Pernilla Hallonsten Halling

Form 2: S ST.V `E_part V_subset ve_part
Example: (135), (7.19)

2. aDv

Function: property modification within predicating expression
Form 1: ADV V Form 2: qha-_advV V
Form 3: S ST.V `E_part V_subset ve_part
Example: (136), (8.28), (5.25), (7.19)

In Lahu, the construction that is between pred and adv appears to be a more marked alternative to other constructions found in the two functions in question. This is also the case in Basque (isolate), where there are different Adverbs, formed in a number of ways. Some Adverbs are formed with the non-productive -(r)ik, which is also the partitive suffix. These Adverbs often occur with the copula egon (Hualde & de Urbina 2003: 426).

(7.21) Basque (isolate) (Hualde & de Urbina 2003: 194) pred/adv

1. 
   Poz-ik
   

happiness-aDv

‘I am happy.’
nago.
be.1sg
pred

2. 
   isil-ik
   

silent-aDv

‘Be quiet’
hago!
be-2sg
pred

According to Hualde & de Urbina (2003: 426), the copula egon has a more marked use

than the copula izan that is attested in
pred
in combination with an Adjective (see

appendix B for examples, and see Stassen 1997: 180 for further comments on the matter). A parallel can be drawn to semi-copulas, as discussed by Hengeveld (1992: 34ff.). The use of egon implies a transitory state (2003: 426). This encoding, which is between pred and adv, is captured in (7.22), along with the other constructions found in the two functions.

(7.22) pred and adv in Basque

1. preD

Function: property predication Form 1: S ADJ(-def.num) izan_cop Form 2: X-(r)ik _adv egon_cop Example: (25), (7.21)

2. aDv

Function: property modification within predicating expression
Form 1: ADJ-ki _adv V S Form 2: ADJ-to_adv V
Form 3: X-(r)ik _adv egon_cop/V
Form 4: ADJ (redup) V
Example: (26), (8.23), (7.21); (27), (28)

Many constructions that are between pred and adv across languages seem to involve transitory states, although it is not always straightforward that they do. This is thor- oughly discussed by Stassen (2001). In Lezgian (Nakh-Daghestanian), Adjectives are used in pred with the copula ja. The pred function can nonetheless also be formed with a continuative form of local copula ama ‘be still (in)’, which requires a derived Adverb.

(7.23) Lezgian (Nakh-Daghestanian) (Haspelmath 1993: 323) pred/adv

MizAfer
Mizafer
k’ubAn-diz

energetic-aDv

AmA.
be.still

‘Mizafer is still energetic.’

While example (7.23) semantically may look primarily like

pred, the use of a certain

Copula and a derived Adverb makes it look structurally more like adv. Again, it seems that the construction is between the two functions.
All languages with constructions that are between pred and adv are listed in table 7.3, along with notation of the construction in question. In cases where a regular copula is used, this is simply noted as such, and the exact form is not included. However, where a special copula or another verb is used, the form is included. Whenever the meaning of the verb is something other than ‘be’, a translation is also provided. Note that seven of the languages with constructions between pred and adv (Acoli, Basque, Ewe, Lakota, Lezgian, Slave, Yankunytjatjara) have additional constructions that partially overlap, as described in section 7.3.1.

overlap no overlap

Figure 7.3. Languages with a construction between pred and adv

Table 7.3. Languages with a construction intermediate between pred and adv

Language Construction

Abkhaz (Northwest Caucasian) (S) ST.V_subset cop
Acoli (Nilotic) (S) bédò ‘to be’ / d`Ok`O ‘to become’ mà_rel-ADJ
Basque (isolate) X-(r)ik _adv egon_cop
Ewe (Atlantic-Congo) S le_v ADJ₂(-i )
Lahu (Sino-Tibetan) S ST.V `E_part V_subset ve_part
Lakota (Siouan) S ST.V-ya/-yela he_V
Lezgian (Nakh-Daghestanian) S ADJ-dakaz /-diz /-z _adv ama_cop ‘be still (in)’ Slave (Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit) S ST.V_subset -whe˛ ‘want, allow’ Yankunytjatjara (Pama-Nyungan) S ADJ_act-cas nyina-Ø ‘sit, live’

From the constructional notation in table 7.3, it is clear that the languages with an in- termediate construction between pred and adv vary regarding the shape of the property word (stative verb, derived adverb, etc.) and in whether it is just a subset or special type of property word that can be used in the construction. Moreover, the languages differ in terms of what type of verb the property word combines with. These characteristics also show that the productivity of the construction differs between the languages in question. Based on these results, it can be argued that constructions that are between pred and adv show that adjacent subregions of pred and adv can be constructionalized together.

