Chapter 56The Verb Word and Its Boundaries

56.1 Roots, derived stems, and person marking

An Ainu verb can consist of a root with person marking, or of a derived stem containing further prefixes, suffixes, or an incorporated noun. Descriptions distinguish the formation of that stem from the person forms used in a clause Bugaeva (2012: 481); Nakagawa (2024: 210). A template shows recurring positions; the possible combinations also depend on the individual verb and the meaning of the derivation.

Nakagawa places person markers outside the expanded derivational stem. His schematic order puts nominal and applicative prefixes before the root, formative morphology next to it, and causative morphology farther out Nakagawa (2024: 210, table 45). The placement of some number forms complicates a wholly mechanical division between a verb and following elements, as discussed below.

56.2 The Saru template and its revisions

Bugaeva reproduces a Saru template from Fukuda (Tamura 1955: 55), then revises its functional labels. Its numbered positions are summarized here; IV and V share a suffix zone in the printed table Bugaeva (2012: 481, table 15.4).

Bugaeva's revisions distinguish direct causation and anticausative formation in the inner suffix zone from indirect causation farther out. She also allows incorporated nouns before the base and before applicative positions. She reports no verb containing all six kinds of affix together with incorporation Bugaeva (2012: 481).

Nakagawa's account similarly treats formative suffixes and stem-forming -pa as alternatives. It allows the order of nominal and applicative prefixes to vary with the derived meaning and allows a category to occur more than once Nakagawa (2024: 210). These descriptions give constrained patterns of combination, with lexical restrictions on which bases accept particular formatives.

56.3 Separate derivations from a shared base

Bugaeva's examples built on ruska show why prefix order must be read together with argument structure. The base means being angry because of something and is classified as transitive. Different derivations introduce, identify, or suppress participants Bugaeva (2012: 481, example 42).

The reflexive branch proceeds through ko-ruska. The antipassive branch proceeds through i-ruska, which can itself take ko-. The rows describe several related stems, with distinct derivational histories.

Repeated applicative morphology is also possible in Nakagawa's e-yay-e-isoytak, meaning to tell about something as one's own life story Nakagawa (2024: 210). The interpretation determines how the prefixes combine with the base.

56.4 Suffix position and valency

Suffix position alone does not predict a change in argument count. Productive -re/-e/-te causativization introduces a causer alongside the base's participants. By contrast, -yar/-ar replaces the original subject with a causer while leaving the causee unavailable as an independently expressed or indexed argument Nakagawa (2024: 200–201); Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.3.1).

The latter derivation therefore retains valency despite its causative meaning. Lexical transitivizing suffixes and the direct/indirect causative analysis also require separate treatment. See Chapter 57 (Transitivity and Valency Classes) and Chapter 60 (Verb Formation from Nouns and Verbal Roots).

56.5 Number morphology and the outer boundary

Stem-forming -pa differs from additional plural or iterative pa. Nakagawa discusses special behavior with iki, kor, kar, and kus, including different positions relative to person suffixes Nakagawa (2024: 159–160).

Satō's Chitose account gives yaynu-an-pa and rejects *yaynu-pa-an Satō (2008: 104). The source-specific ordering matters when using person morphology as a word-boundary diagnostic. Authors differ over the suffix, auxiliary, or clitic analysis of additional number forms Nakagawa (2022: §5.1) ‹contested›. The examples and dialect contrasts are developed in Chapter 58 (Verbal Number and Stem Alternation).

56.6 Person zones require their own paradigms

Person marking expresses combinations of grammatical person and argument role. Some combinations use prefixes, some use a suffix or circumfix, and some have a form representing more than one participant. A single sequence of subject and object slots cannot replace those paradigms Nakagawa (2024: 163–172); Satō (2023: 39, 46–50).

The equals sign used for person boundaries in this grammar keeps them distinct from derivational hyphens. It does not settle the affix–clitic analysis. That question, the treatment of zero third person, and the mixed alignment patterns are addressed in Chapter 62 (Person Marking and Argument Roles).

56.7 Verbal phrases and lexical words

A morphological template describes one verb word. The noun–verb pattern among Tamura's 連他動詞 consists of two words that function together as a conventional verbal expression. In her e-tom k-osma, “I bumped into you,” the noun carries O-series marking and the verb carries A-series marking. The two positions remain visible inside the phrase Tamura (1997: 15, §C.4).

Satō analyzes this kind of expression as quasi-incorporation: two morphological words can constitute one lexical word. His en-par a-oyki “people support me” contrasts with one-word derivational yay-par-oyki “support oneself” Satō (2021: 90–94). See Chapter 90 (Incorporation, Quasi-Incorporation, and Word Structure) for the verbal construction and Chapter 52 (Relational Nouns, Spatial Forms, and Quasi-Incorporation) for Satō's proposed extension to locative noun–particle combinations.