How do you construct your sentences?

[ltrout]

Hey guys! I am just wondering how do you align your sentences? I like to use just the basic Nominative Accusative (i think thats what it is called). But what about you? What do you like to use?

[Levike]

In mine there isn't any order.
Case endings and pre/postpositions always tell you the role of each word.
So as long as something makes sense it's okay. +I don't want to memorise word-orders.

1. Íme katrom aja milkom lorósti úri tébedáli - I love to eat chocolate every day.

2. Úri tébedáli katrom íme aja milkom lorósti - Every day love I to eat chocolate.

3. Lorósti íme aja milkom tébedáli úri katrom - Chocolate I to eat day every love.

4. Katrom lorósti aja milkom íme tébedáli úri - Love chocolate to eat I day every-

[Ashucky]

Hey guys! I am just wondering how do you align your sentences? I like to use just the basic Nominative Accusative (i think thats what it is called). But what about you? What do you like to use?

Sentence structure is usually handled by syntax. But since you mention nominative-accusative, I assume you're referring to morphosyntactic alignment specifically.

There are about 6 main MA's (there are more): nominative-accusative (most languages in Europe, Japanese, etc.), ergative-absolutive (Basque), split-ergative (Sumerian; but most erg-abs langs are usually split-ergative), active-stative (two main subtypes: split-S and fluid-S; many Native American languages belong here), direct (English, Chinese), tripartite, and Austronesian alignment (Tagalog). Additionally, direct MA works nicely with a direct-inverse system.

So far I've used nom-acc, erg-abs/split-erg, and Austronesian (I've just recently converted a direct lang to an Austronesian lang). I don't like the direct alignment, although I'm thinking of making one with a direct-inverse system. I might also turn one of my split-erg languages into a tripartite language. I haven't done any active-stative languages yet, but I should look into that eventually.

In mine there isn't any order.
Case endings and pre/postpositions always tell you the role of each word.

Word order is not the same as morphosyntactic alignment, even though they are often intertwined. Also, all natural languages have some sort of a default or neutral word order, even if otherwise free (eg. Slavic languages), and the way word order changes depends on the focus or emphasis, or the theme/rheme distribution within a larger context, etc.

(According to cognitive linguistics, this is called structure-dependency and is a characteristic found only in human language and has so far been unobserved in any form of animal communication (this includes the language learnt by primates and such) - ie. it's one of the defining characteristics that sets human language apart from animal communication.)

[ltrout]

Hey guys! I am just wondering how do you align your sentences? I like to use just the basic Nominative Accusative (i think thats what it is called). But what about you? What do you like to use?

Sentence structure is usually handled by syntax. But since you mention nominative-accusative, I assume you're referring to morphosyntactic alignment specifically.

My bad haha! Thanks for the correction!

[Mentilliath]

Halvian has nominative-accusative alignment. I use it because Halvian is partly based on PIE and nominative-accusative is what I'm most familiar with. Sure, it's not exactly unique, but it's what I like. It also just makes more sense to me. Seems like there are more blurred lines with an ergative system, and that is why many of them have "split ergativity". You almost never see a "split accusativity" system (i.e. primarily accusative with some ergative constructions).

My other main conlang, Hesternese, does however have ergative-absolutive alignment. I did this because I'm less familiar with it and I wanted to practice with something different. Hesternese's alignment is strict--it is purely ergative, there is no "split" system that many ergative languages, like Georgian, have.

Tripartite systems interest me, even if they are extremely rare and "redundant".

[Koko]

Isyan has a nom-acc alignment. I can comprehend it the best: my attempts with fluid systems have always ended up weird and I just can't. The nom-acc system also works much better with other cases for me because the uses are usually set in stone cross-linguistically. If I had erg-abs I would have to decide which type of ergative (-genitive or -instrumental) and absolutive to use just to define how a case system looks. Honestly, this makes me love the use of particles because they make things so much better: you inside a house? Say uchi no naka ni iru. At a party? Paatii ni iru. *sigh of lust* Japanese is so perfect in that aspect.

