Download - Department of Linguistics and English Language ...

. Kwō-n ka-kōnak-e ajri en.
2s.agr-should cause-wear-obj child that
'You should dress that child.'
(Abo, et. al. 1976: 149)
c. *Kwō-n ka-kōnak-e jokankan eo ajri en.
2s.agr-should cause-wear-obj dress the.s child that
'You should dress that child in the dress.'
d. *Kwō-n ka-kōnak-e ajri en jokankan eo.
2s.agr-should cause-wear-obj child that dress the.s
'You should dress that child in the dress.'
In (47a), the theme theta role assigned to jokankan eo 'the dress' is absent in (47b). But if
three DPs are present in the sentence (47c&d), the sentence is ungrammatical, regardless
of the ordering of the two internal DP arguments.
I have found only one verb for which the addition of the causative prefix to the
transitive form of the verb results in the addition of a theta role. The intransitive form of
this verb is muri 'owe' (48a). The transitive form is derived from the intransitive form
through the addition of the transitive suffix –ik (48b). (See section 2.2.6.4.4 for a
discussion of the transitive suffix.) But if the causative prefix is added to the transitive
form of the verb, the sentence therefore has three arguments (48c).
(48) a. Bill e-muri ippā-n Isaac.
Bill 3s.agr-owe with-3s Isaac
'Bill owes Isaac.'
b. Bill e-muri-ik juon wa ippā-n Isaac.
Bill 3s.agr-owe-trans a car with-3s Isaac
'Bill owes Isaac a car.'
c. Isaac e-j ka-muri-ik Bill wa eo wa-n.
Isaac 3s.agr-T(pres) cause-owe-trans Bill car the.s veh.poss-3s
'Isaac is lending Bill his car.'
30