| 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. & 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. & 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. & 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. & Payne D. 2013: 179-180). @Some (Vs-) show the antipassive use (KJ).
|
| 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. & 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. & 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. & Payne D. 2013: 179-180). @Some (Vs-) show the antipassive use (KJ). |
| Voice marking | Analytical 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. & Payne D. 2013: 256).
Absolutive O & S: No case marking (Payne T. & 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. & 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. & 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. & 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 & Payne 2013: 325).
FYI: here, we only consider de-ergative constructions (MT).
|
| Indexation | S-argument indexation conditioned | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is generic (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P can be referential | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is generic (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is 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 & Payne 2013: 326). |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique can be referential | yes | (Payne T. & 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 & Payne 2013: 326).
|
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is generic (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is 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. & 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. & Payne D. 2013: 329)
Puka n-ámë-jpë.
Puka derg-plant-part.pst.infr
‘Puka planted something.’
|
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P can be 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. & Payne D. 2013: 329).
(Payne T. & Payne D. 2013: 120)
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.’
|
| Oblique affectedness | Less affected oblique | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Animacy constrains oblique demotion | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Person constrains oblique demotion | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Number constrains oblique demotion | no | |