Further to Carsten's question as to the development of trigger languages-- If Proto Austronesian was (as seems likely) a trigger language, then the modern descendants show developments to: (1) trigger languages, as most Philippine languages (2) accusative languages (Malay/Indonesian and many others) (3) ergative or ergative-like languages-- some Polynesian langs. are said to be ergative, others like Buginese are ergative-like (in that you use different subject/object affixes depending on transitive/intrans. verbs-- but there's also a connection with definite/indefinite). laoka?, laoko, laoi /lao+ka?/-ko/-i/ 'I - you - he/she go(es)' mitaka? asu (mita+ka?) "I see a dog" uitai asue /u-ita-i asu-e/ 1sj-see-3oj. dog-def "I see the dog" naitaka? asue /na-ita-ka?/ "the dog sees me" uitako "I see you" Carsten also wrote: >That's also one thing I haven't fully > understood yet, I mean why transitivity is important for > Basque verbs. I know what the terms (in/di)transitive mean. It's important because most trans. verbs require one auxiliary, which marks both subject and object as well as tense, intransitives another, which marks only subject and tense. A handful of verbs, of both types, have special conjugation that doesn't use the aux. I recall there's a large number of periphrastic verbs, usually denominals, that are treated as transitive even though in most languages they'd be considered intransitive-- like 'sneeze', in Basque IIRC it's _sneeze (noun) make/do + trans.aux._ > > > > I mean like in the > > > example I gave, "to invent" -> "being invented", where > > > "being invented" is "invent.CAU". > > > > This sounds more like a passive to me than a causative. > > Yeah, actually you're right. Nevertheless I don't see why I > should not form stative passives with the causative. IMO, > something is "caused to be done" after all. > That's possible. Consider: Stative: The door is open. "Causative": John opened the door -- which can be viewed as either "John caused the door to (become) open" or "John caused the door to be opened". I think there's a question of direct/indirect causation here, but there's certainly room for ambiguity. ObConlang: Kash stative > causatives are generally active verbs; but there is a series of verbal forms meaning "able to... ~able to be..." where, especially if the base verb is transitive, the meaning is usually passive: tikas 'to see' potikas 'visible' and many more.