Skip to main content
Sign in

Sentence Structure

2 min read · 480 words

Tamuni sentences follow a flexible SOV structure and use a dative particle to connect the action to the absolute object.

Absolute Object VS Sub-Object

In ditransitive sentences (two or more objects), Tamuni distinguishes between the Absolute Object (AO) and the Sub-Object (SO). The Absolute Object is the object directly affected by the verb, while the Sub-Object acts as an accomplice to the action.

While the terminology of indirect/direct and primary/secondary objects exist and are applicable in similar ways to the AO and SO terminology, the AO/SO terminology better captures the Tamuni perspective and how sentences are structured in the language. So, it begs the question, why is this distinction necessary? 

Consider this sentence

An o Ben edar sa pej. 

(I DAT Ben give the bread)


Let’s break it down.

  • An (I) is the subject.

  • Ben is the Absolute Object, since he is the receiver of the action.

  • Sa pej (“the bread”) is the Sub-Object.


The bread is not the main focus of the verb edar (“to give”). Instead it is fulfilling 2 roles: it is both the object which is received aswell being the necessary component to complete the verb’s meaning. Because of this, we define this as a Sub-Object rather than an Absolute Object.

So now we understand why we have named the 2 objects as such but is it just semantics? Well yes and no, I truly believe that for Tamuni, this is a far better approach to align more clearly with the sentence structure of the language. Let’s explore why:

An o Ben sa pej edar.
(I DAT Ben the bread give)

This, while understandable, is not how Tamuni sentences are structured. Tamuni views sentences as a chain, where grammatical elements are linked together in a meaningful sequence.

In a one object sentence, the chain is clear: 

An o anar koris avoz

(I DAT my house go/walk)

Here, the dative ‘o’ is viewed as the chain link connecting the action of walking to the destination, anar koris (“my house”). 

When applying this chain-based mindset to a sentence like:

An o Ben sa pej edar

(I DAT Ben the bread give)

a problem emerges, sa pej (“the bread”) feels out of place without anything to connect it to the verb. However when we look at the sentence:

An o Ben edar sa pej

(I DAT Ben give the bread)

the Sub-Object (“the bread”) naturally modifies the verb through its placement (by coming behind the verb (which otherwise marks the end of the sentence) the SO is viewed as a modifier of the verb or even a fulfillment of it). This makes for a smoother and more intuitive chain for the Tamuni speaker. As a result, sa pej functions naturally as a Sub-Object rather than a core object of the sentence.This explains both the placement of the Sub-Object and the usefulness of the AO/SO distinction in Tamuni grammar.