The Conlang FAQ

Trigger System vs. Voice System

adapted from a 11 Jul 1997 post by Kristian Jensen

Hello all!

This is the very first time I'm posting to this list!! Anyways, I'm working on a conlang (as y'all may have guessed) :-) My first ever conlang, to be honest. :-P

Well, I have this desire to use a trigger system as opposed to the voice system. I wanted to try to create a language with a grammar that would not be obviously derived from (or related to) a living language. I thought of the trigger system to be a good start.

One of the most interesting syntactical features of Philippine languages is the use of the trigger system instead of the voice system. The trigger system seems to me to be more versatile than the familiar voice system used in most languages (and conlangs) that I have heard of. The arguments that can be chosen for the trigger show a wider range of semantic roles than the arguments that can be chosen as subject in typical voice systems. Voice systems typically have only active and passive verb forms. In trigger systems, the actor-trigger clauses would be roughly equivalent to clauses in the active-voice, while the patient-trigger clauses would be roughly equivalent to clauses in the passive-voice. But the Tagalog trigger system distinguishes more: directional/dative-trigger, beneficiary-trigger, instrumental-trigger, locational-trigger, etc.

>From what I of this, the Philippine languages are the only languages that utilize the trigger system. All other languages use a voice system (or none at all - I think). Or am I wrong in assuming this? If there are other languages that use the trigger system (natlang or conlang), could someone please bring them to my attention. Better yet, explain to me how they differ from Philippine languages. I'm interested in knowing how they could possibly differ from Philippine languages. Also, if I'm right - I'd also like to know :-)

I've been working with this idea for quite some time now. But it seems that no matter what I do, the language ends up being a FLIP-Clone (a clone of a Filipino language). Its as if there are some features of a trigger system that is required, resulting in a FLIP-clone. That sorta defeats my goals for this conlang. I still want it to be a unique creation that would not be obviously derived from other languages (including Filipino languages). I know, I know, I could of course just use the voice system - silly me. But its as if the voice system is overused nowadays, not that unique - if you understand my meaning. I see the trigger system as something unique (and I don't think anyone has used it in a conlang before). So if there is any other way of using the trigger system instead of the Filipino way, I'd like to know them.

Another feature that seems to me to be unique to Filipino languages is that they are primarily predicate initial. I have also decided to borrow this feature. Anything unique and different from the norm is what I've been hunting for. But this makes the conlang even more a FLIP-clone. Hmmmmmm..... what shall I do..... (ponder ponder ponder.....)

As an interesting aside; I'm half Filipino myself, I do speak a bit of Tagalog while my Filipino relatives speak both Ilocano and Tagalog. Still, English is my mother tongue.


Return to Conlang-related topics|Back to FAQ page

Copyright © 1997, Steven R. Martindale,
Last updated: 19 December 1997, 1997