304 Chapter 10 Modifications to argument structure
(89) Ebu nyassa'-agi Mutmainah.
mother AV.wash-AGI Mutmainah
‘Mother did laundry for Mutmainah.’
(89) does not mean that Mother made Mutmainah do the laundry but that Moth-
er did the laundry for Mutmainah. Another example of this sentence type is:
(90) a. Bu Yus ngopi.
Mrs Yus AV.coffee
‘Bu Yus made coffee.’
b. Bu Yus ngopi-agi Pa' Salim.
Mrs Yus AV.coffee-AGI Mr Salim
‘Bu Yus made coffee for Pak Salim.’
As is true in (88) and (89), what would be the theme of the verb here is the root
itself, kopi ‘coffee’. As the theme role is filled, the postverbal argument cannot
be a causee, as the causee is the theme in an intransitive sentence. So, a benefac-
tive interpretation results.
To recapitulate, when affixed to a syntactically transitive verb stem
or an intransitive stem which ‘incorporates’ the theme, the postverbal NP
is interpreted as a beneficiary (with the exception of those cases like (78)
and (79), in which the beneficiary is a prepositional object).
2.2 Verbs of communication
As described in Chapter 4 section 1.1.12 and section 1.3 above, when -agi is
affixed to verbs of communication such as bala ‘say’, careta ‘tell (a story)’,
lapor ‘report’, koto' ‘whisper’, and others, the subject matter being communi-
cated is a core argument. In the actor voice form, the subject matter is the im-
mediately postverbal object, as in (91b) and (92b).
(91) a. Wati a-careta ka Marlena bab ebu'-na.
Wati AV-tell to Marlena about mother-DEF
‘Wati told Marlena about her mother.’
b. Wati a-careta'-agi ebu'-na ka Marlena.
Wati AV-tell-AGI mother-DEF to Marlena
‘Wati told Marlena about her mother.’