Quirky Case

In some languages, certain subjects or objects might have unusual cases. In some of these languages, the noun marked in such a way still behaves in a very subject- (or object-)like way with regards to syntax, in others such nouns don't.

In Finnish, certain modal auxiliaries require the ~subject to be in the genitive instead of the nominative:

hän menee
he goes

hänen on mentävä
hänen pitää mennä
hänen on pakko mennä

three different ways of saying 'he has to go', the first being 'his is go-present-active-participle'. Translating the two others very literally would get 'his holds go', 'his is obligation to go' .

Other languages with quirky case include German (for some objects), Russian (both objects and subjects), Icelandic (both objects and subjects) and a plethora of other languages.

Quirky case tends to affect congruence in some ways, but for other ways in which it affects how much of a subject or object an argument is we'll need to get into things like subjecthood/objecthood tests and the like, and we're not going to do that for a while.

Free Word Order

Free word order is a thing about which there is some conceptual confusion among conlangers. There are essentially two ways in which a language can have free word order.

First, there's the more obvious meaning of it: a language that has this kind of free word order permits reordering the constituents of a clause freely.

Second, there's the less obvious meaning of it: a language where such reordering does not change the meaning of a statement.

The latter meaning might require some elucidation. Clearly, English does not have free word order, as the following couple of sentences illustrate: 

a) Bill hit Pete
b) Pete hit Bill
c) *Bill Pete hit
d) *Pete Bill hit
e) *hit Bill Pete
f) *hit Pete Bill

A) and b) are otherwise rather similar, but their meaning is different – in a), Bill carries out an action and Pete bears the brunt of it, and vice versa in b). Clearly, English restricts word order fairly much, and even the two possible reorderings of {Bill, Pete, hit} have a very distinct meaning.

In some languages, reordering the arguments can change things like topicality, new information vs. old information, etc. One possibility could be that

Bill hit Pete

simply says that Bill hit Pete, whereas

Bill Pete hit

serves to specify the object of the hitting, i.e. Bill hit Pete, not anyone else in particular: "It was Pete that Bill hit" . Other similar changes of meaning are possible:

hit Bill Pete

in most Germanic languages this is how you ask if Bill hit Pete! 

In some languages, pretty much each reordering has just a slight change of nuance, often with regards to information structure. Some of these languages obviously mark objects and subjects either by congruence on the verb or by case markers on the nouns. However, some have other approaches as well - we may, for instance, have contextual knowledge. Stones don't eat children, but children do at times eat small stones, etc. This might permit for utterances like "the stone ate the kid" with the meaning "the kid ate the stone" in a language that does not mark case nor subject and object congruence on the verb.

Inverse Marking

Inverse Marking is often described in ways that are somewhat confusing. I hope to make matters a bit clearer.

Generally we have some "clear" thing that distinguishes subjects from objects - case marking, word order or some kind of congruence on verbs. But languages can lack all of these as distinguishing strategies, yet be able to distinguish which is the object and which is the subject.

Languages with direct/inverse alignment determine which to parse as subject and which to parse as object by a hierarchy. Normally, the noun higher up in the hierarchy is the subject.

The hierarchy might be something like 1 > 2 > human > animate > inanimate. Various complications may exist - a synonym might be in an unexpected place, zero-morph impersonal pronouns might occupy surprising places in the hierarchy giving odd ways of forming ~passives, which we'll get back to later.

So, if we have a sentence like {Noun₁, Noun₂, Verb}, it is the hierarchy that determines which is subject and which is object, no matter the order of the nouns in the actual sentence. Noun₁>Noun₂ implies Noun₁ is the subject, Noun₂ is the object, and vice versa. However, situations may occur where we want the other way around to obtain. For these, there is a morpheme that goes on the verb that simply reverses the parsing.

This is not a passive - a passive demotes the subject to an oblique position, and promotes the object to subject. Conceptually it might be a bit similar, but they don't really map easily to each other.

