| Voice marking | Proper marker | yes | The de-ergative construction applies only to transitive situations. The verb takes an n- prefix (glossed derg) and no longer agrees with any argument (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 325).
Another derivational prefix is the form n-/nï-, which we term de-ergative (derg) (...). This prefix occurs on an otherwise transitive stem, but the O argument occurs after the verb (in the position normally reserved strictly for subject) or is omitted (and is often understood as nonspecific), and the A argument most commonly occurs before the verb (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 182).
Another type of role rearrangement is affected by a verb prefix n-/nï- in conjunction with the inferential past participle ending -jpë. We refer to this as the de-ergative construction (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 325).
General Detransitivization: Vt-, Vs-, Vj-, V’: There are four such prefixes, largely lexicalized in terms of what roots they may occur with, and their effects vary according to the root they are attached to and the construction in which they appear. In most cases, detransitivization is achieved by “merging” A and O (reflexive and reciprocal) or eliminating the A argument from the scene (passive and middle voice). These derivations we simply term detransitivization (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 179-180). (FYI: Some (Vs-) show the antipassive use). |
| Voice marking | Lookalike marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Synthetic marker | yes | Another type of role rearrangement is affected by a verb prefix n-/nï- in conjunction with the inferential past participle ending, -jpë. We refer to this as the de-ergative construction (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 325).
The de-ergative construction applies only to transitive situations. The verb takes an n- prefix (glossed derg) and no longer agrees with any argument (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 325).
General Detransitivization: Vt-, Vs-, Vj-, V’: There are four such prefixes, largely lexicalized in terms of what roots they may occur with, and their effects vary according to the root they are attached to and the construction in which they appear. In most cases, detransitivization is achieved by “merging” A and O (reflexive and reciprocal) or eliminating the A argument from the scene (passive and middle voice). These derivations we simply term detransitivization (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 179-180). (FYI: Some (Vs-) show the antipassive use). |
| Voice marking | Analytic marker | no | |
| Flagging | S-argument flagging | no | Thus, absolutive (S and O) arguments never take any special case marking, while some As do (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 256).
Absolutive O and S: No case marking (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 313).
In the de-ergative, the A argument is expressed before the verb, and lacks the dative case marker. The O argument, if expressed at all, must follow the verb. Thus the de-ergative no longer involves a dedicated “ergative” case (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 325). |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging | no | Some evidence that this is primarily a subject (A) focus construction is that the A always precedes the verb; while the O may or may not be specific and may or may not be expressed. If expressed, the O invariably follows the verb, and takes no case marker or postposition (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 326). |
| Flagging | P-oblique unflagging | yes | Some evidence that this is primarily a subject (A) focus construction is that the A always precedes the verb; while the O may or may not be specific and may or may not be expressed. If expressed, the O invariably follows the verb, and takes no case marker or postposition (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 326). |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging variation | n/a | |
| Indexation | S-argument indexed | no | The de-ergative construction applies only to transitive situations. The verb takes an n- prefix (glossed derg), and no longer agrees with any argument (this n- cannot be the third person n- because that is part of the Set I paradigm; verbs with -jpë take Set II). Thus, the de-ergative no longer exhibits verb agreement with the absolutive argument (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 325). |
| Indexation | S-argument indexation conditioned | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P incorporated: Generic (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P incorporated: Indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P incorporated: Referential | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | P oblique: Generic (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | P oblique: Indefinite (non-specific) | yes | Some evidence that this is primarily a subject (A) focus construction is that the A always precedes the verb, while the O MAY OR MAY NOT BE SPECIFIC and may or may not be expressed. If expressed, the O invariably follows the verb and takes no case marker or postposition (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 326). |
| P-individuation properties | P oblique: Referential | yes | Panare (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 329)
1.
E’ñapa n-ïkïtḯ-jpë këj wi.
People derg-cut-part.pst.infr an.prox anaconda
‘The Panares cut the anaconda.’
2.
Tikon n-awa-jpë yu.
Child derg-hit-part.pst.infr 1sg
‘The children hit me/I am the one the children hit.’
Some evidence that this is primarily a subject (A) focus construction is that the A always precedes the verb, while the O may or may not be specific and may or may not be expressed. If expressed, the O invariably follows the verb and takes no case marker or postposition (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 326). |
| P-individuation properties | P eliminated: Generic (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | P eliminated: Indefinite (non-specific) | yes | It is often used when the O of an inferential perfect/participle semantically transitive verb is non-specific (or otherwise relatively unimportant in the current discourse scene, and the O argument is easily omitted) (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 329).
These antipassive-like characteristics would be consistent with focus on an A participant. The following illustrates the de-ergative construction with indefinite or unspecified O’s (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 329).
Panare (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 329)
1.
Puka n-ámë-jpë.
Puka derg-plant-part.pst.infr
‘Puka planted something.’ |
| P-individuation properties | P eliminated: Referential | yes | It is often used when the O of an inferential perfect/participle semantically transitive verb is non-specific or otherwise relatively unimportant in the current discourse scene, and the O argument is easily omitted (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 329).
Panare (Payne T. and Payne D. 2013: 120)
1.
Ake n-ïná-jpëj; o-s-awantë-n kure.
snake DERG-eat.meat-PART.PST.INFR 2-DTR-sick-NONSPEC.I much
‘Apparently a snake has bitten; you’re gonna get very sick.’ |
| P-oblique affectedness | Less affected P-oblique | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Animacy constraints on P-oblique demotion | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Person constraints on P-oblique demotion | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Number constraints on P-oblique demotion | no | |