Ainu is fairly well-known for being a highly synthetic language (I dislike the term “polysynthetic” for a number of reasons), which has both noun incorporation and a set of three applicative prefixes.
Noun incorporation in Ainu is, with a few exceptions, fairly typologically typical. In the “template” of Ainu verbs, there is a slot where direct objects, whether they are in the form of pronominal agreement prefixes or incorporated nouns, fit. A very minimal transitive verb template is given in (1):
(1) AAGR-OAGR/I.O-V
Where AAGR is any of the prefixes which mark agreement for the subject of a transitive verb, OAGR is any of the prefixes which mark agreement for the direct object of a transitive verb, OI.O is an incorporated noun, and V is the root verb.
(2a) and (2b) give more concrete examples:
(2a) Aunkore ka somo ki ruwe ne wa.
a-un-kor-e ka somo ∅-∅-ki ruwe ne wa
INDF.A-1PL.EXCL-give-CAUS even not 3.A-3.O-do FACT COP EMPH
‘The fact is, [she] didn’t even give us any.’ (Nakagawa and Nakamoto 2004)
(2b) To okari puy anetoyta kor.
to okari puy an-∅-e-toy-ta kor
lake around marsh.marigold.root INDF.A-3.O-APL-earth-gather PROG
‘[I] was gathering marsh marigold roots from around the lake.’ (Izutsu and Tezuka 2006)
Both the subject and object slots seem to be obligatory (cf. Baker 1996), though in the third person there are no overt markers.
When nouns are incorporated, as one might expect, the valency of the verb is reduced by one. This means that only polyvalent verbs (transitives, causativized intransitives and transitives, etc.) should be able to incorporate nouns, as there cannot be a zero-valent verb. This also means that for these verbs to take new direct object, a valency increasing device—such as a causative or the applicative marker e-, which can function as a non-causative transitivizer (see Bugaeva 2010)—is needed. We see this in (2b).
(2b) also illustrates that applicatives alter the internal structure of a verb in Ainu. The root verb in that construction is ta ‘to gather (from under the surface)’, which is a transitive verb, so has the structure given in (1). With an incorporated noun, its structure is altered. Our best evidence for this is because the indefinite person and first person plural set of agreement markers have a tripartite alignment—that is, each has a separate marker for the subject of a transitive verb, the subject of an intransitive verb, and the direct object of a transitive verb. So we find the following sort of construction:
(3a) turep-ta-an
giant.lily-gather-INDF.S
‘[Someone] gathers giant lilies.’
(3b) *an-turep-ta
INDF.A-giant.lily-gather
‘[Someone] gathers giant lilies.’
As we can see in (2b), however, with the applicative e- and an incorporated noun, we now have a transitive verb again. The structure of a monomorphemic verb with an applicative is diagrammed below in (4a). A similar structural diagram for a verb with an incorporated noun and then an applicative is given in (4b).
(4a) A-OAPL-APL-V
(4b) A-OAPL-APL-OI.O-V
To add to my abbreviations above, OAPL is the object agreement needed because of the addition of an applicative prefix and APL is the applicative prefix itself.
Some verbs, however, do not behave as we would expect. I have two examples: ekimne ‘to be in the mountains, to go into the mountains’ and eronne ‘to be on the ror (the seat of honor reserved for guests in a traditional Ainu home)’. The former is from e-kim-ne |APL-mountain-COP|, and the later is from e-ror-ne |APL-seat.of.honor-COP|, with the expected change of [ɾ] → [n] / _ [n] from one of the several sandhi rules found in Ainu. Some examples in context:
(4) ∅-∅-ne=no sir-an kor anakne, somo e-kim-ne-an=pe ∅-∅-ne.
3.S-3.O-COP=ADVZ weather-exist.SG PROG TOP NEG APL-mountain-COP-INDF.S=NMLZ 3.S-3.O-COP
‘When the weather had become so, it was that I didn’t go into the mountains.’ (Nakagawa 2001: 82)
(4b) o-tu kes pa-ta / o-re kes pa-ta / e-kim-ne-an kor
APL-two after year-LOC APL-three after year-LOC APL-mountain-COP-INDF.S PROG
‘After two years, / after three years, / I was in the mountains,[and…]’ (Nakagawa 2008: 296)
(This is from a yukar, an Ainu oral epic. The slashes here indicate metrical breaks.)
Instead of the pattern we see in (2b), that of a transitive verb de-transitivized by an incorporated noun and re-transitivized by an applicative, we see the same pattern as in (3a), a transitive verb de-transitivized by an incorporated noun, and—despite the presence of an applicative—no re-transitivization.
So their structure seems to be:
(5) S-APL-OI.O-V-SITR
Where S is most of the prefixes for marking agreement with intransitive subjects, and SITR is the limited set of markers for intransitive subjects which are suffixes.
At this time, I have no good explanation for why this occurs. Simply put: these verbs misbehave.
References:
Baker, Mark. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bugaeva, Anna. 2010. Ainu applicatives in typological perspective. Studies in Language 34:4. pp. 749–801. DOI: 10.1075/sl.34.4.01bug
Izutsu, Katsunobu and Yoritaka Tezuka. 2006. Kiso Ainugo [Basic Ainu]. Sapporo: Sapporo Dōshoten.
Nakagawa, Hiroshi. 2001. Ainu Kōshōbungei Tekisuto Shū 1: Shirasawa Nabe Kōjutsu — Ōkami kara Nigareta Musume [Ainu Oral Literature Text 1: Narrated by Nabe Shirasawa — The Girl who Escaped from Wolves]. Chiba Daigaku Yūrashia Gengo Bunka Ronkōza [Chiba University Journal of Eurasian Languages and Cultures] 3, pp. 52–66.
Nakagawa, Hiroshi. 2008. Ainu Kōshōbungei Tekisuto Shū 8: Shirasawa Nabe Kōjutsu —Yukar Irupaye: Sinutapka-jin, Ishikari-jin to Tatakau [[Ainu Oral Literature Text 8: Narrated by Nabe Shirasawa — Yukar Irupaye: The Sinutapka Man Fights the Ishikari Man]. Chiba Daigaku Yūrashia Gengo Bunka Ronkōza [Chiba University Journal of Eurasian Languages and Cultures] 10, pp. 291–313.
Nakagawa, Hiroshi and Mutsuko Nakamoto. 2004. CD Ekusupuresu Ainugo [CD Express Ainu]. Tōkyō: Hakusuisha.