|Subject||(Object)||(Ind. Obj)||(Voice)||TAM||STEM||subject agreement or question particle|
The unusual things include the Owner-Subject thing, and in part the Infinitive markers occupying the same spot as the subject marker. Having the TAM occupy one spot rather continuously is also not particularly interesting, and restricted markings on the infinitive is not unusual.
What else could we do to increase the amount of variation in this verb? Some ideas I may try out:
- have the subject and object markers possibly also code for indefiniteness of subjects/objects, rather than any specific gender (however, do maintain an animate/inanimate distinction), as well as wh-questions.
- certain gender markets in indirect object position basically are parsed like tools, certain are basically parsed like locations. In direct object position, certain gender markers are parsed as ablatives.
- have certain gender marker complications where some culturally complex possessions can cause gender/possession complication - two specific genders whose markers can be interchanged based on what something is from whose point of view - a separate post on this idea will be posted in a bit.
- have possessor congruence for subjects (e.g. mine- instead of it-) with a somewhat less detailed gender system in place
Finally, I've been considering moving something that usually is not marked on verbs onto the verb, as in throwing in dummy verbs for some kind of thing - definiteness mayhaps, or something.
I've been bothered for about one day with two things I thought up for this post having escaped my mind entirely, will probably edit it once (or rather, if) they reappear.