a question about monster raving loony alignment

[socio4016]

I have a question about something that is rare in natlangs but does exist so i am unsure if it qualifies as conlang. but some languages use "Direct alignment"; where both arguments of a transative verb are marked the same way; and rely on pragmatics to indicate who does the action and who it is done to. but how do those languages express counterexpectational events?

[Arayaz]

I have a question about something that is rare in natlangs but does exist so i am unsure if it qualifies as conlang. but some languages use "Direct alignment"; where both arguments of a transative verb are marked the same way; and rely on pragmatics to indicate who does the action and who it is done to. but how do those languages express counterexpectational events?

Monster Raving Loony alignment is not direct alignment, first of all.

No natlang (afaik) has no distinction at all in indication of agents versus patients. Direct-inverse systems exist, wherein a marker on the verb indicates a counterexpectational event, answering your question.

I'm curious by what you mean by "qualifying as conlang," by the way.

[socio4016]

I am talking about a phonominon that is very rare (but not wholly nonexistent) in natural languages; but because it is so rare i accept the possibility that examples might have to be taken from conlangs. this is called "transative alignment"; it is also nicknamed "monster raving loony alignment"; the short wikipedia article on it says at the start "In linguistic typology, transitive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment used in a small number of languages in which a single grammatical case is used to mark both arguments of a transitive verb, but not with the single argument of an intransitive verb."; an example of a language with it is Rushani. it is rare but not nonexistent.

[Salmoneus]

I'm afraid I don't speak Rushani, so I don't know how it deals with this problem. However, if a language doesn't have a dedicated mechanism for indicating counterintuitive argument assignments, it may use a general mechanism - perhaps an unexpected topicalisation or focusing can encourage listeners to consider the non-intuitive interpretation first.

[eg "cat sat on mat; then cat mat ate" could be ambiguous but the assumption is that the cat ate the mat unless context is clear that the opposite is true. If you want to indicate the opposite perhaps you might say "cat sat on mat; then it's mat cat ate" to draw attention to the unusual role of the mat. Likewise you could use mirativity: "cat sat on mat but WOAH! cat mat ate"]

Or, a language may simply duck out of the problem by not allowing transitive sentences with counterintuitive argument assignments. Then the question of how to indicate them goes away! Instead, perhaps univalent verbs are used, or nominalisations.

[eg "cat sat on mat; mat ate" or or "cat sat on mat; cat eaten"; or "cat sat on mat; then the cat's consumption"]

Or maybe there just is no way, and if there is (or is expected to be) a complication you just explain it.

[eg "cat sat on mat; then cat mat ate - the mat ate, I mean!"]

[Arayaz]

I am talking about a phonominon that is very rare (but not wholly nonexistent) in natural languages; but because it is so rare i accept the possibility that examples might have to be taken from conlangs. this is called "transative alignment"; it is also nicknamed "monster raving loony alignment"; the short wikipedia article on it says at the start "In linguistic typology, transitive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment used in a small number of languages in which a single grammatical case is used to mark both arguments of a transitive verb, but not with the single argument of an intransitive verb."; an example of a language with it is Rushani. it is rare but not nonexistent.

In your first post you mentioned direct alignment, which isn't the same thing. But the direct-inverse system I outlined before still applies.