Chapter 2 - LOT publications

Chapter 2
In Oromo, similative causatives are used when someone speaks about somebody as
if she/he were bringing about the causative event in the mind. They are marked by
CAUS 3 causative marking –eess- as shown in (19-20):
19. inni kan- iyoo fag-eess-e-e ilaal-a
he:NOM COMP-near far- CAUS 3 -3M:PF-CON see-3M:IMPF
‘He is far sighted.’/ lit., ‘He sees something that is near as if it were far.’
20. inni soba ɗugaa fakk-eess-e-e dubbat-a
he:NOM false true appear- CAUS 3 -3M:PF-CON speak-3M:IMPF
‘He speaks false to appear true.’
In (19) the causer perceives something which is near as if it were far. This means
that the causer makes something which is near to appear as if it were far. In (20), the
causer makes something which is false as if it were true to the mind of the hearer/listener.
The causer makes things appear near or far, false or true to himself or to
the mind of the addressee.
In general in Oromo, indirect, similative and assistive causatives are differentiated
grammatically; indirect causatives are double causatives, similative causatives are
formed by CAUS 3 and assistive causatives are formed by MID + CAUS 1 in at least
one dialect of Oromo.
2.5. Amount of Agents or of Causers
2.5.1. Does the Number of Agents Match with the Number
of –s ’s?
In this section, I argue that the number of causative morpheme –s-’s does not always
match the number of agents. In the earlier analysis, Lloret (1987) and Dubinsky,
Lloret and Newman (1988) correlate the number of -s-’s with the number of
agents. Lloret (1987:143) supports Hayward’s observation that non-agentive intransitives
add the morpheme –s- while agentive intransitives add the causative morpheme
–sis- to argue that the number of –s-’s in the causative verb matches with the
number of agentive arguments. The same concept is further developed by Dubinsky
et al. (1988). Dubinsky et al. (1988) correlate the number of –s-’s with the number
of subjects within the framework of grammatical relations.
But close investigation shows that such an analysis runs into problems. I point out
some of these problems. First, causatives of non-agentive intransitive verbs such as
diriir-s- ‘spread’, dab-s- ‘bend (tr.)’, gog-s- ‘dry (tr.)’, etc. optionally geminate
their causative morphemes to increase the number of –s-’s to two with no change of
meaning as in diriir-ss- ‘spread’, dab-ss- ‘bend (tr.)’, gog-ss- ‘dry (tr.)’. Obviously,
in this case the number of –s-’s does not match with the number of subjects
22