If you haven't already, I suggest you consult a good thorough grammar or Tagalog or Bisayan (probably the most widely taught Philippine languages in the US) that AFAIK preserve _most_ of the old AN system. Some of the AN languages of Taiwan preserve it even better (i.e. allow more categories than Tag. or Bis.)-- I've seen exs. from Tsou, and will try to find them again.....

I'm not intimately familiar with any of those languages. Bahasa Indonesia, which I do know, can do some of the categories, but in a much more limited way (not with every possible verb) and with different affixes. And depending on the affix, the meaning of the verb can change, sometimes radically-- e.g. datang 'to come', but Caus. datang/kan means 'to import', while "locative" datang/i (more or less = come to/at) means "to attack". 

--- On Fri, 3/8/13, Robert Marshall Murphy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I'm trying to do an Austronesian thing, while remaining a bit inventive, but I'm afraid I don't understand as much as I need to. Causative clauses are really messing me up.

In my language, four arguments are integral: Agent of Transitive verb (A), Patient of a Transitive verb (O), Benefactor/Instrument (B), and Location (L). The argument of an intransitive verbs is called (S). Per the Austronesian alignment, there are four voices that change who is in the Direct Case, who is in the Indirect Case, and who needs other cases/prepositions.
RM I thnk this terminology is a little non-standard. As you probably know, each of the so-called "voices" or focuses, has its own special affix-- infix, prefix or suffix. We usually refer to  "actor focus" i.e. a normal SVO (or intr. SV) sentence (here and in all the other cases, "subject" is marked with a special marker) "patient focus" the passive voice in Engl. (O=S V + by A); "benefactive focus)" where the Indirect Obj/recipient becomes subject; "locative focus" where the location is subject, and "instrumental focus". IIRC Tag/Bis lack one or the other of the last two, or conflate them -- Taiwan langauges keep them all distinct (I think....).

I seem to recall a Tsou sentence "NAME killed the pig in the forest with a spear", where each of the nouns can be subjectivized, each with a different marker on the verb (+M)--
PIG killed_M1 in the forest with a spear by NAME
FOREST killed+M2 .............
SPEAR killed+M3 .............
etc. etc. I'll try to find the actual ex.  But I'm sure that some of the other noun constituents have to go into prep.phrases. 
You added: "Causative clauses are really messing me up....." 

Maybe the problem is that causatives, at least in the languages I'm familiar with, don't  usually mean "make(=force) SO to do ST"; the meaning of the verb usually undergoes a shift (in Engl. we typically use a different verb entirely)-- e.g. the Caus. of 'eat' means 'to feed' (a benign act), not necessarily "make SO eat" (implied, non-benign, e.g "he made her eat a worm" not= "he fed her a worm"). 

All that works for me (though I don't know how naturalistic it might be). What I can't imagine is when I introduce the Causative Stem in the verb and I need a FIFTH argument, the Causee (C). My English brain can do some like this:

I made him give you money on Tuesday.
He was made to give you money by me on Tuesday.
*You were given money by him - who I made do it - on Tuesday.
*Money was given to you by him - who I made do it - on Tuesday.
*Tuesday was when you were given money by him - who I made do it.

My question is this: Is there any language that I can look to for an example that considers so many things central to the verb? Or is it universally the case that once you get away from S, A, and O something's got to be dropped?

Aside from the AN languages, I don't know; I suspect something is usually dropped, since causatives seem to be a special case. But if you want (or feel you really need) a marked CAUSEE case, then just do it!! :;))