Process and pattern interpretations 157Note that it can still remain as main sentence predicate when converted
semantically to a transitive verbal expression by addition of the ‘inverse’
(‘shifter’) suffix -’at. This indicates action on an undergoer higher on the
animacy scale than the subject (here 3SG outranks 3PL).^10 A rough gloss of
(11) would be ‘they did it very much to him, being strange’, with being
strange less central to the construction than doing very much.
(11) i:ħ-’at kwi:s-ħi
very-SHIFT strange-DUR
‘People treated him very strangely’
A parallel phenomenon is found within the nominal phrase, as in the
following, where the only inflection present (the definite article) is attached
to the modifier constituent (which must come first), even though it goes
semantically with the head:
(12) camaħta-i qwayac’i:k
real-DEF wolf
‘the real wolves’
There is clearly no marked focus on the modifying constituent here.
To return to the verbal sentence examples, the next question is: if the
initial element of serialized construction is the (main) predicate, how is the
logical subject of these sentences expressed? There are several possibili-
ties. It may be an overt argument later in the sentence, or some referent
inferred from context, or it may be a whole verbal expression understood
as ‘nominalized’ (as in the first sentence). As can be seen, there is no direct
marking of what the subject of the sentence is – with the exception of the
few examples of pronominal inflection. Compare also the following exam-
ples of the clausal possessor-incorporating construction, whereby the
possession relationship is marked by a special affix on the main sentence
predicate immediately preceding an incorporated pronominal marker of the
possessor:
(13) m’aw’a:-a-’at-ukw-ina hiyiqtup
deliver-TEL-SHIFT-POSS-1PL things
‘He brought our things’ (or ‘We had our things brought by someone’)
(14) y’ap’ic-uk-kw-is siy’aq
blue-DUR-POSS-1SG I (SUBJ)
‘Mine is blue’