Random ideas: Morphosyntax

[Creyeditor]

Again, there's also standard possessor raising in full contrast in these languages.

That's actually realy interesting. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Omzinesý]

A lang has two plurals. The suffixes code if the speaker considers the objects of the group similar or different. That is not collective vs. distributive plural distinction. It's more about the objects operating together or separately. This is about being similar or not. Basically, the speaker can always decide when the objects are similar enough in the context.

Bottle-PL1
'bottles that are similar (say, all are green)

Bottle-PL2
'bottles that are not similar (say, one is green and the other is black)'

[Knox Adjacent]

So sorta like additive plural vs associative plural?

[Omzinesý]

So sorta like additive plural vs associative plural?

Nope, if I understand what those terms mean.

Both of my examples just mean 'bottles'.
On can be translated 'different kinds of bottles' or 'a viriaty of bottles' while the other means 'a group of copies of bottles'.

[Creyeditor]

A lang has two plurals. The suffixes code if the speaker considers the objects of the group similar or different. That is not collective vs. distributive plural distinction. It's more about the objects operating together or separately. This is about being similar or not. Basically, the speaker can always decide when the objects are similar enough in the context.

Bottle-PL1
'bottles that are similar (say, all are green)

Bottle-PL2
'bottles that are not similar (say, one is green and the other is black)'

This sounds interesting. I think some languages express something similar via gender/noun class. If things are similar, they have the same noun class in agreement. If they are not similar, they get a default noun class. And I know that Khoekhoegowab does this with positional verbs and postural orientation.

[Visions1]

Kripi o auhtli o nginsfli.
krip-i o auht-l-i o ngins-f-l-i
think-1SG that know-2-1 that cry-3-2-1
'I think you know that he is crying."

I do wonder what mixing the persons up like [think-1 that know-2-1 that cry-2-2-1] or [think-1 that know-3-1 that cry-2-2-1] would do.

[Creyeditor]

My first guess is an ungrammatical sentence. Do you have any other ideas?

[Knox Adjacent]

So sorta like additive plural vs associative plural?

Nope, if I understand what those terms mean.

Both of my examples just mean 'bottles'.
On can be translated 'different kinds of bottles' or 'a viriaty of bottles' while the other means 'a group of copies of bottles'.

Your other here is the exact definition of additive. An associative plural has a representative unit (say, a green bottle) and other units not so necessarily sharing that property (say, the rest being purple). That they're all bottles is precisely why'd you'd use a(n associative) plural at all instead of just listing out the items like a green bottle and yellow hat and blue shoe.

.......... And this doesn't matter.

[Visions1]

My first guess is an ungrammatical sentence. Do you have any other ideas?

I think the former would be grammatical. I was thinking maybe it would be reflexive.
You could have multiple yous and hes. So "You1 say you2 eat" vs. "you1 saw you1 eat."

As for the latter, I dunno.

Do any languages do this Verb1 Verb21 thing?

[Creyeditor]

I don't know.

[Creyeditor]

How about a language with obligatory possessor raising. Possessors could get a genitive case but as soon as they modify a direct object of a monotrasitive verb, they would get a dative case. Like so:

Qeru zopa ti.
qe-ru zo-pa ti.
mouse-GEN brother-NOM run
'The mouse's brother runs'

Sepa du qefi zogo.
se-pa du qe-fi zo-go
1SG-NOM admire mouse-DAT brother-ACC
'I admire the mouse's brother.'

[Knox Adjacent]

It's an incipient dative-genitive merger.

[TBPO]

I have idea for a conlang that has 5 cases:
Ergative - The one who initiates the action,
Nominative - The one who undergoes the changes by the action,
Dative - The one who is a goal of the action.
Instrumental - The one who helps complete the action.
Backgroundive - The one who make a background of the action

wolf-ERG chase rabbit-DAT
Wolf chases the rabbit.

1SG-ERG build Lego-NOM shop-DAT
I build a shop from Lego.

knife-NOM push table-BCG
Knife fell from the table.

friend-INS 1SG-ADJ push 1SG-ERG rock-NOM
My friend helped me pushing the rock.

