Firstly, it turns out that I wasted my time and yours by posting this. Half an hour after I gave up for the night, I realised that the language already has a built-in way around this issue. I specificially included a godsdamned causative case (-ung) for a related reason, but didn't make the connection.
azunga oz Entan-ivoswoman.CAUSATIVE man.ABS eat.PRS-CAUSATIVE
Because of woman, man is caused to eat.
azunga nent h[ar-]Entan-ivoswoman.CAUSATIVE food.ABS PASSIVE-eat.PRS-CAUSATIVE
Because of woman, food is caused to be eaten.
azunga ozil nentef Entan-ivoswoman.CAUSATIVE man.ERG food.ACC eat.PRS-CAUSATIVE
Because of woman, man is caused to eat food.
All of these examples imply that the causing to eat or be eaten was done deliberately by the woman, that she instigated the action. Dropping the 'ivos' from the verb would convey a sense that the woman was the cause without being the instigator.
Nevertheless, to respond:
So you are analysing the causer as a separate clause?
The woman [caused] (intransitive) the man eats the food (transitive).
I was hoping that the whole lot could be considered a single clause, but with the causal particle allowing for a case of special pleading; effectively saying that the language becomes NOM-ACC in the causative, with the ABS case used to indicate the causer.
This is now moot, however.
What about the sentence, "The woman causes the man to walk"
It would be identical to the "Woman causes man to eat," example in the first post. Using the more sensible system (with the causative noun case), this would be identical to the same example in this post.
I don't have a verb for 'walk' yet.
Why this particular example? Is it because 'walk' can't be transitive?