An investigation of native vs. loaned roots in the formation of complex predicates and process nominals in Korean reveal that there must be two distinct base positions to generate an internal argument: some internal arguments (IAs) are introduced directly by Roots (√) (Harley 2014), while others must be introduced by a verbal functional projection. This analysis is motivated by the empirical finding that different Roots involved in complex predicate formation in Korean create two distinctly different types of structures, dependent on whether the Root itself has Event Structure (ES) that encodes an undergoer event participant (Ramchand 2008). I argue that one type of predicate is best understood as a construction built above a √P that contains the Root and the IA as its complement, while a second type is best understood as one where the IA is introduced by a higher, verbal functional projection (Fv). The immediate theoretical consequence of this proposal is that not all argument introduction is contingent on the presence of verbal structure, contra many contemporary structural approaches to argument licensing– instead, there is in fact, one semantically constrained place where an internal argument (IA) can be introduced as a direct complement to a Root. If this is true, then it follows that verbal structure is not actually required for argument introduction, and that non-verbal elements can, in fact, be argument introducers. If a Root, however, lacks the inherent semantics needed to introduce an IA, then verbal structure provides an alternative means to introduce a direct object into the derivation.