![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Actually, syntax might be OVS instead of or as well as SOV. The hierarchy is
2 > 1 > 3 topic > 3 other.
Auxiliary verbs take either a coreferential dependent form (without the secondary predicate suffix) or a full complement clause as object.
For dynamic verbs, the simple past and future are usually perfective, so for a strictly progressive interpretation, the progressive compound verbs must be used. The simple present of dynamic verbs is still progressive (unless I decide to make it jussive or something).
I still haven't figured out a phonology yet; all I know is that something like /kA:fi:ste:n/ should be a valid word. I could use some suggestions.
2 > 1 > 3 topic > 3 other.
Auxiliary verbs take either a coreferential dependent form (without the secondary predicate suffix) or a full complement clause as object.
For dynamic verbs, the simple past and future are usually perfective, so for a strictly progressive interpretation, the progressive compound verbs must be used. The simple present of dynamic verbs is still progressive (unless I decide to make it jussive or something).
I still haven't figured out a phonology yet; all I know is that something like /kA:fi:ste:n/ should be a valid word. I could use some suggestions.
