Detail #380: A New Spot For Alignment

I recently came across this, a post whose content I am not really going to comment (due to the feeling that I don't know enough about this particular topic.) However, it sparked an idea in my mind:

Why not make an alignment-like system with regards to symmetrical vs. reciprocal actions? Some verbs could imaginably only take one or the other type, and here we could get an interesting set of situations:

• verbs that are exclusively symmetrical
• verbs that are exclusively reciprocal
• verbs that can be either one or the other

Let's use s and r for arguments of exclusively s/r verbs, and S and R for verbs that can take one or the other. The way any particular marking works may differ from the way others are marked: reciprocal pronouns with differential object marking distinguishing different meanings, verbal affixes, particles, auxiliaries, adverbs, etc.
Potential solutions:

Trivial bipartite:
s = S
r = R

Asymmetrical bipartite:
s = S = r
R

or

S
s = R = r

Unhelpful bipartite (unlikely)
s = r
S = R

Tripartite I
s = r
S
R

Tripartite II
s = S
r
R

or

r = R
s
S

Diagonal Tripartite (unlikely)
s = R
r
S

or

S = r
R
s

Unhelpful Tripartite (unlikely)
s
r
S = R

Quadripartite (unlikely)
s S
r R

One thing that feels realistic, though, is that for some verbs, you may also have occasional exceptions like so:

Exceptional Marking I

S' = R
R' = other way that coincides with some other thing in the language?

The ' there marks that these are exceptionally marked ones, and that the "R" on the right hand of the equals mark stands for the marking, not the meaning.

Reflexives in Ŋʒädär

Ŋʒädär has a reflexive pronoun, 'ŋul'. Its inflection is as follows:

	sg	pl
absolutive	ŋul	ŋulɤr
dative	ŋulum	ŋulɤt'
locative	ŋulŋa	ŋuŋa
lative	ŋulus	ŋuvus
ablative	ŋuluk	ŋuvuk
gen-com	ŋuruk	ŋuruk
complement	ŋulȝuv	ŋuvȝuv

The direct-inverse system of Ŋʒädär of course involves itself in the whole affair. Now, it should be fairly natural that ŋul can never be a subject - much like you cannot say 'myself saw me' for 'I saw myself' in English. Ŋul occupies a spot in the hierarchy, and thus nouns that are lower than ŋul need to have their verbs marked for inverse, whereas nouns that reside higher than ŋul have their verbs marked with the direct marker.

1st singular >
1st plural >
2nd singular >
2nd plural >
1st, 2nd, and 3rd person animate dative subjects >
3rd animate proximate >
dative objects and ŋul >
3rd animate obviative >
3rd inanimate prox >
other non-nominatives subjects and objects >
3rd inanimate obv

A complication arises in the plural, however. It turns out ŋulɤr appears in two places. You get things like

sint ŋulɤr p'arab-z
sint ŋulɤr p'arab-jut
they selves protect-[direct/inverse]

It turns out these two reside at opposite ends of the whole hierarchy.  When it's at the top of the hierarchy, the verb has to have inverse marking, and of course vice versa when it's at the bottom of the hierarchy. (Thus, we can know which of them it is by looking at the marking on the verb.) There is a difference in meaning:

sint ŋulɤr p'arab-z: they protect themselves
sint ŋulɤr p'arab-jut: they protect each other

Thus, ŋulɤr signifies reciprocality with the inverse, and reflexivity with the direct. Thus:

ŋulɤr (reciprocal)
1st singular >
1st plural >
2nd singular >
2nd plural >
1st, 2nd, and 3rd person animate dative subjects >
3rd animate proximate >
dative objects and ŋul >
3rd animate obviative >
3rd inanimate prox >
other non-nominative subjects and objects >
3rd inanimate obv
ŋulɤr (reflexive)

 As for the case forms, ŋulɤt' and other obliques rank as other obliques, and do not distinguish reciprocal from reflexive. The plural genitive, however, moves its whole noun-phrase to the top or bottom of the hierarchy, and makes the NP behave analogously to ŋulɤr - just rephrasing the possessive structure either as 'each other's Xs' or 'their(refl, shared) Xs'.