Nominative–absolutive alignment

In the Northern Jê language Canela, different main clause constructions present different combinations of alignment patterns, including split-S (default), ergative–absolutive (recent past), and nominative–absolutive (evaluative, progressive, continuous, completive, and negated clauses). An example of the latter alignment type is given below.[1]^:162

intransitive

Wa ha iwrỳc naare.
S	TAM	s-V	AUX
/wa	ha	i-wɾɘ-k	nãːɾɛ/
1.NOM	IRR	1.ABS-descend-NF	NEG
'I will not descend.'

transitive

Wa ha ipyr naare.
A	TAM	p-V	AUX
/wa	ha	i-pɨ-ɾ	nãːɾɛ/
1.NOM	IRR	3.ABS-take-NF	NEG
'I will not grab it.'

In nominative–absolutive clauses, the sole argument of an intransitive verb (S) is aligned with the agent argument of a transitive verb (A) in that both may be expressed by nominative pronouns, such as wa ‘I.NOM’ or ca ‘you.NOM’ (nouns do not take case inflection in Canela), which occupy the same position in a phrase (in the example above, both precede the irrealis marker ha). At the same time, the sole argument of an intransitive verb (S) is aligned with the patient argument ('direct object') of a transitive verb (P) in that both may be indexed on the verb by person prefixes of the absolutive series (such as i- ‘I.ABS’ or a- ‘you.ABS’). There are no elements which pattern as ergative or accusative in this type of clauses in Canela.

The historical origin of the nominative–absolutive clauses in Canela has been shown to be a reanalysis of former biclausal constructions (a split-S matrix clause, headed by the auxiliary, and an ergative–absolutive embedded clause, headed by the lexical verb) as monoclausal, with the loss of the ergative.[3][2]

In the Cariban language Panare, future, desiderative, and nonspecific aspect clauses instantiate the nominative–absolutive alignment. An example is given below.[1]^:162

 Yutësejpa (këj) kën.
 s-V		s.AUX		S
 /j-u-tə-sehpa	(kəh)		kən/
 3-SA-go-FUT	3.ANIM.COP	3.ANIM.DIST
 ‘S/he will go.’

 Yamasejpa (këj) kën.
 p-V			a.AUX		A
 /j-ama-sehpa		(kəh)		kən/
 3-SA-throw.away-FUT	3.ANIM.COP	3.ANIM.DIST
 ‘S/he will throw away it/him/her.’

In Panare nominative–absolutive clauses, the nominative and absolutive are distinguished as follows. The unmarked nominative (pro)noun (if it occurs explicitly) always follows the predicate (kën in the example above), with nominative agreement in the auxiliary if there is one (këj in the example above). In contrast, the absolutive arguments are indexed by means of verbal prefixes (y- in the example above) or by absolutive nouns phrases (not shown above), which are in a complimentary distribution with the absolutive person prefixes.

In the languages of the Tuparian branch, main clauses commonly instantiate the nominative–absolutive pattern. Person prefixes on the verb are absolutive, i.e., they index the sole argument of an intransitive verb (S) and the patient argument ('direct object') of a transitive verb (P). Person pronouns, which follow the verb (either cliticizing to it or not) are nominative: they may encode the sole argument of an intransitive verb (S) or the agent argument of a transitive verb (A), but not the patient of a transitive verb (P). The example below is from Wayoró.[5]^:99

 Eamõjan (en).
 s-V			(S)
 /e-amõc-a-t		(ẽt)/
 2-dance-TH-NFUT	(2.NOM)
 ‘You danced.’

 Etopkwap nã on.
 p-V			A
 /e-top-kʷ-a-p	nã	õt/
 2-see-PL-TH-p	FUT	1.NOM
 ‘I’ll see you every day.’