The definition of a direct–inverse language is a matter under research in linguistic typology, but it is widely understood to involve different grammar for transitive predications according to the relative positions of their "subject" and their "object" on a person hierarchy, which, in turn, is some combination of saliency and animacy specific to a given language.
[3] Direct-inverse systems on verbs coexist with the various morphosyntactic alignments in nouns.
Since the morphology of Ojibwe has no case distinctions (an Ojibwe nominal phrase does not change when its relations to the other sentence constituents change), the only way to distinguish subject from object in a transitive verb with two participants is through direct–inverse suffixes.
In the inverse the semantic patient is coreferential with the subject in the preceding clause.
[10] Ageru (上げる) is used when the subject, the giver, is lower down on the person hierarchy than the beneficiary, the indirect object.
'Switching the subject and object in either example, or switching the verbs between the two sentences would be unacceptable.