Chapter 106Nominalized Complements and Complex Predicates

106.1 A clause used as an argument

A complement clause can serve as a subject or object of another predicate. Bugaeva also records the less common possibility of an actor complement with a transitive predicate Bugaeva (2012: 498). Common overt markers include hi/i, p/pe, and forms with more specific modal or sensory meanings. The choice depends on the construction and the selecting predicate.

Nakagawa treats the material before hi as an internally complete clause: the narrator plays, with the children as companions. The formal noun does not fill an open participant role within that clause Nakagawa (2024: 508). This distinguishes the complement from a relative that identifies a participant; see Chapter 103 (Relative Clauses and Accessible Relations).

A complement can instead be the subject of a property predicate. Bugaeva's example ku=kemeyki kor ku=itak hi iyotta pirka evaluates talking while sewing as best Bugaeva (2016: 101, quoting Tamura 2000:126). The complete glossed example appears in Chapter 102 (Lexical Heads and Formal-Noun Nominalization).

106.2 Perception and content

Sensory or situation heads can specify what is perceived. Their complement uses extend beyond sentence-final evidential expressions. Satō's Chitose example places ruwe before ‘see’ Satō (2008: 174, example 2).

Nakagawa likewise gives siri with a clause describing a woman walking through a field as the object of ‘see’, and hawe with crying as the object of ‘hear’ Nakagawa (2024: 507, 509). The head's meaning and the selecting predicate jointly determine the relation.

106.3 Complements without an overt nominalizer

An overt formal noun is not required in every construction. Bugaeva explicitly analyzes zero nominalization alongside nominalizing-word constructions, illustrating it with material before ki ‘do’ Bugaeva (2016: 99–100).

In this account, embedding does not introduce a special nonfinite verb paradigm. Person and aspect morphology can remain in the embedded material Bugaeva (2016: 99–100). Zero nominalization describes its nominal function without an overt nominalizing word.

106.4 Bare verbs and auxiliary constructions

Satō distinguishes another pair of patterns by the location of person marking. His mokor k=esinki ‘I am tired of sleeping’ has personal marking on esinki; he treats bare mokor as nominally used as its object. In ku=mokor esinki, personal marking belongs to the first verb and esinki has an auxiliary use Satō (2008: 89–90).

The distinction is construction-specific. Satō also finds register differences in verbal and auxiliary uses and leaves some functional differences unresolved. A bare form can therefore require more analysis than simply assigning it an unexpressed third-person subject.

106.5 Participant reference and structural analysis

A complement's subject may differ from the matrix subject, as in the father's refusal, or the same person may participate in both predicates, as in being tired of sleeping. The observed reference pattern is one part of the analysis. Terms such as control and raising make additional claims about the grammatical relation between predicates and participants; shared reference alone does not establish them.

The descriptions above instead distinguish overt nominalization, zero nominalization, nominal use of a bare verb, and auxiliary use through their stated structural diagnostics Bugaeva (2016: 99–101)Satō (2008: 89–90). Indirect content selected by ye and ramu introduces further constructional choices, treated in Chapter 107 (Kuni, Indirect Complements, and Purpose Clauses).