Chapter 78Applicative Constructions and Their Arguments

78.1 Adding an object to the verb's frame

The applicative prefixes e-, ko-, o- allow a verb to take an additional object. A one-place base can become two-place, and a two-place base can become three-place Nakagawa (2024: 192–194); Satō (2008: 243); Bugaeva (2006: 187–188). The added object may express a participant otherwise introduced by a postposition, or a relation for which the lexical construction has no corresponding postpositional expression.

In the first construction, ta marks the destination and the verb has S =an. In the second, the destination is an object of o-ahun, and the subject has A a=. Bugaeva presents this as a prototypical applicative alternation Bugaeva (2006: 187).

78.2 A transitive base with two objects

The base “cut” already takes the tree as its object. Applicative e- adds the sword as another object Nakagawa (2024: 193). Both objects occur without case postpositions. This is a three-place predicate even though third-person indexing is not overt.

Bugaeva describes only one object index alongside the subject index, with first- and second-person objects receiving priority in the material she discusses. She leaves open whether the two objects behave symmetrically under every diagnostic Bugaeva (2006: 188 n. 5). See Chapter 66 (Object Indexing and Three-Place Verbs).

78.3 Meanings and lexical restrictions

The three prefixes overlap in semantic range. Instrumental uses often involve e-, directed relations often involve ko-, and o- is strongly associated with location and direction. Those associations leave many lexical differences and less frequent uses Bugaeva (2006: 190–192); Satō (2008: 243–245).

Nakagawa divides e- into four constructional types: instrument, purpose, relations without a corresponding paraphrase, and place. His place type has paraphrases with ta, un or peka; only the third type lacks the listed alternative Nakagawa (2024: 194, table 37). Bugaeva uses finer semantic labels, including Content and Theme. These classifications divide the material by different criteria Bugaeva (2006: 190–191).

Satō notes that an applicative can preserve much of the base's meaning or create a more lexicalized relation. He also leaves the precise differences between applicative and postpositional alternatives incompletely understood Satō (2008: 243). English “with,” “to,” or “at” consequently does not determine a prefix on its own.

78.4 Recognizing the relevant morpheme

Person e= and applicative e- have different functions. Nominal prefixes can also have the shapes e- and o-. Nakagawa's e-puni, “raise someone's head,” contains the nominal element referring to the object's head and retains the base's two-place valency Nakagawa (2024: 191–192, example 172). It is distinct from an applicative that adds an object.

The argument frame, lexical meaning and person combination together support the analysis. A prefix such as ku=, shared by S and A, cannot independently prove transitivity Nakagawa (2024: 166–170).

78.5 Related derivations and historical terminology

Applicatives combine with causatives, reflexives, reciprocals, antipassives and incorporated material. Some words also contain both e- and ko- Bugaeva (2006: 188); Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.1.1). The actual order and remaining arguments depend on the derivation; see Chapter 82 (Multiple Applicatives, Incorporation, and Relative Clauses).

Nakagawa traces the earlier terms to Kindaichi and Chiri's 1936 “applicative” category and Chiri's 1942 description of prefixes expressing case relations Nakagawa (2024: 192). The modern descriptions develop this shared domain while differing over lexical classes, semantic divisions and formal analysis. The individual prefixes are treated in Chapter 79 (The e- Applicative), Chapter 80 (The ko- Applicative), and Chapter 81 (The o- Applicative).