Chapter 81The o- Applicative

81.1 Applied places and direction

Nakagawa describes applicative o- through a directed relation to a place. An intransitive motion verb can thereby take its destination as an object Nakagawa (2024: 193–194, 197–198). Bugaeva's comparison of ahun=an with a=o-ahun shows the associated change from S to A marking Bugaeva (2006: 187); see Chapter 78 (Applicative Constructions and Their Arguments).

The locative noun makes the demon's place available as the destination object. Its presence should be distinguished from a case postposition following an ordinary noun phrase Nakagawa (2024: 194). Locative nouns and their person forms are treated in Chapter 52 (Relational Nouns, Spatial Forms, and Quasi-Incorporation).

81.2 The contrast with ko-

Nakagawa uses these separate examples to contrast a place object with a personal object. The village and the sister are expressed in the clauses. His distinction concerns the place requirement of o-; ko- can itself occur with spatial goals in other constructions Nakagawa (2024: 193, 197–198).

81.3 Source, location, and instrumental descriptions

Bugaeva's lexical classification assigns 57% of the sampled o- applicatives to Goal, 29% to Location, and 14% to an Other category containing Source and Theme. The corresponding expressions in her table include ta/un, ta, and wa, with no paraphrase supplied for Theme Bugaeva (2006: 191, table 3). These proportions describe lexical entries in her sample.

Nakagawa gives a more unified place-based explanation. He treats a causal or source translation of o-tumi-ne, “war arose because of it,” as compatible with his directed-place meaning Nakagawa (2024: 198). The semantic labels therefore depend partly on the analysis used.

Satō explicitly recognizes an instrumental use in aoypep “eating vessel.” He analyzes the word as a-o-ipe-p, a thing people use for eating, while noting that he lacks another suitable instrumental example Satō (2008: 245). His instrumental analysis extends beyond the predominantly spatial descriptions ‹contested›.

81.4 Base valency and lexical limits

An applicative can attach to an already transitive base as well as to an intransitive one Satō (2008: 243); Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.1.1). Consequently, an o- form should not automatically be assigned two arguments merely because some common motion examples have that frame. The base and remaining participants must be identified first.

Nakagawa describes o- as less frequent than e- and ko-, with much of its use in verse Nakagawa (2024: 198). Satō likewise considers its examples less usual Satō (2008: 243). These source observations do not establish a measured token-frequency ratio across dialects or genres.

81.5 Independent verbs and incorporation

Independent o/oma and related placement verbs require their own lexical argument analysis. Nakagawa distinguishes several frames among these forms Nakagawa (2024: 212–213). Initial o in a word is therefore insufficient evidence for an applicative boundary.

With incorporation, o- can occur outside an already incorporated stem, as in Shibatani's o-tumi-osma. Other derivations place the incorporated applied object outside an applicative Shibatani (1990: 62–63, 68–71). These structural differences are developed in Chapter 82 (Multiple Applicatives, Incorporation, and Relative Clauses) and Chapter 90 (Incorporation, Quasi-Incorporation, and Word Structure).