Pernilla Hallonsten Halling

bwena?

good

adv

‘Well, he carves well, doesn’t he?’

In pred, General Modifiers are also used in their bare form, as illustrated for nanakwa

‘fast’ in (6.27).

(6.27) Kilivila (Austronesian) (Senft 1986: 87) [attr pred adv]

M-to-si-na
this-human.being-pl-this
i-kaliseva-si.
they-run.off-pl
si
their
waga
canoes
sena
very
nanakwa

fast

taga
but
ma-waga-si
our-canoe-pl
pred

‘Their canoes are very fast, but our canoes are outstanding (they beat the others.)’

The non-classified South American language Pirahã is another example of a language in which general modifiers are attested. In (6.28), attr and adv are illustrated. The property word xaibogí ‘fast’ can also be used in pred, although no example with context has been attested.

⁵ Two exceptions that do not take classifiers are only used in attr: gumigwamila ‘cloudy (dull weather)’ and tula ‘cold’ (Senft 1986: 85).

⁶ Many General Modifiers occur also as Nouns and Verbs, such as gaga ‘bad/badly’, found as the Verb stem -gaga- ‘to be bad, to be nasty’, and mwau ‘heavy, difficult/heavily, difficultly’, also attested as a Noun meaning ‘grief’ (Senft 1986: 85, 92)
⁷ This example contains bwena, which is very likely a loan from Spanish or Portuguese. It has been in the language for a long time, and native speakers claim it is a Kilivila word (Gunter Senft, p.c.).

(6.28) Pirahã (Everett 1986: 273) [attr pred adv]

1. 
   xaoói
   

foreigner
xaibogí

fast

gáihi
that
attr

‘that fast foreigner / That is a fast foreigner.’

2. 
   xaibogi
   

fast

‘Go fast.’
áp-a-áti
go-rem-unc
adv

pred is formed with one of a few copulas, which is optional: xAAgA´ ‘to have/to be’, xiigA´
‘to be/to have temporarily’, and xAi ‘to be/to do’ (1986: 203).
(6.29) Pirahã (Everett 1986: 204) [attr pred adv]

1. 
   hi
   

3
bihíhi-igío
short-assoc
xaagá-há
be-cert
pred

‘He is short.’

2. 
   ti
   

1
baábi

bad

xiigá
be
pred

‘I am sick.’
When the copula is excluded, the independent person marker is still required, as illustrated in (6.30).
(6.30) Pirahã (Everett 1986: 205) [attr pred adv]

giopaíxi hi
dog 3
sabí-xi
wild-emp
pred

‘The dog is really wild.’
In addition, General Modifiers can be used predicatively in a different way, with a meaning shift. This does not correspond to the pred function. Example (6.31) illustrates that xaibogí ‘fast’ also occurs as a predicate meaning ‘run’.
(6.31) Pirahã (Everett 1986: 273)
ti xaibogi-a-hói
1 fast-rem-ing
‘I am going to run.’
Despite the constructional differences, the uses of property lexemes in the three functions are the same, indicating an [attr pred adv] lexeme overlap for Pirahã, instantiated by general modifiers.
It is not uncommon that a language with an adjective class is described as having a subgroup within this class that can be used adverbially. This is the case in Hup (Nadahup), which is defined as having a closed class of Adjectives by Epps (2008: 441). They share many inflectional characteristics with Verbs (2008: 441). In attr, the property lexeme is preceded by the nominal head that it modifies (2008: 327).

(6.32) Hup (Nadahup) (Epps 2008: 326) [attr pred adv]

1. 
   t1h
   

3sg
wOn-hám-ay-áh,
follow-go-inch-decl
té
until
tod
hollow.tree
póg

big

g’etpóow^´1tmah
stand
attr

‘She went after (the spirit), to where a big hollow tree stood, they say.’

2. 
   h˜Oh
   

sound
p^´1b

strong

yúp
that
n’uˇh-u˜h
cntr-decl
attr

‘That one has a strong (loud) sound.’

Epps (2008) does not state explicitly how many of the Hup property words can be used adverbially, but some of the most common are: p^´1b ‘fast’, náw ‘well’, páy ‘badly’ dOPkéy ‘correctly’, and w’ěh ‘far’ (2008: 447). Two examples with context are presented in (6.33).

(6.33) Hup (Nadahup) (Epps 2008: 447) [attr pred adv]

1. 
   náw
   

good

Pãh
1sg
ni-n^´1h-^˜1p
be-be.like-dep
adv

‘I do not live well.’

2. 
   p^´1b
   

fast

t1h
3sg
way-y^´1P-^´1y
go.out-tel-dyn
adv

‘He went out fast.’

If the property word in adv follows the subject, the enclitic =y1P is attached to it, to distinguish the construction from the corresponding attr version. This is illustrated in the example pair in (6.34), where the NP boundary is indicated with square brackets. The enclitic =y1P also has other functions, e.g. as a marker for telicity or contrastive focus on Verbs (2008: 447).⁸

(6.34) Hup (Nadahup) (Epps 2008: 448) [attr pred adv]

1. 
   [tiy^ˇiP
   

man
p^´1b]

fast/strong

way-y^´1P-^´1y
go.out-tel-dyn
attr

‘The fast/strong man went out.’