Celdovin also has a nom-acc alignment. However,

You almost never see a "split accusativity" system (i.e. primarily accusative with some ergative constructions).

which is exactly what I've been thinking of doing with Celdovin. For example, the verb "to think" when intransitive and "think about" would take the oblique case for a subject. But I don't know if that's what I want to do.

[Ashucky]

If I had erg-abs I would have to decide which type of ergative (-genitive or -instrumental) and absolutive to use just to define how a case system looks.

Why? Most erg-abs languages have just ergative and absolutive and all other cases work exactly the same as in a nom-acc system. Besides, you can always simply employ suffixaufnahme without complicating too much (and the whole thing, imo, isn't too different from using particles).

[Irkan]

In Chuhuntal, I'm using a nominative-accusative system (though I don't feel like that's the correct name). Basically, all subjects take the nominative except for unaccusative verbs. Also, it's a marked-nominative system. The basic word order is SVO, I'm still deciding between SVO and VSO for dependent clauses. An example:

pisul kkasila afil ni duy
dog[SG-NDEF]-NOM bite-PST snake[SG-ACC] this[VISIBLE] -reptile_{(counter word)}
A dog bit this snake.

pisuqu kkidxaru
dog[SG-ACC]-DEF die-ru*[PST]
The dog died.

*All unaccusative verbs are marked with the -ru suffix when conjugated.

[Levike]

In mine there isn't any order.
Case endings and pre/postpositions always tell you the role of each word.

Word order is not the same as morphosyntactic alignment, even though they are often intertwined. Also, all natural languages have some sort of a default or neutral word order, even if otherwise free (eg. Slavic languages), and the way word order changes depends on the focus or emphasis, or the theme/rheme distribution within a larger context, etc.

Exactly, natural language have a default word order.

Looking at my sentences in the "Person after me" game I like to use VSO and SOV.
SVO also appears sometimes.

Apparently it's almost always Subject(in Nominative) followed by Object(in Accusative).
While the verb goes back and forth.

[Fox Saint-Just]

Novbasa has a direct alignment, Xetlaqui is nominative-accusative. At first I wanted to make Xetlaqui an ergative-absolutive language, but I still fail to understand how it works. _{(It makes me feel rather dumb.)}

[Koko]

Why? Most erg-abs languages have just ergative and absolutive and all other cases work exactly the same as in a nom-acc system. Besides, you can always simply employ suffixaufnahme without complicating too much (and the whole thing, imo, isn't too different from using particles).

But do I want just that regular system of erg-abs? Or do I want those dual cases?

And I agree, particles aren't much different from cases, but I still like particles better <3

[Ahzoh]

Vrkhazhian is NOM/ACC, however, I'm struggling to explain how active voice sentences are SOV while passive sentences are VSX...

I considered a Split-Ergativity alignment, but I don't know if I can signal the absolutivity using grammatical voice:

1s-NOM John-ACC kill-ACT-PST
"I killed John"

kill-PASS-PST John-ABS by 1s-OBL
"John was killed by me"

Alternative proposition to derive it was through a marked SVO order to indicate emphasis, such as SoVO, where "o" is an object pronoun:
1s-NOM 3s-ACC kill-PST John-ACC
"It was John that I killed"
And then omission of agent, and then erosion of the presence of object pronoun.

It always looks like it requires some SVO order...

But yeah, I considered split-ergativity...

[Bijlee]

My old, retired conlang was nom-acc, but the one currently in use is active-stative (fluid-S, based on volition). It uses agentive (marked) and patientive (unmarked) cases.

In Chuhuntal, I'm using a nominative-accusative system (though I don't feel like that's the correct name). Basically, all subjects take the nominative except for unaccusative verbs. Also, it's a marked-nominative system. The basic word order is SVO, I'm still deciding between SVO and VSO for dependent clauses. An example:

pisul kkasila afil ni duy
dog[SG-NDEF]-NOM bite-PST snake[SG-ACC] this[VISIBLE] -reptile_{(counter word)}
A dog bit this snake.

pisuqu kkidxaru
dog[SG-ACC]-DEF die-ru*[PST]
The dog died.

*All unaccusative verbs are marked with the -ru suffix when conjugated.

This sounds active-stative (split-S?) to me. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can confirm.

[Irkan]

It may well be. I'll read about it.