If we have an OSV basic order, then we also have SOV as an alternative order. If we have an OVS basic order, then we also have SVO as an alternative order. If we have a VSO non dominant order, then we also have SOV, OSV or SVO, OVS as alternative orders. If we have a VSO dominant order, then we also have SVO or VOS as alternative orders. If we have SOV and SVO basic orders, then we also have OVS, OSV, VSO, and VOS as alternative orders. If we have OVS and OSV basic orders, then we also have SOV, SVO, VSO, and VOS as alternative orders. If we have a VSO (non dominant) and VOS orders, then we also have SOV, SVO, OVS, and OSV as alternative orders.
Standardized
IF basic order is OSV, THEN SOV is an alternative order. IF basic order is OVS, THEN SVO is an alternative order. IF non dominant order is VSO, THEN SOV, OSV or SVO, OVS are alternative orders. IF dominant order is VSO, THEN SVO or VOS are alternative orders. IF basic orders are SOV and SVO, THEN OVS, OSV, VSO, and VOS are alternative orders. IF basic orders are OVS and OSV, THEN SOV, SVO, VSO, and VOS are alternative orders. IF basic orders are VSO (non dominant) and VOS, THEN SOV, SVO, OVS, and OSV are alternative orders.
Keywords
order
Domain
syntax
Type
implication
Status
achronic but presumably diachronically motivated
Quality
absolute
Basis
languages of Europe, Asia, Oceania, Australia and Africa surveyed by Dezsö 1970
1. These implicational universals can be used for the reconstruction of historical development. The following scheme supposes a process of the limitation of word order, in an opposite case the development has an opposite direction:Type 1. SOV<- SOV, OSV <- SOV, OSV, VSO <- free word order.Type 2. SVO <- SVO, OVS <- SVO, OVS, VSO <- free word order.2a. Cf. a less restrictive claim of Greenberg’s (#492) concerning languages with dominant VSO order: All languages with dominant VSO order have SVO as an alternative or as the only alternative order. 2b. Cf. a similar claim by Keenan (#1517): SVO is a grammatical (although marked) word order in all VOS languages. 3. See also #1340 for a Hierarchy of Markedness regarding basic word orders.
1. These implicational universals can be used for the reconstruction of historical development. The following scheme supposes a process of the limitation of word order, in an opposite case the development has an opposite direction:Type 1. SOV<- SOV, OSV <- SOV, OSV, VSO <- free word order.Type 2. SVO <- SVO, OVS <- SVO, OVS, VSO <- free word order.2a. Cf. a less restrictive claim of Greenberg’s (#492) concerning languages with dominant VSO order: All languages with dominant VSO order have SVO as an alternative or as the only alternative order. 2b. Cf. a similar claim by Keenan (#1517): SVO is a grammatical (although marked) word order in all VOS languages. 3. See also #1340 for a Hierarchy of Markedness regarding basic word orders.