Dependent clauses re-re-reenvisioned

Whenever I hear myself using the phrases "dependent clause" and "final decision" in the same sentence, it really ought to set alarm bells ringing. The last such occasion was about two years ago, in which I said the following:

• Clauses used as predicates are syntactically and morphologically identical to independent clauses
• Clauses used as adjectives are preceded by ve when the head is not the subject of the dependent clause, optionally otherwise
• Clauses used as nouns are preceded by either ko or ve

Over the past several months I've been entertaining a different idea. It initially seemed like a wild flight of fancy, but I've stuck with it and it's been surprising me by feeling more and more legitimate, or maybe even unavoidable. I'm still skeptical, so don't hold me to any of this, but I want to give it a genuine chance.

In this new dependent clause universe, the rules above can still be considered correct regarding clauses with ve. Here the dependent clause is being set off by a subordinating conjunction, and as such remains finite and modular with syntax identical to its use as a main clause. I think I've realized, though, that ko isn't just in free alternation with ve for structures like these as I initially proposed. It seems obvious now -- given the fact that ko is in fact a specifier -- that its function here is that of a nominalizer.

I see the source of my confusion: with clauses with a pronominal subject, subordination with ko and ve does accidentally look the same...

ni-kulu ko-ta-koke poli
1SG-hear NOM-3SG-tall very
"I hear he's very tall"

ni-kulu ve ta-koke poli
1SG-hear CJ 3SG-tall very
"I hear he's very tall"

The apparent parallelism was more striking before I started grouping particles in writing, i.e. previously

ni kulu ko ta koke poli
ni kulu ve ta koke poli

...but however they're spelled, in speech the structures still sound identical. The wild difference appears when the clause has a nominal subject: in this situation, rather than occupying the same clause-initial position as ve, ko replaces the preverbal i that marks finite verbs. I actually identified this possibility in the post referenced above, and initially ten years earlier, but couldn't make sense yet of why this would actually be reasonable beyond an aesthetic inclination for its elegance.

There's a straight line to this new structure from a clause like this:

A. ana ko-ni-lahe
give NOM-1SG-leave
"let me go"

We might translate this literally into English as "allow my going," or "allow that I might go." Another equally valid way of phrasing this in Koa, though, would be

B. ána-ni ko-lahe
give-1SG NOM-leave
"let me go"

Here the literal translation would be more like "allow me [the act of] leaving," just like ánani kovapa "give me liberty." If we replace ni "me" in structure B above with a noun, we end up with this:

ana le Keoni ko-lahe
give NAME John NOM-leave
"let John go"

For contrast, here's the same meaning with ve and a finite clause. Notice that the finite verb marker i is restored in the position previously occupied by ko:

ana ve le Keoni i lahe
give CJ NAME John FIN leave
"let John go"

So it's clear that something pretty different is happening syntactically in subordinate clauses depending on which of these strategies we use. As a further example of how nominalization works, here's the above nikulu kotakoke poli "I hear he's very tall" with a nominal subject in the dependent clause:

ni-kulu le Keoni ko-koke poli
1SG-hear NAME John NOM-tall very
"I hear John is very tall"

For those following the plot exceptionally closely, this does have implications for the vaunted tetai ko structure we've tried so hard to preserve through all these years. Again with a nominal subject, we have two possibilities:

te-tai ve le Keoni i cu-lai he-tana
ABIL-be CJ NAME John FIN IRR-return TIME-today
"John may be coming back today"

te-tai le Keoni ko-cu-lai he-tana
ABIL-be NAME John NOM-IRR-return TIME-today
"John may be coming back today"

I find myself narrowing my eyes as I read this back to myself...I'll sit with it for a while. This is a pretty big change, so I know it make take some time to get used to. I am cheered, I will just say, by some parallels between this new structure with ko and complement clauses in Latin (not to mention English phrasings like "I know him to be trustworthy"):

audiō Ioannem longissimum esse (Latin)
hear-1SG John-ACC tall-SUPER-ACC be.INF
"I hear that John is very tall," lit. "I hear John to be very tall"

The Salishan languages have similar structures as well:

d-s-x̆aƛ' kwi s-tə̀xʷ-s tsulč (Lushootseed)
1SG.POSS-NOM-desire ART NOM-buy-3.POSS drum
"I want him to buy a drum"

...cf Koa's

ni-halu ko-ta-kou toe
1SG-want NOM-3SG-buy drum
"I want him to buy a drum"

One last example of a more complex sentence, from actual usage:

Ni-io-te-nae kemo ko-te-tai u-tie neva
1SG-TRANS-ABIL-see manner NOM-ABIL-be DEF.PL-road unstraight
"I can already see how the winding roads...

ne-múnu-nu ko-na-cu-luta a-cólute.
LOC-middle-1PL NOM-NEG-IRR-find INDEF-connection
...between us might not find a connection."

Let's see how this goes! It's a bit of a brazen move in a long history of syntactical conservatism, but I'm excited about it.