Noun₁ > Noun₂, Direct = Noun₁ acts on Noun₂

Noun₁ > Noun₂, Reverse ≃ Noun₁ is acted on by Noun₂

What ruins this similarity is that Noun₂ is a proper subject in the second clause, not an oblique thing. Syntactically it behaves like a subject. A better description is, really 

Noun₁ > Noun₂, Reverse = Noun₂ acts on Noun₁

The differences might not be all that clear if you're not all that knowledgeable about the more special properties of subjects (and objects) - a post for a future occasion.  

Differential Object Marking

Some languages, such as Russian, Turkish, Finnish and Hebrew, have a thing known as differential object marking. English, to some extent, can also be said to have it, although in a less predictable, unsystematic form.

In these languages, the direct object gets a different marking depending on some grammatical distinction. In Turkish and Hebrew, direct objects are normally marked identically to subjects, but when the object is definite, it is marked with an object marker. -yi|-yı|-yü|-yu in Turkish, et- in Hebrew.

In Finnish, the object is slightly more complicated, and the distinction that is made is not primarily one of definiteness. If the action is negated, the object is marked with the partitive case:

minä e-n siedä kylmää vettä

I not-1SG tolerate cold-PART water-PART

I can't stand cold water

This holds regardless of the aspect of the verb. If the verb is positive, and atelic, you also get the partitive:

aja-n auto-a

drive-1SG car-part 

I am driving (the|a) car

However, if the verb is telic and positive, the object is marked by the accusative:

aja-n auto-n auto-talli-in
drive-1sg car-ACC car-stable-INTO
I('ll) drive the car into the garage (implicitly, this is mentioned with the result in mind, or as something that will be completed before the speaker goes on to the next thing he's about to do)

hän rakentaa talon valmiiksi ensin

3SG build-(3sg) house-ACC ready-TRANSL first-INSTR

he will build the house (to completion) first*

* in the sense of 'before doing something else'

One context in which such completion is pretty central is when giving the order in which events are to happen:

syö-n ruoa-n ja sitten tule-n muka-an

eat-1sg food-ACC and then come-1sg with-TO

I'll eat food and then I'll come

c.f. the case marking in a less time-ordered utterance:

älä nyt, syö-n ruoka-a

don't_IMPER now, eat-1SG food-PART

stop doing that, I'm eating food

So basically, when the completion of the action is relevant, and it is a positive utterance, it's accusative, otherwise it is partitive. There's further complications with regards to the marking of the accusative, but that is syntactically predictable. 

Other similar systems exist in languages around the world, and looking at one particular part of English grammar might be relevant.

C.f. 

I shot the bear vs. I shot at the bear

The former implies that the bear, in fact, was hit (and probably died), whereas the latter tells us that the shooting was a failure. Many English verbs seem to have similar pairs, where the prepositionless version is more telic and successful, whereas the version with the preposition generally is less telic, less successful. However, different verbs seem to have different prepositions in use, and just a few exceptional ones seem to have the opposite situation - a preposition makes the verb more telic, c.f.

eat vs eat up

 However, in English, some of these verbs permit this even without an explicit object, so whether it's object marking or just 'marking' is a bit unclear.

Ergativity

For ergativity, we need to introduce a few other concepts.

Transitivity

A transitive verb is a verb that has both a subject and an object. Examples:

I see her.

Subject in italics, object in bold. The notion of transitivity is not entirely uniform - there's syntactic transitivity, which is pretty much "is there a direct object present (or at least marked for or strongly implied)", and semantic transitivity, which seems way more fuzzy around the corners.

It might seem weird to consider 'I shot it' to be transitive, but 'I shot at it' not to be transitive. Languages may differ in how they understand such constructions - verbs may have adpositions as 'integral' parts, and then 'shot at it' would be transitive; English seems to have some phrasal verbs to be integral, some not. Who knows, really.

Anyways, an intransitive verb is a verb that does not have a direct object.

We can now go on and consider subjects.

Ergativity

Ok, so we have a transitive verb:

I see her.

Let us call these A and P, agent and patient. And we consider what to do when we have a verb that only has one argument - we call it the undergoer, simply to provide a distinction. In English, undergoer is marked the same as agent:

I sleep.

