Talk:Anticausative verb

Headline text
Thank you for this thought-provoking article. My current concern is about the proliferation of categories for placing verb[forms], so that eventually everyone (in all languages) would be in its own precise niche. But )for instance), is one to "assume that there is a cause or an agent of causation" for every phenomenon (like Pangloss!)? If one does not assume "free will", are there any volitional agents--human, animal, "inanimate: ships, windows, doors &c.?

Where would one go from that position? Staiss? or anarchy? I don't know whether I can sort this out, but the discussion helps.

Arabic, Chinese, Japanese
Hi, these three languages are amongst the most spoken worldwide, so it would improve the entry a great deal to add them. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Is this convoluted anticausative verb article really necessary? The gist of whatever this article inadequately describes seems either to overlap with or to equate to a labile verb. Perhaps the two articles should be merged under an ergative verb title. FRIW: Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ergative verb is a term coined in 1965 per Google Ngram viewer while ergative dates to 1939.
 * labile verb is a term coined in 1977 per Google Ngram viewer while labile dates to 1603.
 * anticausative verb is a term coined in 1980 per Google Ngram viewer.