ने marks the ergative case, which is only used for the subject of a perfective-aspect transitive verb.

Hindi is characterized as a split-ergative language. For verbs in the perfective aspect, it has ergative-absolutive alignment; transitive verbs agree with the object while intransitive verbs with the subject. In other aspects (habitual/imperfective, progressive, and non-aspectual), it displays nominative-accusative alignment.

To further confuse matters, the only one of these cases that is actually consistently marked is the ergative, with [pspecial "ने" hi/ne]. ([pspecial "को" hi/ko] marks the accusative only optionally).

# Functions

## [ss Agent]
The prototypical supersense for this is naturally the [ss Agent] marker. The construals for these however will vary depending on the verb; I looked to Shalev et al. 2019 as a guide, since ne is at its essence just a subject marker. Of course, for an abstract or otherwise inanimate subject it would be [ss Causer].

## [ss Causer]
This is for inanimate agents.

# Issues

## Bodily emission verbs
Verbs involving bodily emission (छींकना "sneeze", खाँसना, "cough", चिल्लाना "yell") only optionally take the ergative marker for their subjects. When it is used, it generally indicates intentionality. Other examples show, however, that intentionality isn't solely indicated by the ergative, rather it depends on the lexical-semantics of the verb. Currently these are marked as [ss Agent].

* [gex 001 "{मैं I} {ज़ोर strength} {से INS} {चिल्लाया scream-PRF}।" "I screamed loudly [when she scared me]."]
* [gex 001 "{मैं[pspecial "ने" hi/ne Originator--Agent] I-ERG} {ज़ोर strength} {से INS} {चिल्लाया scream-PRF}।" "I yelled loudly [to draw attention]."]

## Ergative dispreference
Some other clearly transitive verbs arbitrarily do not take the ergative.

लाना "to bring" never does (it was most likely shortened from the light verb construction ले आना "to take-come", with आना being intransitive).

बोलना "to say" also never does. Note, however, that कहना "to say" (but used in slightly different contexts) *does* take the ergative.

## Unagenative ergatives
Finally, some verbs seemingly have no agency attached to the subject, but still take the ergative.

* [gex 003 "{मैंने I-ERG} {उससे he-ABL} {मार beating} {खायी eat-PRFV}।" "I took a beating from him/I was beaten up by him."]

This particular case maybe can be construed as [ss Recipient--Agent]? But the semantics of "take a beating" arguably point to [ss Theme], which is irreconcilable with its opposite, [ss Agent].