Trigger language linguistic terminologies are weird and confusing, especially since most of them contradict with common sense/intuition/terms.
First, trigger languages could be defined differently based on your source; some are even wildly defined as "focus"/context languages. Hence, some languages may or may not be a trigger language depending on definition: as my conlang.
Then, each of the many names for itself has a different impression: Austronesian alignment (too natlang-based), trigger language (claimed to only exist within conlangs), direct (which could be an entirely different morphosyntax! ie, neutral).
Then, you need to deal with the "passive" (whatever the linguistic definition of this word is). For example, some sentences are intrinsically active in my conlang griuskant terminology, looks like an active sentence in nom-acc linguistics, but is called the passive in trigger language terminology. Vice versa for passive. However, there's something more confusing: There are other sentences which are active in griuskant, but passive according to nom-acc, but ACTIVE according to trigger languages!
Then, you need to deal with some sources claiming "voices do not exist" in trigger languages. So apparently, linguistics claims that the "passive voice" in my books throughout school and college are wrong, because apparently "voice" has a different meaning in nom-acc terminology.
Then, you also need to deal with "subject/object" being "patient/agent", or the reverse often! Aka, these "thematic roles".
...and this is why I use my own terminologies in my conlang.
Linguistics. y u make simple things difficult?
A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.