Verbs in ergative languages ​​with complex agreement can present four possible paradigms, understanding that their subject receives an absolutive case[1]: intransitives with absolutive agreement, intransitives with absolutive-dative agreement, transitives with absolutive-ergative agreement and transitives with absolutive-dative-ergative agreement. At the same time, they can also present, in principle, three voices. A voice that we will call "passive", in which the subject of the verb corresponds to the thematic patient. A middle voice, in which the subject and the thematic patient correspond. And an antipassive voice, the inverse voice of ergative languages, in which the thematic agent, which is normally an oblique case, becomes the subject and, therefore, takes an absolutive case. That is, the identical but opposite process to the passive voice of accusative languages: while in ergative languages ​​the thematic patient in accusative becomes the syntactic subject in nominative, in ergative languages ​​the thematic agent becomes a syntactic subject in absolutive. Understanding that the middle voice and the antipassive paradigm is similar to that of the intransitives, the following scheme can be proposed:

Intransitive:

Passive voice: absolutive, absolutive-dative[2]

Transitive:

Passive voice: absolutive-ergative, absolutive-dative

Middle voice: absolutive, absolutive-dative

Antipassive voice: absolutive, absolutive dative

To differentiate the middle voice paradigm (in which there is a coincidence between the thematic agent and the thematic patient) from the antipassive voice paradigm (in which there is only an inergativized thematic patient), the absolutive -t- morpheme, present in the rest of the paradigm (and absent when agreement with the dative occurs), it goes to -ζ-, in the middle voice with absolutive paradigm, and to -tz-, with absolutive-dative paradigm. Thus, the construction of the verb is as follows:

t absolutive agreement morpheme

r ergative agreement morpheme

ζ/tz middle voise agreement morpheme

[1] The absolutive is the case that corresponds to the thematic patient in intransitive verbs. The diathesis of ergative languages ​​is opposite to that of accusative languages: in the latter, their subject corresponds to the thematic agent, while in ergative languages, their subject corresponds to their thematic patient. Here "subject" will refer to the complement in the absolute.

[2] In the lexicon, the verbs “intr. md.” They are those that are understood as lexically transitive, but that only act as intransitive, always being in the middle voice.

Tense morphemes:

-g(i)- present

-k(i)- imperfect

-s(e)- futuro

-š(e)- perfect futuro

-b(e)- perfect

-p(e)- pluscuamperfecto

Mood morphemes:

-Ø- indicative

-yl- subjunctive

-a- conditional

-ei- optative

-ó- imperative

Thus, for example, the verb daígisam

present: daítegiř (indicative), daítegař (conditional)

perfect: datébeř (indicative), datébař (conditional)

Thus, it is seen that the construction of the antipassive voice and the middle voice of transitives is the same as that of transitive verbs (root-t-morph. pns-tens-asp), with the difference that the middle voice receives the morpheme -ζ-/-tz-, which indicates the coincidence of the agent and the patient. There are also two variants of verbs: on the one hand, there are regular verbs and verbs that are inflected in tense-aspect from their root. These present the characteristic of tense (nor the -i- of indicative), although the mood morphemes do. On the other hand, there are those that present a ligative vowel immediately after the root, which is lengthened in the subjunctive mood. For this reason, they do not present the subjunctive morpheme in the present and imperfect. The rules for lengthening the ligative vowel are:

a>α

e, i>η

o>ω

There is no one-to-one match. Thus, there may be irregular verbs with a ligative vowel (leisám), or without a ligative vowel (boxám) and regular verbs with a ligative vowel (daigísam) or without a ligative vowel (elagísam).

This is important, apart from the construction of the verbs, because the vowels in contact almost always contract (except only the root before the ligative vowel on the short side). Thus, for example, the indicative of daigísam is daítogiř and not *daítogiř, but the subjunctive of is deýtegiř (<*da-ὴ-tegiř), the subjunctive of elagísam is elaíldogiř (<*ela-ýl-togiř) and the perfect conditional -o-.

The agreement is always from right to left: *oko-é-a-e>*okeí-a-e>*okâi-e>okâi

On the other hand, the infinitive can also be substantivated by adding the certain neuter morpheme -ω. For example: daigirῆ (<*daigiroi-ὼ-η, "of converting"), daigirôyn (<*daigiroi-ὼ-on, "to convert").

Finally, it must be taken into account, for the imperative. This only in the second person, but in all numbers. On the other hand, the subject is the patient in the absolute, so the way to perform an agentive imperative is with the antipassive:

sg: yntzagóř (“be loved by me”), yntzagó (“love”)

pl: yntañgóř (“be loved by me”), yntañgó (“love”)

dl: yntalñgóř (“be both of you loved by me”), yntalñgó (“you two love”)

tl: yntaγóř[1] (“be the three loved by me”), yntaγó (“you three love”)

When you want to express an ergative imperative with patient, this can be done through a patient complement (the one corresponding to the agent complement in ergative languages) in instrumental (if it is a sentence, it is done as relative). For example elatzagó ailâyz (“drink the water”).

[4] The present and the imperfect with absolutive in 2nd trial assimilate the gutturals in geminate (g>γ, k>κ) to differentiate themselves from the plural.