2. 
   [tiy^ˇiP]
   

man
p^´1b=y1P

fast=tel

way-y^´1P-^´1y
go.out-tel-dyn
adv

‘The man went out fast.’

In pred, property words may be inflected like Verbs, for instance, indicating aspect. This is illustrated in (6.35), where (6.35b) is a marginal example of pred.

(6.35) Hup (Nadahup) (Epps 2008: 444-45) [attr pred adv]

1. 
   yúp
   

that
tegd’uh
tree
póg

big

pred

‘That tree is big.’

⁸ The enclitic =y1P is also used to derive Adverbs from actual Adjectives, see section 5.3.1 and appendix B.

2. 
   yúp
   

that
tegd’uh
tree
póg-óy

big-Dyn

‘That tree is getting bigger.’

Epps (2008: 115) defines the property words that can be used in all three functions as Adjectives that “can act as adverbs and as such have a relatively all-purpose modifier function”. According to my definition, these property lexemes in Hup can be classified as general modifiers.

Ewe (Niger-Congo) is another example of a language described as having a subclass of Adjectives that can be used as they are adverbially (Ameka 1991: 91). Ewe has several different types of Adjectives, and it is only within one of these types that these overlapping items are found.⁹
(6.36) Ewe (Niger-Congo) (Ameka 1991: 75) [attr pred adv]

1. 
   Nútsu
   

man
tralaa
thin.tall
lá
def
vá.
come
attr

‘The tall and thin (?lanky) man came.’

2. 
   Nútsu
   

man
lá
def
(le)
(be.prs)
tralaa.

thin.tall

pred

‘The man is tall and thin.’

3. 
   Nútsu
   

man
lá
def
k´O
be.tall
tralaa.

thin.tall

adv

‘The man is tall in a tallish-thinny (lanky) manner.’

The examples in (6.36) can be compared to those in (6.37), with Adjectives that require overt derivation to be used in pred and adv. Note that Ameka (1991) treats (6.37b) as pred (or ‘verbal’) and (6.37c) as adv (or ‘adverbial’), which is followed here.

(6.37) Ewe (Niger-Congo) (Ameka 1991: 91)

1. 
   devi
   

child
nyuí

good

lá
def
attr

‘The good child.’

2. 
   devi
   

child
lá
def
nyó

good

pred

‘The child is good.’

3. 
   devi
   

child
lá
def
le
be.prs
nyuie

good

pred/adv

‘The child is well.’

⁹ According to some speakers, (6.36b) is not acceptable without the verb le ‘be’ (Yvonne Agbetsoamedo, p.c.).

The important point in the examples from Ewe is the overt derivation for some property words, as in (6.37), but not for others, as in (6.36). The latter are, by the definition used here, classified as general modifiers.

In conclusion, I have chosen to treat all simple lexemes that occur in attr, pred,
and adv as general modifiers, regardless of how many these lexemes are, or what other modifier classes there are in the language. These language-specific differences illustrate the fact that general modifiers play different roles in individual languages. In some cases, they are the only type of simple modifier lexemes (e.g. Pirahã). In others, they constitute a major class of modifier lexemes, alongside other major classes such as adjectives (e.g. Kilivila). In many languages for which an adjective class is established in a grammar,
lexemes that function in not only attr and pred, but also in adv, are treated as a
subgroup of adjectives. The size of such groups is often unclear, as in the case of Hup. Other languages such as English (recall the examples with fast from chapter 4) only have one or a couple of property words that can be used ‘adverbially as well’ – in addition to their adjectival uses in attr and pred. Against a background of a stable adjective class, it may not make sense to label exceptional examples as general modifiers. However, the widely accepted status of adjectives may come in the way of determining whether an individual language has a different modifier class, like the type labeled general modifiers here. Moreover, when general modifiers are attested in different languages in addition to adjectives and/or adverbs, the semantic content of the general modifiers is basically the same. This will be discussed in depth in chapter 8. In languages that do have adjectives as well as general modifiers, there may be instances that are difficult to place in one or the other class adjectives that get extended to use in adv. However, such changes are expected.

Stative verbs

In total overlaps on the lexeme level, stative verbs are also attested. Lahu (Sino-Tibetan) has Stative Verbs in all three functions. In attr, there are two different constructions. It appears that different types of Stative Verbs are used in each of these, although it is not clear which Stative Verbs belong to which type. In the first construction, the Stative Verbs are combined with the particle ve. This particle has many functions, e.g. as a nominalizer and relativizer (Matisoff 1973: 193).

(6.38) Lahu (Sino-Tibetan) (Matisoff 1973: 194) [attr pred adv]

dàP

be.good

ve
nmlz/rel
NâP
birds
attr

‘pretty birds’

The second construction in attr, which (Matisoff 1973: 285) interestingly calls “stative Adverbial”, is formed with the particle `E in combination with the particle ve, as illustrated in (6.39).

(6.39) Lahu (Sino-Tibetan) (Matisoff 1973: 288) [attr pred adv]

1. 
   ší
   

be.yellow

`E
part
ve
nmlz/rel
ápòPl`E
warm.shirt
attr

‘a yellow sweater’

2.