| Voice marking | Proper marker | yes | The derivational antipassive marker i- ‘person/thing’ can be regarded as an antipassive marker per se (Bugaeva 2021: 213).
The prefix i- ‘(indefinite) person / thing’ (Tamura 1988: 67) is traditionally regarded as a generalized object marker, but Bugaeva (2021) argues that it can be regarded as an antipassive marker per se (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 528). |
| Voice marking | Lookalike marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Synthetic marker | yes | In Ainu studies, the i- marker is traditionally referred to as the indefinite object marker ‘(indefinite) person/thing’ (...) but, in Bugaeva (2004), based on the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics of the construction in question I suggested the label ‘antipassive’ (Bugaeva 2021: 217).
The derivational antipassive marker i- ‘person/thing’ can be regarded as an antipassive marker per se based (Bugaeva 2021: 213).
The prefix i- ‘(indefinite) person/thing’ (...) is traditionally regarded as a generalized object marker, but Bugaeva (2021) argues that it can be regarded as an antipassive marker per se (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 528). |
| Voice marking | Analytical marker | no | |
| Flagging | S-argument flagging | no | Arguments in Ainu (either nouns or pronouns) are not marked for the case (Bugaeva 2021: 214).
Core arguments lack case marking (= flagging): A and P are distinguished by their relative
position in clause structure and by verbal cross-referencing (= indexing) (Bugaeva 2015: 808).
Concerning flagging, the clausal structure of Ainu is straightforwardly neutral; independent personal pronouns are also the same for A, S, and P (Bugaeva 2015: 808).
|
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging | n/a | Vigus (2018: 356) proposes two separate construction types, i.e. ‘less individuated P’ and ‘less affected patient’ construction types; the latter typically includes the antipassive construction with
the oblique P and the conative alternation, neither is attested in Ainu (Bugaeva 2021: 226).
A syntactic expression of the object is blocked by the antipassive marker i- (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 530). |
| Flagging | P-oblique unflagging | n/a | |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging variation | n/a | FYI: A syntactic expression of the object is blocked by the antipassive marker i- (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 530). |
| Indexation | S-argument indexed | yes | 0bligatory indexing (...). The third-person affix is zero (Bugaeva 2021: 214).
Table 1 in Bugaeva (2021: 215):
Person-number / S /A / O
1sg/ ku- / ku- / en-
1pl.excl /-as / ci- / un-
2sg / e- / e- / e-
2pl / eci- / eci- / eci-
3sg /Ø / Ø / Ø
3pl / Ø / Ø / Ø
4th person (@all marked) has the functions of:
a. 1pl.incl
b. 2sg/pl honorific
c. logophoric
d. indefinite |
| Indexation | S-argument indexation conditioned | yes | 0bligatory indexing (...). The third-person affix is zero (Bugaeva 2021: 214).
Table 1 in Bugaeva (2021: 215):
Person-number / S /A / O
1sg/ ku- / ku- / en-
1pl.excl /-as / ci- / un-
2sg / e- / e- / e-
2pl / eci- / eci- / eci-
3sg /Ø / Ø / Ø
3pl / Ø / Ø / Ø
4th person (@all marked) has the functions of:
a. 1pl.incl
b. 2sg/pl honorific
c. logophoric
d. indefinite |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is generic (non-specific) | yes | Moreover, incorporated noun stems must be generic or semantically ‘unbounded' (Sato 2022: 552).
The incorporated noun stem pet ‘river’ is generic in its semantics, meaning a river in general, i.e., not a specific river (Sato 2022: 552):
ku-pét-tomotuye.
1SG.S-river-cross
‘I cross a river.’ |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is indefinite (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P can be referential | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is generic (non-specific) | n/a | Vigus (2018: 356) proposes two separate construction types, i.e. ‘less individuated P’ and ‘less affected patient’ construction types; the latter typically includes the antipassive construction with
the oblique P and the conative alternation, neither is attested in Ainu (Bugaeva 2021: 226).
A syntactic expression of the object is blocked by the antipassive marker i- (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 530). |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | Vigus (2018: 356) proposes two separate construction types, i.e. ‘less individuated P’ and ‘less affected patient’ construction types; the latter typically includes the antipassive construction with
the oblique P and the conative alternation, neither is attested in Ainu (Bugaeva 2021: 226).
A syntactic expression of the object is blocked by the antipassive marker i- (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 530). |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique can be referential | n/a | A syntactic expression of the object is blocked by the antipassive marker i- (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 530). |
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is generic (non-specific) | yes | P suppression:
The Ainu antipassive construction with i- requires P to be construed as generic, indefinite, unspecified, and non-referential (Bugaeva 2021: 218).
P suppression:
Bugaeva (2021) argues that the prefix i- ‘(indefinite) person/thing’ can be regarded as an antipassive marker per se based on its syntactic (...), semantic (denoting an unspecified, generic participant or lexicalizing it to a single or subset of objects) (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 528). |
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is indefinite (non-specific) | yes | P suppression:
The Ainu antipassive construction with i- requires P to be construed as generic, indefinite, unspecified, and non-referential (Bugaeva 2021: 218).
|
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P can be referential | no | P suppression:
FYI: The Ainu antipassive construction with i- requires P to be construed as generic, indefinite, unspecified, and non-referential (Bugaeva 2021: 218). |
| Oblique affectedness | Less affected oblique | n/a | Vigus (2018: 356) proposes two separate construction types, i.e. ‘less individuated P’ and ‘less affected patient’ construction types; the latter typically includes the antipassive construction with
the oblique P and the conative alternation, neither is attested in Ainu (Bugaeva 2021: 226).
A syntactic expression of the object is blocked by the antipassive marker i- (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 530). |
| P-constraining properties | Animacy constrains oblique demotion | n/a | Vigus (2018: 356) proposes two separate construction types, i.e. ‘less individuated P’ and ‘less affected patient’ construction types; the latter typically includes the antipassive construction with
the oblique P and the conative alternation, neither is attested in Ainu (Bugaeva 2021: 226).
A syntactic expression of the object is blocked by the antipassive marker i- (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 530). |
| P-constraining properties | Person constrains oblique demotion | n/a | Vigus (2018: 356) proposes two separate construction types, i.e. ‘less individuated P’ and ‘less affected patient’ construction types; the latter typically includes the antipassive construction with
the oblique P and the conative alternation, neither is attested in Ainu (Bugaeva 2021: 226).
A syntactic expression of the object is blocked by the antipassive marker i- (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 530). |
| P-constraining properties | Number constrains oblique demotion | n/a | Vigus (2018: 356) proposes two separate construction types, i.e. ‘less individuated P’ and ‘less affected patient’ construction types; the latter typically includes the antipassive construction with the oblique P and the conative alternation, neither is attested in Ainu (Bugaeva 2021: 226).
A syntactic expression of the object is blocked by the antipassive marker i- (Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: 530). |