00402

132
seems to be the basic order for the reason that the A in AVO
does not need an "agent marker," whereas in the VO le-A word
order the agent marker Is. is needed to mark the NP as an
agent.
There is a study which I think very relevant to the
question of Acehnese word order. It is a study by Diffloth
(1974) on Semai, a Mon-Khmer language of Malaya. It is
relevant to compare Acehnese with a Mon-Khmer language
because it has been shown that there is a close relation
between Acehnese and Mon-Khmer languages. Cowan (1948) has
shown similarities in syntax, morphology and pohonology
between Acehnese and Mon-Khmer languages. The data in
Diffloth show a very close similarity between Acehnese and
Semai, both in word order and in the use of pronominal
clitics on verbs. In both languages the verbs always agree
with the 'deep' subject, whatever the order is. (See the OVS
word order in the examples.)
In Diffloth's account, SVO is considered the basic word
order in Semai for transitive constructions. When the order
is changed into VSO or OVS, la- is added before the S or the
Agent to mark the agentivity. (See the examples.) If we
compare this with Acehnese, we will see that this is also
the case in Acehnese. Corresponding to the Semai la is le in
Acehnese. Just as in Semai, the SVO order does not require
the use of is.. But in the VSO and OVS orders, Is. is needed
before the S or the Agent. As a result, we have such word
•••See Blagden (1929), Collins (1969), Cowan (1948 and
1974), and Shorto (1975).