person carries a chicken and they go inside. They pet the chicken and I watch.
Poftan: Ko avrun e laun. Kaire mot piru e yan. Ko extef e ko kes kaire. Ko pik kaire e nu aval. Ko kes e pik vure sap tikø. Ko sappen køna e faum. Køna brag piru e li intef. Li friv piru e ko hylkes.
„English”: I wake up and dance. The wolf kills the chicken and eats. I go outside and see the wolf. I hit the wolf and runs away. I see and hit the ground with a stick. I talk to a person and hug. The person carries a chicken and goes inside. They pet the chicken and I watch.
Poftan: Ko avrun e laun. Kaire mot piru e yan. Ko extef e kes kaire. Ko pik kaire e aval. Ko kes e pik vure sap tikø. Ko sappen køna e faum. Køna brag piru e intef. Li friv piru e ko hylkes.
English: The wolf eats the chicken → The wolf eats
Poftan: Kaire yan piru → Kaire yan
„English”: The wolf eats the chicken → The chicken eats (but meaning "The chicken is eaten")
Poftan: Kaire yan piru → Piru yan
„English”: The wolf eats the chicken → The wolf eats the chicken
Poftan: Kaire yan piru → Kaire yan piru
A language which is strictly tripartite in this regard cannot have ambitransitivity.
„English”:
Poftan:
„English”:
Poftan:
„English”:
Poftan:
„English”:
Poftan:
„English”:
Poftan:
„English”:
Poftan:
„English”:
Poftan:
This is a paragraph! Here's how you make a link: Neocities.
Here's how you can make bold and italic text.
Here's how you can add an image:
Here's how to make a list:
To learn more HTML/CSS, check out these tutorials!