<p><a href="http://cals.conlang.org/feature/102/" rel="noreferrer">CALS</a> lists 9 conlangs where the verb only agrees with P in transitives, 20 where it can agree with either A or P, and a further 127 where the verb agrees with both A and P, though of the ones listed, the only really well-known one is Klingon, which Adarian also mentioned. Including Mark Rosenfelder's langs (which aren't in CALS) in the at least relatively well-known bucket, <a href="http://zompist.com/wedei.html#Verbs" rel="noreferrer">Wede:i</a> and <a href="http://zompist.com/lenani.htm#ergabs" rel="noreferrer">Old Skourene</a> both inflect the verb for both A and P to different extents (though note that Old Skourene works on an ergative basis).</p>

<p>Of the languages that mark P but not A, most of them are listed as having ergative agreement and so presumably agree with S as well, however two of them, <a href="http://cals.conlang.org/language/yemls/feature/" rel="noreferrer">'Yemels</a> and <a href="http://cals.conlang.org/language/snahhian/feature/" rel="noreferrer">Snahhian</a> are listed as accusative, and so presumably has the verb agree only with P.</p>

<p>Interestingly enough, despite conlangers often liking to solve problems by throwing affixes at them, a complete lack of personal agreement is actually overrepresented in CALS, <a href="http://sasha.sector-alpha.net/~ptsnoop/calswals2a/102_verbal_person_marking.png" rel="noreferrer">when compared to WALS</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-11T20:47:33.743Z
Note on how to read that last graphic: the lefthandside represents data from WALS (natural languages) the righthandside from CALS (conlangs). The darkened area represents the difference between the left and right. Thus a large dark green area represents overrepresentation of a feature in conlangs based on the data in those two databases (which are both not representative to any rigorous standard)
Sascha Baer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-11T19:11:57.057Z
2018-02-11T19:11:57.057Z
Gufferdk
<p><strong>Әřant</strong> has a change that, while it may not be what you're asking for, does fit the question in that depending on the animacy valency of the object, the verb conjugates differently:</p>

<p>men xshanni - - tassu han-ne!</p>

<p><strong>it</strong>  drop.2S.IMPER - - thou.2S INTERJ-hey.EMPH</p>

<p>vs</p>

<p>san xshannos - - tassu han-ne!</p>

<p><strong>her</strong> drop.2S.INDIC - - thou.2S INTERJ-hey.EMPH</p>

<p>The person has a higher animacy valency, so requires a (slightly) more polite idiom.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-14T00:46:54.327Z
2018-02-14T00:46:54.327Z
elemtilas
<p>I believe your question conflates two related, but crucially distinct concepts, patients (a thematic relation and semantic concept) and objects (a verbal argument and syntactic concept).</p>

<p>By conventional syntactic definition, if only one argument is being agreed with, that argument is the subject. In that sense, it's <strong>by definition impossible</strong> for a verb to agree only with an object.</p>

<p>However, <strong>the patient of a verb does not have to be its object!</strong> In ergative languages, it's generally acceptable to analyze that the syntactic subject of a transitive verb is its patient.</p>

<p>In summary: it makes no sense to say that a verb agrees only with its object, because it would causes that object, by definition, to be the subject, merely reversing the agency alignment of the verb (cf. English <em>I like X</em> vs. Spanish <em>me gusta X</em>).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-14T15:13:14.657Z
I would like to see some citations here, you’re making some strong claims that do not agree with the definitions I am aware of, which define the subject as being either the S or A role of a clause. Dixon’s _Ergativity_ has a whole chapter about how that notion of subjects still applies to ergative languages.
Sascha Baer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-14T15:45:48.447Z
I have made *no assertion whatsoever* that "subjects [do not] apply to ergative languages". You are making the exact conflation I was pointing out in my answer. I have asserted that it's arguable that in ergative languages **patients can be syntactic subjects** of transitive verbs. What that means, simply put, is that in ergative languages, the case that marks subjects is often the absolutive, causing patients to be treated as subjects *for syntactic purposes*: who left in "he hit her and went away" is not going to be the same in Dyirbal as in English.
Circeus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-14T16:36:29.510Z
@Circeus Have you actually read Dixon? No such conflation is made, as Dixon (and a lot of other authors) use the term "subject" specifically to refer to an S/A grouping which have arguable universal linkages, and the term "pivot" to refer to categories controlling syntax in specific languages (which may then either be S/A, S/O, a mixture of those depending on context, or a relation not defineable in terms of syntactic roles (e.g. topicality)(though note that some authors, including Dixon, prefer not to call the latter a "pivot", and refer to such languages as "pivotless")).
Gufferdk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-13T20:27:46.083Z
2018-02-13T20:27:46.083Z
Circeus
<p>Yes. </p>

<p>I am not familiar with any “well-known” conlangs, but a quick search reveals that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_grammar#Verbs" rel="noreferrer">Klingon</a> verbs inflect for both subject and object. This is a phenomenon called <em>polypersonal agreement</em> and it is <a href="http://wals.info/chapter/102" rel="noreferrer">very common in natural languages</a>, and so it is only expected that it would also crop up in several conlangs. Among them, for example also my own, for which I just yesterday put up a puzzle that involves decoding the verbal system <a href="https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/60412/deer-hunting-in-mesak">here</a>. </p>

<p>I cannot currently think of any examples of a language which inflects for <em>only</em> the object, but it’s a rather low-hanging fruit and I cannot imagine that it has never been done before.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-11T15:45:49.900Z
2018-02-11T15:45:49.900Z
Sascha Baer
<p>Are there any examples of constructed languages that have verbs with different forms depending on the object of the verb?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-14T00:31:06.257Z
Especially after reading Circeus's response, I wonder if your question's wording  couldn't improved to specify more clearly what you mean by "change", etc.?  It seems like a very broad & general question!
elemtilas
<verbs><list-of-languages>
Do any conlangs have verbs that change form depending on the object?
# Do any conlangs have verbs that change form depending on the object?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-11)

Are there any examples of constructed languages that have verbs with different forms depending on the object of the verb?

