Detail #123: One idea for Alignment and Causatives

So, we know how coordination should  under syntactic ergativity:

girl_erg slapped boy_abs and fell

In syntactic ergativity, it is the boy that falls. In most ergative languages that also permit coordination, that is not the case, indicating they have a nominative-accusative syntax underlying the case marking. However, let's do some fun stuff with this and causatives.

We have two primary types of construction:

S O V 

S V 

Now, let's assume we're having a nom-acc language for now.
We get causative transformations thus:

C S O V

C O V

C S V

The C O V instance is obviously somewhat causative-passive, i.e. C causes someone to verb O. We would probably have marking along these lines:

C_nom S_{some case 1?} O_{some case 2?} V

C_nom  O_{some case 2?} V

C_nom  S_{some case 1?} V

It is possible S is marked as some kind of non-object,  and 1 and 2 might reasonably be the same. Let's now consider what happens when we have coordinate this with some other verb. Remember, non-causatives here coordinate like in English: S_nom O_acc V1 and V2 means Snom did V1 and V2, regardless of transitivity of V2.

 C_nom S_{some case 1?} felled and fell

 This could easily be a way of marking telicity of causatives! However, let's look at the other situation

 C_nom S_{case 1} O_{case 2} V_1,trans and V_2,intr

 John_nom made Eric_{case 1} paint the house_{case 2} and turned red : the house turned red (due to S1's painting it)

 C_nom O_{case 2} V_1,trans and V_2,intr

 C_nom made the house be painted and turned red: the house turned red (due to C's making people paint it)

We do get this kind of situation though: 

 C_nom S_{case 1} O_{1,case 2} V_1,trans and O_2,acc V_2,trans 

in pseudo-English with SVO order instead: 

 John_nom made Eric_{case 1} paint the house_{case 2} and spilled the paint_acc

This could reasonably go both ways:  John_nom or Eric_{case 1} could both be the subjects of V_2,trans from a purely a posteriori viewpoint. We could leave such a thing ambiguous, or we could restrict it to either of the two, or we could have some peculiar semantically empty 'pseudo-voice' that is used to resolve this, i.e. a 'decausative voice' that is used exclusively to coordinate your regular verbs with a causer, or maybe the other way around. We also have the situation where we may want to coordinate an intransitive verb with either the C or S argument. We could also have the case marking on S1 depend on whether we want it to be the subject of an embedded verb - maybe shifting it rightwards or marking it as nominative if we are going to coordinate with it?