When the agent takes を in the causative form?

Question

I've seen a few sets of terminology when referring to the causative form, so for the basic case, I will use the following: `instigator が agent に 〇〇 を ｖ－させる。` In its most basic, text-book form, we have sentences such as: >子供にお弁当を買わせます。<br /> >後輩にビールを飲ませます。 Additionally, most textbooks mention something along the lines of [intransitive verbs or verbs that do not call for を] have an agent marked with を。(sorry for the ad-hoc bracketing, but it was hard to parse beforehand) >先生が私をトイレに行かせました。<br /> >その人が私をそこに座らせました。 ----- 1. If I use 行く with another verb as its purpose, is を available to mark the agent? It seems like this should be the case since お弁当を should be connected to 行く。<br /> Compare: >[a] 子供にお弁当を買いに行かせます。<br /> >[b] 子供をお弁当を買いに行かせます。 2. With intransitive verbs, must I use を to mark the agent? <br /> Compare: > [a]その人は私をそこに座らせました。<br /> > [b]その人は私にそこに座らせました。 3. If I leave off the object of a transitive verb due to ellipses, may I mark the agent with を? (This seems strange, but I figured I'd ask.) <br /> Compare: > [a]子供に買わせました。<br /> > [b]子供を買わせました。 4. If I use a transitive verb, but use を to mark something that is moved through or done with effort, may I still mark the agent with を? <br /> Compare: > [a]子供に道を行かせます。<br /> > [b]子供を道を行かせます。<br /> > [c]彼に私のことを分からせます。<br /> > [d]彼を私のことを分からせます。 5. I've also heard mention that some speakers occasionally use を to mark the agent with intransitive verbs without any further details. Is this something that a seemingly random group of people does? Is it due to dialectal variation? Is there a pattern to when it can be done? Is there a difference in nuance? In the cases where I can choose between marking the agent with を or に, is there any difference in nuance? <br /> In a fairly old grammar, I've read that using に *may* soften the statement a little. For each question with example sentences, I'm primarily concerned with a few things: 1. Is this permissible? (would it sound incorrect in conversation look incorrect in writing) 2. What would a native speaker usually do? Of course I also welcome any information about dialectal variation, language change, etc!

Answer 1

**In general, you use "ni" when the agent has intentionally taken the action. "O" can be used regardless of the agent's volition.

In 1., it has to be "kodomo ni" because "o" can't be used more than once in a clause, and "o" needs to be used with "obento" since it ("obento") is a direct object of "kau."

In 2., I would use "watashi o" because the sentence sounds like "sono hito" forced "watashi" to sit "soko ni."

If "sono hito" let "watashi" to sit "soko ni," I would say "sono hito wa watashi o soko ni suwarasete kuremashita."

You can't use "o" with "kodomo" in 3., since that would make "kodomo" the direct object of "kau."

In 4., again, since you can only use one "o" in a clause, the sentence has to be either "kodomo o michi ni ikaseru," which means "have the child go to the path," or "kodomo ni michi o ikaseru" which means "have the child go on the path."

See ** for 5.

Example: "Kodomo o oyogaseru" makes it sound like the action was coerced, while "kodomo ni oyogaseru" makes it sound like the action was permitted.

That said, I believe I have been using both "ni" and "o" to express both "passive" and "coercive" causatives. I don't know whether or not it is a dialectal habit. (I come from Hiroshima prefecture.) Would be interested to find out.