Pernilla Hallonsten Halling

ari-da=ke]...
big-asf=lig
attr

‘...the fish pulled the big hook (lit. the hook that is big)...’

2. [Nereka-da miserable-asf

attr
ju-kware=ke
be-rempst=lig
ekwita]=mi-ke(=Ø) person=2sg-f(=1sg-erg)
kweja-ya.
inform-ipfv

‘I am going to tell you about the man who was poor.’
In pred, these Adjectives are also optionally combined with the same Copula. (6.11) Cavineña (Tacanan) (Guillaume 2008: 359)

Ari-da

big-asf

ju-kware
be-rempst
aja.
capuchin.monkey
pred

‘The capuchin monkey was big.’
In adv, the same Adjectives occur. In the example below, a focus clitic is also attached to the Adjective (cf. section 3.3.1).
¹ This example is repeated in part from (5.14) in section 5.3.2.

(6.12) Cavineña (Tacanan) (Guillaume 2008: 362)

Kwa-ya=ke=ekwana
go-ipfv=lig=1pl
ji-da=dya

good-asf=foc

kwa-kware.
go-rempst

‘As we went, we went well (i.e., we did not have any accident on the road or anything).’
The fact that the -da suffix is semantically empty makes this a dubious candidate for a word form overlap, since there are no forms to contrast it with. Nor is it the case that the inflection of a property word in one function is used to express the function in another case. Still, these Adjectives require the -da suffix in attr, pred, and adv, which makes this at least a potential total word form overlap.
Although the word form level must be acknowledged for a full analysis of encoding within the word, as manifested by examples from Estonian (in sample), Swedish (outside of sample, see section 4.2), and potentially Cavineña (in sample), the majority of sample languages do not have any word form overlaps. It would be interesting to examine how common word form level overlaps that include adv are, but this is outside the scope of this dissertation. Instead, the lexeme level is the most prominent level of analysis of encoding within the word, and it is to this that we turn in the next section.

4.