2. Connections between constructions in pred and adv

Some languages have constructions that are very similar or where the distinctions between pred and adv are quite subtle. Imonda (Border) has Adjectives that often carry the ending -l, which is a nominalizer. Adverbs, on the other hand, are formed from bare Adjectives by attaching the clitic =nam. In combination with one of a small number of existential Verbs, Adjectives provide an “inherent or objective” interpretation, while Adverbs results in a “temporary or subjective” interpretation (Seiler 1985: 155).
(7.24) Imonda (Border) (Seiler 1985: 155)

1. 
   ehe
   

3
ebes-l
good-nmlz
ale-f.
stay-prs
pred

‘she is good/nice/beautiful’

2. 
   ka-fa
   

1-top
ebes=nam
good=adv
pete
int
ale-f
stay-prs
adv

‘I am feeling sort of O.K.’
In contexts where a temporary interpretation is impossible, the use of the derived Adverb is ungrammatical.

(7.25) Imonda (Border) (Seiler 1985: 155)

1. 
   ehe
   

3
hute-l (/
short-nmlz (/
*hute=nam)
short=adv)
lõh-f
stand-prs
pred

‘he is short’

2. 
   mëna
   

road
hute-l / short-nmlz /
hute=nam
short=adv
gè-li-f
clf-lie-prs
pred/adv

‘the road is short/feels short’

A similar situation is found in Estonian (Uralic), where Adjectives can be formed in two different ways when combined with the Verb olla ‘to be’. Nominative case is used when the property referred to is stable in time, as in (7.26a), whereas an adverbial ending is used when it is temporary, as in (7.26b).

(7.26) Estonian (Uralic) (Lehiste 1972: 224)

1. 
   Asjad
   

things
on
be.3sg.prs
halvad.

bad.sg.nom

pred

‘Things are bad.’

2. 
   Asjad
   

things
on
be.3sg.prs
halvasti.

bad.aDv

adv

‘Things are bad.’

The encoding patterns from Imonda and Estonian can be compared to the examples from Basque discussed in section 7.3.2, where the use of a special copula with certain Adverbs yields a temporary interpretation. Another language outside of the sample with a slightly different pattern is Polish (Indo-European).

(7.27) Polish (Indo-European) (Marcin Wlodarczak, p.c.)

1. 
   Ksia˛żka
   

book.sg.f.nom
jest
be.prs.3sg
dobr-a.
good-sg.f.nom
pred

‘The book is good.’

2. 
   Jest
   

be.prs.3sg
dobrz-e.
good-advz
pred/adv

‘It’s good; Things are good.’

3. 
   Czuje˛
   

feel.prs.1sg ‘I feel well.’
sie˛
refl
dobrz-e.
good-advz
pred/adv

In Polish, the predicative Adjective is inflected for number, gender, and case, as illustrated in (7.27a). However, if the subject is impersonal, as in (7.27b), the Adjective instead takes the adverbial ending -e. This is also the case when it is combined with the Verb czuć ‘feel’, in cases such as (7.27c). The adverbial ending is accordingly used in certain instances of pred, or in cases that are between pred and adv.

Although the languages in which temporariness distinctions are attested are few, they are found in different parts of the world. The point here is perhaps not so much the connection between pred and adv manifested in the affinity of the constructions, but the relatively subtle meaning distinctions in examples that come close to being intermediate between the two functions. This illustrates how close the functions of pred and adv can be, even though they are still distant enough to have different meanings and thus different encoding in the languages in question.