An analysis that seems adequate for simple constructions in a language may prove inadequate when more complex constructions are considered. A previous analysis of antipassive in Eskimo, attempting to refute two basic assumptions of relational grammar, becomes burdensome when its implications for a comprehensive analysis of all clause types are examined. Relational grammar gives a much simpler account of case marking and verb agreement in Eskimo, as illustrated in examples from passive, indirect object advancement, Benefactive-2 Advancement, and Comitative-2 Advancement constructions. Other research provides examples from causative clause union, relative clauses, participial groups, and reflexives. Relational grammar provides not only solid language-internal analysis, it also shows how Eskimo is similar to or different from other languages. (MSE)