Challenge #4: Dechticaetiativity and Serial Verb Constructions

Could dechticaetiativity be combined with serial verb constructions in a way that creates weird consequences in a language? I've been trying to come up with constructions that combine these features and such consequences, but to little avail. Any ideas?

For those who don't know, dechticaetiativity is like ergativity but for objects and indirect objects, so that the direct object of a monotransitive verb and the indirect of a ditransitive verb are marked the same, and the direct object of a ditransitive verb is marked in the dechticaetiative case.

I bought a book  → I bought a book.acc

I bought you a book → I bought you.acc a book.decht 

Serial verb constructions are constructions where two verbs cooperate to provide more meaning, such as

he take knife cut meat  → he cuts the meat with the knife

As always, suggestions are welcome in the comment field.

Detail #56: Verb Congruence Blocking / Quirky Case

This detail might make it into Dairwueh:

Coordinated verbs, where the first has a quirky case subject, the other verb has null congruence even if there's a reasonable person form for it.

 "I like this and recommend it to everyone" → me.dat appeal.pres.0 this.nom and recommend.0 it to everyone

Contrast with:

"I hate this and recommend avoiding it" → I.nom hate.pres.1sg and recommend.1sg avoid.acc it.acc

Detail #55: Wackernagel adposition blocking

If an adjective is extracted from a PP with a Wackernagel-position adposition in it, the adposition becomes a preposition instead. Adjective extraction has the following uses, functions and general grammatical properties:

• Polar questions involving an adpositional phrase with an adjective - 

in the red car: the in red.obl car.obl, or red.obl in car.obl  

is it in the red car?: red.obl.Q it is in the car.obl, red.obl.Q it is in car.obl

If there is a PP without an adjective in it, the preposition may be stranded and the noun fronted. 

•  Emphasizing the adjective. Red.obl it is in house.obl - It is in the red house. 
• Presence of (intransitive/particle-like) adpositions nearby

See also: Wackernagel adpositions.

Detail #54: Two kinds of Count Nouns, Some Kinds of Mass Nouns

Many languages distinguish count nouns and mass nouns from each other. I have been considering what a third category could be, but since I have not come up with any satisfying idea I will instead propose splitting the kinds of nouns already attested in two.

Count nouns

When counting the nouns, two different behaviors appear, both behaviors attested in natural languages:

• class I nouns get singulars after numbers > 1
• class II nouns get plurals after numbers > 1

Now, this is a rather simple difference, so let us add some things to it. 

• Determiners such as "many" function like numbers in regards to this
• Existential statements like "there are many of them" come out as NOUN(I) is many, NOUN(II) are many.
• Alternative I: Case syncretism* in the plural spreads to the singular whenever numbers or number-like determiners occur?
• Alternative II: a vague number can act like a pluralizer for class I nouns which thus can retain case distinctions even when they are not morphologically distinguished in the plural.
• Certain nouns can have slight meaning-alteration by shifting class, so e.g. "man" can signify free men, high-ranking men, officers, the innocent when class II, and servants, prisoners, minors, pupils, soldiers, ... when class I. In effect, the higher the status, the more likely that the individuality of the members is emphasized by the singular noun.

Mass nouns

Some mass nouns can be used as class II count nouns, but this is rather marked. The kinds of mass nouns are mainly distinguished by the kind of determiner they take when trying to express a great amount: huge, wide, tall, deep, rich, much. A small amount does not distinguish as many classes, having just tiny, poor, little. The numeral quantification strategies also differ:

• {huge, wide, tall, deep}-nouns require a quantifier, and stand in the 'syntactically relevant case' after that word. Most quantifiers are class I nouns, but a few are actually mass nouns as well. Examples include (deep) water, (tall) forest, (wide) space, 
• {rich}-nouns cannot be quantified except through derivative processes or compounding with count nouns. 
• {much}-nouns are always in the case with a partitive-like function after a quantifier, and the quantifiers used are rather restricted. 

* Case syncretism is a technical name for two or more cases having the same marking in some part of the paradigm.

Detail #53: Grammatical and pragmatical length

I suspect this violates some universals pretty strongly, which pleases me quite a bit.

Imagine a system where length is phonemic, but does not distinguish lexemes. Instead, length comes in patterns such as

sLss, LsLs, LLss, LLLs, ssss, LLsL

where L = long, s = short. These are applied to individual phonemes. Different patterns signify different grammatical and pragmatical information. Example patterns - just for illustrative purposes - given with Kleene-algebra notation. Some of them may span several words, some of them are applied sentence-initially, some are applied from the start of a noun.

verbal and sentence-initial patterns:
LLssL(s*) = yes/no-question
(sL)* = indicative, unmarked
s* = indicative, unmarked
s(LL)s* = imperative
s*LL = if interrogative particle is included, marks that the listener is repeating what he thought he heard in order to get confirmation he heard right

noun-markers:
s* = indefinite nom or acc
sLsLs* = definite nom < barely distinguished
ssLLs* = definite acc < barely distinguished
Ls* = fronted direct object

adjective markers:
LLLs* = intensive
s* = default
s*LL = verb-like, but restricted in not being able to take verbal patterns

Certain weird things can happen for phonemes that do not permit lengthening, such as the lengthening shifting one step to the right, or things along those lines. Finally, some particular patterns may trigger the appearance of extra phonemes just to carry length, usually /e/ or /n/, except after /k/, which triggers /u/ instead.

Detail #52: Taboo registers

Australian aboriginal languages have some rather famous taboos, such as

• the mother-in-law register
• avoidance of using any words sounding like the names of the recently deceased

Some cool things along these lines could be:

• taboos based on location (say, in an ethnicity much into sea-faring, boat vs. mainland vs. islands could easily be such taboo-triggering locations)
• taboos triggered or rendered powerless by rites of passage (old, in that e.g. Damin essentially kind of is a bit like that)
• taboos triggered by astronomical things
• taboos triggered by weather - rain, snow, snow-cover, storms, ...
• taboos triggered by pregnancies or especially by miscarriages?
• taboos triggered by music

Some things these taboos could trigger could be:

• avoidance of words on phonological grounds (the Australian taboo)
• replacing some grammatical markers by a less detailed system
• an avoidance with some actual weird implications: avoiding statements where certain kinds of evidentials are required. How about during music, avoid hearsay. Or, near pregnant women, avoid guesswork information. Or, avoid first-person experientials during the days before and after the full moon.

Detail #51: Another type of numeral

These are really just a slight variation of normal cardinal numerals, but here goes.

Analogous with 'both', you get a way of forming such pronoun-like demonstrative-like numbers.

Thus, "you, he and I three-oth know where we hid the loot".

Functions this kind of numeral fills is:

• demonstrative roles - instead of "the three men", "these five houses", "oh, those two" - all replaced by "three-oth men", "five-oth houses", "oh, both". The last case, from an English point of view is ambiguous, but intonation and such would distinguish between what in somewhat awkward English would mean something like "oh, the two of them are here, not just one or the other" and "oh, that's what we can expect from those two" and "oh, it's those two". Notice how distal and proximal and definite are conflated.
• pronominal roles
• emphasis as well as complete numeration - 'three-oth know the secret' → only three know the secret, 'six-oth accounted for' → all six accounted for. In perfective phrases, subjects tend to be parsed as all N, whereas objects are parsed as only N. In imperfective phrases, this is reversed.
• Everytime ever a numeral would occur in a vocative-like position, these numerals would be used there.