**Tags:** verbs, list-of-languages

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Especially after reading username_4's response, I wonder if your question's wording  couldn't improved to specify more clearly what you mean by "change", etc.?  It seems like a very broad & general question!  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-02-11. Score: 20 | Accepted answer

Yes.

I am not familiar with any “well-known” conlangs, but a quick search reveals that [Klingon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_grammar#Verbs) verbs inflect for both subject and object. This is a phenomenon called *polypersonal agreement* and it is [very common in natural languages](http://wals.info/chapter/102), and so it is only expected that it would also crop up in several conlangs. Among them, for example also my own, for which I just yesterday put up a puzzle that involves decoding the verbal system [here](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/60412/deer-hunting-in-mesak).

I cannot currently think of any examples of a language which inflects for *only* the object, but it’s a rather low-hanging fruit and I cannot imagine that it has never been done before.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-02-11. Score: 12

[CALS](http://cals.conlang.org/feature/102/) lists 9 conlangs where the verb only agrees with P in transitives, 20 where it can agree with either A or P, and a further 127 where the verb agrees with both A and P, though of the ones listed, the only really well-known one is Klingon, which Adarian also mentioned. Including Mark Rosenfelder's langs (which aren't in CALS) in the at least relatively well-known bucket, [Wede:i](http://zompist.com/wedei.html#Verbs) and [Old Skourene](http://zompist.com/lenani.htm#ergabs) both inflect the verb for both A and P to different extents (though note that Old Skourene works on an ergative basis).

Of the languages that mark P but not A, most of them are listed as having ergative agreement and so presumably agree with S as well, however two of them, ['Yemels](http://cals.conlang.org/language/yemls/feature/) and [Snahhian](http://cals.conlang.org/language/snahhian/feature/) are listed as accusative, and so presumably has the verb agree only with P.

Interestingly enough, despite conlangers often liking to solve problems by throwing affixes at them, a complete lack of personal agreement is actually overrepresented in CALS, [when compared to WALS](http://sasha.sector-alpha.net/~ptsnoop/calswals2a/102_verbal_person_marking.png).

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Note on how to read that last graphic: the lefthandside represents data from WALS (natural languages) the righthandside from CALS (conlangs). The darkened area represents the difference between the left and right. Thus a large dark green area represents overrepresentation of a feature in conlangs based on the data in those two databases (which are both not representative to any rigorous standard)  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-02-14. Score: 1

**Әřant** has a change that, while it may not be what you're asking for, does fit the question in that depending on the animacy valency of the object, the verb conjugates differently:

men xshanni - - tassu han-ne!

**it** drop.2S.IMPER - - thou.2S INTERJ-hey.EMPH

vs

san xshannos - - tassu han-ne!

**her** drop.2S.INDIC - - thou.2S INTERJ-hey.EMPH

The person has a higher animacy valency, so requires a (slightly) more polite idiom.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-02-13. Score: -4

I believe your question conflates two related, but crucially distinct concepts, patients (a thematic relation and semantic concept) and objects (a verbal argument and syntactic concept).

By conventional syntactic definition, if only one argument is being agreed with, that argument is the subject. In that sense, it's **by definition impossible** for a verb to agree only with an object.

However, **the patient of a verb does not have to be its object!** In ergative languages, it's generally acceptable to analyze that the syntactic subject of a transitive verb is its patient.

In summary: it makes no sense to say that a verb agrees only with its object, because it would causes that object, by definition, to be the subject, merely reversing the agency alignment of the verb (cf. English *I like X* vs. Spanish *me gusta X*).

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: I would like to see some citations here, you’re making some strong claims that do not agree with the definitions I am aware of, which define the subject as being either the S or A role of a clause. Dixon’s _Ergativity_ has a whole chapter about how that notion of subjects still applies to ergative languages.  
> **username_4**: I have made *no assertion whatsoever* that "subjects [do not] apply to ergative languages". You are making the exact conflation I was pointing out in my answer. I have asserted that it's arguable that in ergative languages **patients can be syntactic subjects** of transitive verbs. What that means, simply put, is that in ergative languages, the case that marks subjects is often the absolutive, causing patients to be treated as subjects *for syntactic purposes*: who left in "he hit her and went away" is not going to be the same in Dyirbal as in English.  
> **username_2**: @username_4 Have you actually read Dixon? No such conflation is made, as Dixon (and a lot of other authors) use the term "subject" specifically to refer to an S/A grouping which have arguable universal linkages, and the term "pivot" to refer to categories controlling syntax in specific languages (which may then either be S/A, S/O, a mixture of those depending on context, or a relation not defineable in terms of syntactic roles (e.g. topicality)(though note that some authors, including Dixon, prefer not to call the latter a "pivot", and refer to such languages as "pivotless")).  

---

