Detail #253: Mixing Alignments - Split-Ergative/Inverse

I remember back when ergativity was sort of new and unfamiliar to most conlangers – today, split ergativity is almost old hat, and people are getting into alignments like inverse, secundative and so on.

Let's however consider split-alignment again for a moment. How do we resolve subjects when we coordinate a transitive and an intransitive verb?

man wolf see-DIRECT and run-INTRANS
[assuming man > wolf in the animacy hierarchy)

Is it the man or the wolf who runs? If the language underlyingly is accusative, it would be the man. If the language underlyingly is ergative, it's the wolf who is running. Now, the split-inverse/ergative option sort of appeals to me - and in this case, we'd have the man running if we did

man wolf see-INVERSE and run-INTRANS.

Now, how about some other options? We could have direct and inverse apply to intransitives in a way similar to switch-reference (but limited to intransitives after transitives), thus giving us:

man wolf see-DIRECT and run-DIRECT
man sees wolf and runs

man wolf see-DIRECT and run-INVERSE
man sees wolf and it runs

Another option could be that a subject of a previous verb automatically is temporarily shifted upwards in the hierarchy. Depending on where in the hierarchy it lands, different results obtain, e.g. if 1 p > 2 p > previous subject > 3p, then

I wolf see-DIRECT and run-DIRECT
I see the wolf and I run

I wolf see-INVERSE and run-DIRECT
the wolf sees me and I run

I wolf see-INVERSE and run-INVERSE
the wolf sees me and runs

I wolf see-DIRECT and run-INVERSE
I see the wolf and it runs

he wolf see-INVERSE and run-DIRECT
the wolf sees him and runs

he wolf see-INVERSE and run-INVERSE
the wolf sees him and he runs