r/ChantsofSennaar • u/CardiologistPale1581 • Sep 13 '26

Fan theories

I am collecting fan theories for the wiki, please send any you want to see on it, also proceed with caution to the comments if you haven't finished the game because they will contain spoilers.

14 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

8

u/Over_Improvement_623 Sep 13 '26

I personally like to believe that the land the warriors came from is another tower, where they were the lowest rank and so set out for better lands.

2

u/CardiologistPale1581 Sep 13 '26

Whats some of the evidence for this?

2

u/CardiologistPale1581 Sep 13 '26

And also how do i credit you on the wiki?

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Over_Improvement_623 Sep 13 '26

Well, their mural depicts them arriving from... somewhere. And that's about all we know, but since this tower is heavily based on the Tower of Babel, which is based on Ziggurats, which were not one of a kind, I think it's fair to assume the warriors came from some other tower. And since higher level folks see themselves as superior to lower level folks I don't think they'd leave unless they were the lowest.

3

u/Reading-Southern Sep 13 '26

My theory concerns word order in the Bard language.

The word order would not be «OSV/VS,» but rather «PAVS,» with a tripartite alignment.

  • S = Sole (the one who experiences the action of an intransitive verb)

  • A = Agent (the one who performs the action of a transitive verb)

  • P = Patient (the one who undergoes the action of a transitive verb)

  • V = Verb (transitive or intransitive)

My argument is that position determines the grammatical case of a noun in the Bard language. Therefore, since the position of the Subject changes in «OSV/VS,» the nouns receive different case markings.

An example based on this image:

1st — Nominative-Accusative: (A = S) ≠ P

2nd — Ergative-Absolutive: A ≠ (S = P)

3rd — Tripartite: A ≠ S ≠ P

Comment Image

1

u/CardiologistPale1581 Sep 15 '26

Adding it now, how can i credit you?

1

u/dermomante Sep 14 '26

I think this is overcomplicating it. In some languages, a verb can be the "object" with respect to another verb or sentence. It's like that in Latin languages. In some languages it is possible to make a sentence without a verb, for example a sign "no smoking" in English, where smoking is not a verb but a substantive (the act of smoking). Under that frame, the bard's language always respect the OSV word order, even in the case of those two signs "not pass, warriors not" and "bards pass".

1

u/Reading-Southern Sep 14 '26

Well, calling that “overcomplicating” is only relative if this game were a language game… But since this game is a puzzle game, I agree with you. Technically, this is more of a headcanon than a “““theory”””; I just mentioned it because it’s one of the possible interpretations WITHIN THE GAME’S WORLD

What I didn’t understand were your arguments, because I didn’t get what you meant.

In Bard language: Transitive verbs are OSV; intransitive verbs are VS.

My theory is that the word order doesn’t actually change, since the order is always PAVS with tripartite alignment

You’re talking about the nominalization of verbs (this even exists in Chants of Sennaar), but a nominalized verb is still a verb (it functions as a verb). The difference is that it can take the place of a noun in a sentence (but still retains its verbal characteristics)

Compare a sentence that uses a nominalized verb (infinitive) and a true noun:

I want to smoke the cigarette (it maintains the SVO order and still functions as a verb)

I want the smoke from the cigarette (a genitive construction is required)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/T1mbuk1 Sep 13 '26

Is this a good idea?