Chapter 77Indefinite Causative -yar and -ar
Valency-retaining causation, retained objects, oblique causees, conflicting suffix distributions, and older plural and Ishikari analyses.
77.1 Indefinite causation without an added object
The causative suffix -yar/-ar introduces a causer without adding a causee object. The new causer replaces the base's subject. A one-place base consequently remains one-place, while a two-place base retains its original object Nakagawa (2024: 200–201, 432–433); Satō (2008: 250–251); Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.3.1). This construction is commonly called indefinite causation.
‘Let's offer the guest some food.’
Bugaeva & Kobayashi 2022: §4.3.1, example 30b; From Tamura 2000 [1988]:214, as reproduced in the handbook
The source's literal meaning is ‘let's make somebody eat.’ Its stated context is a proposal to provide food for a guest, without mentioning the guest directly.
The person marked by =an is the causer. The understood guest is the eater, but receives no object index. The handbook explicitly notes that a known causee can be left unmentioned for politeness Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.3.1). “Indefinite” therefore does not require that the speakers be unable to identify the person.
77.2 A retained object
‘As for what I was asked, I will tell it all.’
Nakagawa 2024: 432; Saru, Example 959, from Tamura 1984:12, as reproduced by Nakagawa
The internal boundary in nu-yar follows Nakagawa's analysis. The relative clause has its own A–O indexing, separate from the first-person subject of the main clause.
The base nu “hear” takes a content object. In nu-yar, that content remains the object; the person caused to hear is not added as another object. Nakagawa contrasts it with three-place nu-re, which can express both the listener and the content as objects Nakagawa (2024: 432, examples 958–959).
77.3 Identifying a causee in an oblique phrase
Nakagawa allows the understood causee to be identified with oblique expressions such as or peka, or un, or eun, depending on the verb. One example names a specific thunder deity as the recipient of a proposed marriage Nakagawa (2024: 433, examples 961–963).
‘I said that I would give her to the thunder deity.’
Nakagawa 2024: 433; Saru, Example 963
The source identifies her as the narrator's younger sister. The recipient is the understood causee of have; the person given remains the object.
This makes the restriction on a causee object distinct from a ban on mentioning a causee anywhere in the clause. The handbook's general formulation says that the causee cannot be expressed by an NP or indexed on the verb; Nakagawa's oblique examples qualify the broader NP restriction Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.3.1); Nakagawa (2024: 433) ‹contested›. Nakagawa also leaves open the precise difference between his example and a counterpart with ordinary kore.
77.4 The reported allomorph distributions
The descriptions do not give one identical rule for the two suffix shapes. Nakagawa has -ar after r and -yar elsewhere, illustrated by nukar-ar and ipe-yar Nakagawa (2024: 201). The handbook's note instead gives -yar after vowels and -ar after consonants Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: note 229) ‹contested›.
Satō writes sikasuy-yar and specifies the pronunciation sikasuy-ar Satō (2008: 250). The earlier Kindaichi–Chiri description prints consonant-final chish-yar and derives -ar after r Kindaichi & Chiri (1936: 122, §188). Morphological segmentation, pronunciation at the boundary, and the scope of each account all matter when comparing these forms.
77.5 Older plural accounts and the Ishikari comparison
Kindaichi and Chiri characterize -yar as marking plural causees Kindaichi & Chiri (1936: 122, §188). Shibatani presents that plural account, then reports Fukuda's description of indefinite and honorific uses in which valency does not increase Shibatani (1990: 49–50) ‹contested›.
Shibatani also reports Asai's Ishikari ku-us-te-yar as a double causative involving an intermediary: the causer has someone make another participant wear the shoes Shibatani (1990: 50, example 84, citing Asai 1970). That dialect-specific report has to be distinguished from the valency-retaining construction described above.
Sociative constructions expressing joint activity are treated separately in the handbook, with forms such as uko- and uwe- Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.3.2). Polite use of an indefinite causative likewise does not make it a permissive-only suffix: ordinary causatives can express permission too Satō (2008: 237). See Chapter 74 (The Productive Causative -re, -te, and -e).
References cited in this chapter
Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022) ·Kindaichi & Chiri (1936) ·Nakagawa (2024) ·Satō (2008) ·Shibatani (1990)