1SG-ERG push knife-NOM table-BCG hand-INS hole-DAT floor-ADJ.
I pushed the knife from the table with hand with intention of make hole in floor.

[Creyeditor]

I think your nominative would usually be called absolutive case and your backgroundive could be called an oblique case. The whole system might be ergative plus some kind of differential object marking based on affectedness. Also, why does the last example not translate to "I pushed the knife from the table with hand towards/into a hole in floor."? Is the dative only used for more abstract goals or could it also be used for the literal goal location of (caused) motion verbs?

[Visions1]

I was thinking oblique too. But, I generally associate oblique with also serving instrumentative functions (Aramaic), or even some other-object like things (Aramaic). Or just being a junk drawer for every other function (again, Aramaic).

It's a great idea, that case. I wish there was abetter word for it.
Maybe scaenative? (From Latin scaena - "stage".)

[Creyeditor]

In the actual example, it could also be glossed as a locative.

[Arayaz]

In the actual example, it could also be glossed as a locative.

That was my thought.

[Visions1]

In the actual example, it could also be glossed as a locative.

I was thinking that too, but I feel the term is too caught up on location. For example, what about time? What about contextual info? Of course, terms are just made up and we can use them however we like. Still, it'd be nice if names fit.

[TBPO]

I fixed the case system:
Ergative - Initiator
Nominative Absolutive - What undergoes changes
Dative - Goal (physical/abstract) or delimiter
Oblique - Background or context
Instrumental - Method (physical/abstract)

man-ERG run hour-PL-DAT two-ADJ
Man runs (with own will) for 2 hours.

man-NOMABS run
Man runs (for unknown reason)

wolf-ERG chase rabbit-DAT
The wolf chase the rabbit.

man-ERG go shop-DAT run-INS
Man goes to shop while running.

3SG-ERG walk near front-OBL shop-ADJ
He/she/it walks in the front of the shop.

knife-NOMABS fall table-OBL floor-DAT
Knife fell of the table onto the floor.

1) I think your nominative would usually be called absolutive case and
2) your backgroundive could be called an oblique case.
3) The whole system might be ergative plus some kind of differential object marking based on affectedness.
4) Also, why does the last example not translate to "I pushed the knife from the table with hand towards/into a hole in floor."? Is the dative only used for more abstract goals or could it also be used for the literal goal location of (caused) motion verbs?

1) This case system is inspired by Okuna and nominative is often used as subject, so it's still nominative.
2) Thanks, now backgroundive is oblique.
3) Every case can be used as subject or object.
4) I fixed it.

I wish there was abetter word for it. Maybe scaenative? (From Latin scaena - "stage".)

It's a great idea, but oblique is easier to remember for me.

In the actual example, it could also be glossed as a locative.

I agree, but currenty it's oblique. Maybe I'll change it later.

[Arayaz]

I fixed the case system:
Ergative - Initiator
Nominative - What undergoes changes
Dative - Goal (physical/abstract) or delimiter
Oblique - Background or context
Instrumental - Method (physical/abstract)

man-ERG run hour-PL-DAT two-ADJ
Man runs (with own will) for 2 hours.

man-NOM run
Man runs (for unknown reason)

wolf-ERG chase rabbit-DAT
The wolf chase the rabbit.

man-ERG go shop-DAT run-INS
Man goes to shop while running.

3SG-ERG walk near front-OBL shop-ADJ
He/she/it walks in the front of the shop.

knife-NOM fall table-OBL floor-DAT
Knife fell of the table onto the floor.

[...]

1) This case system is inspired by Okuna and nominative is often used as subject, so it's still nominative.

The absolutive, too, is often used as the subject.

Your definition of the nominative as "what undergoes changes" aligns almost perfectly with the absolutive.

The way I would analyze your system would be an ergative-absolutive, probably split-S, system that allows the usage of the dative in place of the accusative in a transitive clause, depending on semantic nuances of the verb.