| Voice marking | Proper marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Lookalike marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Synthetic marker | n/a | |
| Voice marking | Analytic marker | n/a | |
| Flagging | S-argument flagging | no | Absolutive - Ø ~ -ti: S and all kinds of objects, experiencers, etc. (Bickel 2017: 700).
The A argument is treated like an intransitive S argument and is therefore assigned a nominative case (Bickel 2011: 2).
Under detransitivization, the A argument is not assigned the same case (ergative) as in the intransitive version, but it is consistently assigned the nominative case (Bickel 2011: 4).
The object-downgrading construction is realized through intransitive agreement
morphology and absolutive instead of ergative case (Bickel 2017: 706).
The absolutive is unmarked (Bickel 2007: 699).
The antipassive shows intransitive agreement morphology, a nominative case on the A argument (Bickel 2015: 68). |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging | n/a | |
| Flagging | P-oblique unflagging | n/a | |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging variation | n/a | |
| Indexation | S-argument indexed | yes | The object-downgrading construction is realized through intransitive agreement morphology (@only with S) and absolutive instead of the ergative case (Bickel 2007: 706). |
| Indexation | S-argument indexation conditioned | yes | There is no index of SBJ if SBJ is 3SG:'The absence of a prefix entails reference to 3SG S/A. 3SG P is expressed by -u, but note that /u/ regularly deletes after /e/ (...) and that it also deletes where its retention would violate the syllable canon' (Bickel 2017: 701). |
| P-individuation properties | P incorporated: Generic (non-specific) | yes | The semantic difference is that the transitive version implies a specific and quantifiable P referent, while the intransitive (antipassive) version suggests a generic or non-quantifiable P referent (Bickel 2011: 2).
Belhare (...) has two kinds of primary object GRs: one for specific arguments, and one for generic arguments. Specific objects project a full-fledged NP; generic objects, only bare Ns (Bickel 2010: 16).
‘They eat (the) good meat.’ (specific referent) vs. ‘They eat meat.’ (=‘They are not vegetarians.’). O argument is generic and is therefore realized as a generic object (Bickel 2010: 17). |
| P-individuation properties | P incorporated: Indefinite (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | P incorporated: Referential | no | In (22a), the O argument is specific and is therefore realized as a specific object relation. As such, it can be expanded into a modified NP. In (22b), by contrast, the O argument is generic and is therefore realized as a generic object; as
such, it cannot be expanded into a modified NP. The same distinction between specific and generic objects is also relevant for agreement: only specific objects trigger agreement (Bickel 2010: 16-17).
As such, the object cannot contain attributes, demonstratives or any marking that could imply a specifi c determiner value such as possessive
or number: the constituent must have a generic kind reading (Bickel 2017: 707). |
| P-individuation properties | P oblique: Generic (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P oblique: Indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P oblique: Referential | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P eliminated: Generic (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P eliminated: Indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P eliminated: Referential | n/a | |
| P-oblique affectedness | Less affected P-oblique | n/a | |
| P-constraining properties | Animacy constraints on P-oblique demotion | n/a | |
| P-constraining properties | Person constraints on P-oblique demotion | n/a | |
| P-constraining properties | Number constraints on P-oblique demotion | n/a | |