However, in ergative languages, the undergoer gets the same marking as the patient:

I see her. Her sleeps 

Of course, this needn't only be present in the marking on nouns and pronouns, it can also be present in verb congruence and the like. I.e. we may have congruence only for the absolutive (the object or intransitive subject) argument, we may have congruence only for the ergative argument (the subject when there's an object present), thus giving patterns like:

I sees her.
her sleeps.
She am seeing me.
Me am sleeping
But
her is sleeping.
I is seeing her

However, congruence in some languages follow a nominative pattern despite having ergative case:

I see her
her sleeps
me am sleeping
her is sleeping
I am seeing her

 

Case

Case is a somewhat complicated issue, because it is a term that is quite polysemous - it signifies quite distinct things when used at quite distinct levels of analysis. However, its primary use clearly is with regards to morphological case.

Morphological case notably appears in several classical languages - Latin, Greek, Sanskrit - but also in any number of modern languages - German, Finnish, Russian, Georgian, Turkish, etc.

Classically, case is a morphological way of marking the role a noun (or other noun-like word) has in the sentence. For instance,

Jaakko	ost	-i	auto	-n
Jaakko(NOM)	buy	-PAST	car	-GEN

Jaakko-n  auto-sta soi musiikki-aJaakko-GEN  car-ELA ring music-PART

Jaakko osti auton, Jaakko bought the car. From Jaakko's car there is music playing. In this case in Finnish, the singular genitive is identical in form to the singular accusative, the genitive also serving a role similar to English -'s. In comparison

Иаков купил машину

Yakov bought car-acc

-у is almost exclusively used for feminine accusatives, and masculine and neuter datives. Anyways, quite obvious. Affixes mark case, and we can list them like, say, Finnish: auto, auton, autoa, autossa, autolla, ... We know from Latin and Russian that a case needn't be distinct throughout the paradigm to qualify as a distinct case: Russian conflates nominative and accusative for inanimate masculines and neuters, but distinguishes locative and dative for those; on the other hand, it conflates dative and prepositional for feminines. Latin likewise conflates some cases for some subsets of the noun system.

We can go on and look at some other 'popular' cases:

Jaakko anto-i kirje-en äidi-lle-si
Jaakko give-PAST.3sg letter-ACC mother-TO-2SG.POSS
Jaakko gave letter to your mother
Jaakko gave your mother a letter
Jaakko hat deiner Mutter einen Brief  gegeben
Jaako has your-FEM.DAT Mother one-ACC letter GE-given
Jaakko has given your mother a letter
Jaakko gave your mother a letter

The -si suffix in Finnish is not a case, really - it's more like English 'your', but tacked on to the noun. This is known as a possessive suffix. It is not a case since it does not tell us anything about the syntactic role of the noun. We can see this is not a case, since if we replace it by any other suffix out of the same set, we have not changed the role of the mother, we have only changed whose mother it is - however, if we change -lle-, we go and alter what role she has in the sentence. äidiltäsi, for instance, would code for 'from your mother', and some cases would simply make the sentence unparseable.

In German, very few cases are marked directly on the noun. Generally, case marking goes on adjectives and articles. Case, ultimately, more often is relevant on a phrasal level, not a word-level. I.e. when we say he bought a big red car, if 'car' were marked for some case, it'd generally reflect the role that the whole phrase a big red car has in the context. Therefore also, some languages mark other constituents as well, c.f. how Finnish would render it:

hän osti iso-n punaise-n auto-n

In both of the examples above, 'mother' is marked with the case that in that language marks the recipient of an action. In Finnish, this also marks the destination of a movement (and more specifically, a destination external to the noun so marked). In German, the dative is not used for destinations, but more often to mark that the preceding preposition marks position rather than destination.

What do cases do? Well, a lot of the same roles that prepositions do in English, but also some other roles. English has about three cases - nominative (nouns in singular and plural, I, you, he, she, it, we, you, they), genitive (-'s, -s') and some kind of oblique/accusative/dative for pronouns (me, you, him, her, us, you, them, whom). We may notice that objects in English are nominative for nouns and several pronouns (anyone, someone, etc), but accusative for those pronouns that I listed above. Same goes for indirect objects. Some languages have separate markers for those. Some languages also have separate prepositions for such roles, c.f. also English 'to' as an indirect object marker. The Spanish object marker a may serve as an example here.

