This section will look at the argument realization in constructions beyond basic verbs. It will examine:
The abbreviations used will be the same as the previous section.
In all derived verbal constructions, the argument realization follows one of the patterns discussed in the previous section. However, when viewed as a relation between the basic verb and the derived verb, the pattern appears to have changed. Thus, these differences will be the focus of the following.
Causative
As discussed earlier, verbs with the causative prefix rii- add an external causer to the base verb's collections of participants. Although the new causer is marked the same, the base verb's arguments may be marked differently. The pattern can be different depending on whether the base verb was intransitive or transitive.
Recall that intransitive verbs have one core argument, which, per the previous page, I will call ARG1. In causativized constructions, the marking is as follows:
| Causer | ARG1 | |
| NPs | ERG | ABS |
| Pronouns | NOM | ACC |
This marking is the same as underived transitive verbs. The change from the intransitive marking is minimal — the formerly sole argument is unchanged except pronominally, where it is realized with an object suffix (ACC) instead of a subject marker (NOM).
If the verb is an extended intransitive (with an oblique, complement clause, or both), the extended element marking is unchanged in the causative construction.
An example of a intransitive base verb and its causative:
Base Verb:
Eyara a Tsotar. PFV-cry ABS (name) Tsotar cried. [CRY (Tsotar)] Causative:
Eriiyaran a Tsotar tsa Karak. PFV-CAUS-cry-TR ABS (name) ERG (name) Karak made/let Tsotar cry. [CAUSE (Karak, (CRY (Tsotar))]
In contrast to intransitive verbs, transitive verbs have two core arguments: a more actor-like one (ARG1) and a more-undergoer like one (ARG2). In the causative of a transitive, the causer is added, with the resulting argument realization:
| Causer | ARG1 | ARG2 | |
| NPs | ERG | ABS | LOC |
| Pronouns | NOM | ACC | INDPTLOC |
These verbs have the same case frame as a transitive with an oblique. However, when comparing this with the transitive verb, the arguments have shifted in Ten-in-the-Bed manner ("so they all roll over and one falls out"). The actor-like ARG1 of the base verb has become the new absolutive, and the patient-like ARG2 of the base verb has been demoted to a locative argument (also the case of the demoted object construction below).
An example of basic transitive verb and its causative:
Base Verb:
Ehosin a tsique tsa Tsotar. PFV-eat-TR ABS deer ERG (name) Tsotar ate the deer. [EAT (Tsotar, deer)] Causative:
Eriihosin tsa Karak a Tsotar ta tsique. PFV-CAUS-eat-TR ERG (name) ABS (name) LOC deer Karak made/let Tsotar eat the/a deer. [CAUSE (Karak, EAT (Tsotar, deer))]
Base Verb:
Eyasin a tsowos ya Karak tsa Tsotar. PFV-give-TR ABS spear DAT (name) ERG (name) Tsotar gave the spear to Karak. [GIVE (Tsotar, spear, Karak)] Causative:
Eresa a Riyosir saa eyasin a tsowos ya Karak tsa Tsotar. PFV-do ABS (name) COMP PFV-give-TR ABS spear DAT (name) ERG (name) Riyosir made/let Tsotar give the spear to Karak. [CAUSE (Riyosir, GIVE (Tsotar, spear, Karak))]
The anti-causative prefix ke- changes an externally-caused event to an internally-caused event. This removes the notion of cause from the verb's meaning, thus, it can only apply to certain transitive verbs (and also certain intransitive verbs).
In the anti-causitive construction, the actor-like ARG1 ceases to be able to realized as an argument. This changes the marking to the following:
| ARG2 | Any third argument | |
| NPs | ABS | As in underived verb |
| Pronouns | NOM | As in underived verb |
Thus, anti-causative verbs are just normal intransitive verbs. The difference between the underived and the anti-causative is very minimal in the lexical NP domain: in the anti-causative, the NP that would have been the ERG NP simply can't be realized.
In the pronoun domain, there is a more notable difference. The active's object (-iina, you) is "promoted" to subject (na), as the following example shows:
Active:
Ekateriina tsa ana. PFV-dress-2SG.ACC ERG mother Mother dressed you. Anti-Causative:
Ekekater-na PFV-AC-dress=2SG.NOM You dressed.
Besides the anti-causative, transitive verbs can also have another realization. In this pattern, the ARG1 and ARG2 are realized as a verb in the intransitive with an oblique pattern. The marking is as below:
| ARG1 | ARG2 | |
| NPs | ABS | LOC |
| Pronouns | NOM | INDPTLOC |
This pattern is found when ARG2 is indefinite, as illustrated in the example below.
Base Verb:
Ehosin a tsique tsa Tsotar. PFV-eat-TR ABS deer ERG (name) Tsotar ate the deer. Object Demotion:
Ehos a Tsotar ta tsique. PFV-eat ABS (name) LOC deer Tsotar ate some deer. or Tsotar ate on deer.
For many transitive verbs, this change in case frame is not accompanied by any special morphology, except that, as in all intransitives with obliques, there is no transitive suffix morphology on the verb.
However, for a small number of verbs (most notably change of state verbs), the suffix -s, the antipassive suffix, is required (the progressive is also preferred), as shown below:
Kawenas a Tsotar ta tsowos. PROG-break-AP ABS (name) LOC speak Tsotar is breaking spears.
If ARG2 is very generic or pragmatically unimportant, it can be omitted completely, provided the rest of the construction is as in the above. An example:
Object Omission:
Ehos a Tsotar. PFV-eat ABS (name) Tsotar ate.
Nominalizations, especially the two kinds of event nominalizations, have some verbal qualities as well as some nominal ones. Among their verbal qualities is that their verb lexeme's arguments can be realized with them; however, they must be realized in a way that is consistent with other nominals. This means that the absolutive case is not used, and that the possessive pronouns are used instead of the subject markers.
Another nominal characteristic is that arguments are not obligatory in any way: they are only realized when they can't be recovered from context or are in some way significant to the discourse. It is highly ununusal in texts to find more than one argument expressed with a nominalization (even one is pretty rare). However, the generalizations below do make the composite pattern and make the pattern in the rare cases when the two (or more) participants are expressed.
Like several other constructions, there is a difference between intransitives and transitives, along the same lines as the verbal "split ergativity."
The marking of nominalized intransitives is quite similar to verbal intransitives, except that the absolutive is replaced by the adnominal genitive and the subject markers are replaced by the possessive paradigm (abbreviated here as POSS).
| ARG1 | Any other Argument | |
| NPs | GEN | As in underived verb |
| Pronouns | POSS | As in underived verb |
An example:
Verbal:
Eyara a Tsotar. PFV-cry ABS (name) Tsotar cried. Nominalization:
... a siyara i Tsotar ABS ACT.NMLZ-cry GEN (name) Tsotar's crying...
The argument realization in nominalizations of transitives is just like transitive verbs, with the replacements of genitive for absolutive and possessives for subject markers, as noted above.
| ARG1 | ARG2 | Any other Argument | |
| NPs | ERG | GEN | As in underived verb |
| Pronouns | POSS | GEN | As in underived verb |
An example:
Verbal:
Ehosin-ha a tsique. PFV-eat-TR=1SG.NOM ABS deer I ate the deer. Nominalization:
... a sihos-he i tsique ABS ACT.NMLZ-eat=1SG.POSS GEN deer My eating of the deer...