Know how these things go, my question is "What is the anadewism of
inherently passive verbs," *not* whether they exist elsewhere. ;)

Compare the following two Asha'ille sentences, the first with a normal
active verb, and the second with a passive verb:

    Arev en'i ne chifi. "I give a kitten."
    Alv en'i ne chifi. "I am given a kitten."

(Where _en'i_ is the self, _ne_ precedes the object, and _chifi_ is "kitten".)

Are there other languages that have verbs whose subject is a patient,
not an agent, with no markings at all besides lexical choice of the

Searching through the archives, I came across mention of Hawaiian's
"loa'a" stative verbs:

Emaelivpeith David Peterson vek Mon, 8 Apr 2002 02:44:40 EDT kek:
> Also, there's the matter of loa'a verbs that are inherently passive and
> that you add a causative prefix to to make active.  Compare:
> Pau ka hana iaia.  (The work was finished by him.)
> Ho'opau 'oia ka hana.  (He finished the work--ho'o is the causative.)

I found a PDF at talking
about Hawaiian verbs. At first blush, this does seem to be a similar
phenomenon, but I otherwise have *zero* experience with Hawaiian. Can
anyone else comment?

As for using causatives, I hadn't thought of that, but it does seem to
fit naturally with my previous two examples. See the fourth example
below for a clear parallel with David's examples:

    Arevteni ne chifi. "I am caused to give a kitten."
    Alvteni ne chifi. "I am caused to be given a kitten."

    Arevteni no ne chifi. "It causes me to give a kitten."
    Alvteni no ne chifi. "It causes me to be given a kitten," "It
gives me a kitten."

As opposed to the simplier and unmarked:

    Arevleni no ne chifi. "It gives me a kitten."