However, some languages also distinguish the functions of an adposition by different cases. Examples of such languages are German, Russian and Latin. So for instance, в(о), /v(а)/ signifies 'in' with the noun in the locative and 'into' with the noun in the accusative in Russian.

Next up: differential object marking (or ergativity?)

Phones, phonemes and allophones

Starting at one of the main sets of concepts in phonetics and phonology, I bet most readers will roughly know these things. I will try and get into the physics of the entire thing a bit though.

phones are physical units of sound. They are what you actually produce while speaking. We also use this term to refer to transcriptions of phones, but already in the process of transcription is some of the reality lost - we're dealing with a map now, not with terrain. We surround them with square brackets.

phonemes are the classes to which we assign the speech sounds we hear, and possibly also the mental representation in some parts of our speech production of the sounds we intend to produce. Phonemes are surrounded by slashes.

allophones are usually written between square brackets, as they too are phones. Every allophone belongs, in a sense, to a phoneme. The classical definition of an allophone is a realization of a phoneme, or a phone that is heard/made to represent some phoneme. That is, when you are uttering the phoneme /p/, the sound you are making is a phone that belongs to /p/. Which particular allophone depends on the patterns these allophones appear by, e.g. in English /p/, when word-initial is [p^h].

In some languages, /p/ when between two vowels - in an intervocalic position - is rendered [b]. Similar alterations exist, such as some languages assigning [p^h]  and [p] to different phonemes. Thus, the phoneme is a language specific unit, and /p/ can mean quite different things when describing different languages - in English, /p/ includes [p] and [p^h], in some languages it includes [b] and [p] but not [p^h]. There is no such thing as a cross-linguistic phoneme - /p/ simply doesn't mean anything unless we provide some point of reference - a language, a language family, a geographical region where languages have influenced each other's phonemic systems.

To what precision the allophones are given in some grammar or description depend entirely on with what the author is concerned - is he concerned with describing how /p/ and /b/ differ in some language? He might want to include, say, careful annotation for the length of the time it takes for the voicing on the subsequent vowel to start (voice onset time). Maybe he is describing the types of r-like sounds in a language, and even counts - using spectrograms - the average number of trills and some kind of average deviation that happen during, say, /r/ vs. /r:/.

 There are some more modern theories of phonology where the phoneme has been abolished. However, the concept is still by and large useful for conlangers.

Some books on phonology will claim that no allophone can belong to two phonemes, others will have no problem with it. Personally, I find forbidding them a rather reasonable idea, and do sometimes advocate it even vociferously.

I do realize different definitions (and thus essentially somewhat different concepts) exist, and it may be more elegant to describe, say, the situation where some sounds under some conditions are merged with some other sounds as though the 'merged' form is a shared allophone - e.g. final devoicing, using overlapping allophones: Hund - [hunt], Hunt - [hunt] - are the final [t]s here allophones of different consonants? Keep in mind that in languages with this phenomenon, the voiced form reappears when an ending is applied: [hunt], but [hunde] in the case of Hund, and the final t would remain unvoiced for Hunt even though a vowel was suffixed.

This is of course up to the conceptual tools we use to describe the situation - we can use definitions of phonemes that permit it or we can use definitions that forbid it. Depending on which approach we take, the elegance of our description of a language may change - and the degree of elegance may differ in different ways depending on what particular thing about the language or Language in general we're describing. One description may work better for the psychology of first language acquisition, another may work better for describing the morphophonology, a third may work better for explaining quirks in the orthography.

I will probably explain closer sometimes later why I personally dislike the idea of shared allophones and explain in closer detail the problems they case. For now, though, let me just caution that if overlapping allophones exist in your conlang, there should be a good justification for the overlap. Having arbitrary allophones belong to more than one phoneme is more often a sign of an incomplete understanding of phonemes than it is of a genuinely overlap-like situation. By now I do feel mandated to write a more careful post on this at some time.