Alternation ‘Active/inactive alternation’ (Coded)

V > A <> V > S; A verb root of unspecified valency is made active, where the sole argument of the verb is the source of the action, by addition of the transitivizer prefix t or s-. The inactive counterpart is derived from the root by the intransitivizer prefix y-. In this case, the sole argument of the verb is not the source of the action and has no control. This is not a very widespread pattern, but it may have been at an earlier time. There are a few instances that are not found in the current selection of verbs. This alternation is not directly related to the equipollent causative/intransitive alternation. However, a few bound verb roots do occur in three derived forms: (1) an inactive/intransitive form; (2) an active form; and (3) a causative form. These few verb roots participate in both alternations (the active/inactive one and the equipollent intransitive/causative one). As can be seen, BURN and PUT from our meaning list do this. However, it is not the case that all other verbs that participate in the active/inactive alternation also participate in the equipollent causative/intransitive alternation or vice versa. That's why I have them as two separate alternations. The inactive verb of the active/inactive alternation is the same as the intransitive verb of the equipollent causative/intransitive alternation. The causative verb of the equipollent causative/intransitive alternation looks like the u-causative prefix added to the *active* verb of active/inactive alternation. However, semantically it is the causative of the *inactive* one! Therefore, though one would imagine the three verb forms (inactive, active, causative) to all be derivationally related, it doesn't work like that semantically.