Volume 16 Issue 1 (2018) DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.483 Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display for requirements to accurately reproduce this page. Comparison,
Contrast and Similarity in Yalaku Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald Language and Culture Research Centre, James
Cook University Yalaku, a Ndu language
from the Middle Sepik region of the East Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea,
has no dedicated comparative construction — just like an overwhelming majority
of Papuan languages of New Guinea (de Vries 2015). After a brief outline of
typological features of the language, we turn to the ways of expressing
comparative meanings.
The expression of similarity is the topic of §3. The last section contains a
summary. 1. The Yalaku language Yalaku[1] is spoken by c. 300 people in the
village of Yalaku located in a mountainous area off the Sepik River in the East
Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea[2]
— see Map 1. Map 1. The Yalaku language Yalaku belongs to the Ndu language family, together
with its closest relative Manambu, and also Iatmul and a few other languages (see
Aikhenvald 2008: 591-4). Yalaku has twenty-two consonants and six vowels. All
voiced stops and fricatives are prenasalized intervocalically; word-initial p, t and k are voiced on a clitic boundary. The presence of consonant voicing
on a clitic boundary is a major phonological process which distinguishes
clitics from affixes (see Aikhenvald 2015a: 243-6). All clitics in Yalaku are ‘special
clitics’: they can be cliticized (procliticized or encliticized) to their host
or form an independent phonological word depending on speech register and
syllable structure of the host. In addition, Yalaku displays the phenomenon of ‘anticipatory
cliticization’, whereby a clitic can attach to the preceding word depending on
its syllable length (details are in Aikhenvald 2015a: 245). Final vowel elision
is a feature of normal to rapid speech register; for instance, the verbal
declarative suffix -ke can be
pronounced as -k (as in (30) in
§3.2). There are no word-internal consonant clusters.
The language is nominative-accusative (a general feature of Ndu and neighbouring languages),
synthetic and predominantly suffixing, with just two prefixes. Grammatical
relations are expressed through cross-referencing on verbs and cases on nouns. Yalaku
has eight clausal cases (zero-marked nominative, accusative-allative, dative,
aversive, locative-instrumental, specific locative, future purpose, and
comitative). Pronominal and definite objects can be marked with the object case
(see Aikhenvald 2015a, for a discussion of two subsystems of differential
object marking in the language). A zero-marked form is used for subjects,
copula complements, and the second argument of the verbs of change of state
including ‘turning into something’. The locative case can be omitted if the
locational meaning is clear from the context or the noun has a locational or
temporal meaning.
Open word
classes are nouns, verbs, and adjectives; closed classes include personal
pronouns, interrogatives, demonstratives (which distinguish five degrees of
distance), quantifiers, time words and locationals. Three numbers (singular,
dual and plural) and two genders (masculine and feminine, in the singular only)
are expressed covertly (through agreement markers on demonstratives, verbs and
in an archaic possessive construction (30) rather than on nouns themselves).
Number (singular, plural and dual) is overtly marked only on kinship nouns. Adjectives
have a few specific affixes, among them the augmentative (§2.3). Verbs
cross-reference person, gender and number of the subject (A/S). Further
verbal categories include mood (declarative, imperative, interrogative), tense
(present/non-future, completed/past, future), aspect (habitual, completive),
modality (desiderative, intentional, frustrative, and apprehensive), and
complex negation marking. Types of main clauses include verbal, copular and
non-verbal clauses. Non-main clauses cover switch reference sensitive clauses
(same subject and different subject ones), co-temporaneous clauses, relative
clauses, and purposive clauses. Within switch reference sensitive clauses, the
verb in a dependent clause shows whether its subject is the same as, or
different from, that of the following clause. Same-subject clauses do not take
subject cross-referencing, while different subject clauses do. This feature —
typical of Ndu languages (cf. Aikhenvald 2008, 2015a) — helps establish a
robust category of subject (A/S).
Relative
clauses are marked with the verbal suffix -d(e).
An additional verbal form (marked with a special set of verbal
cross-referencing markers and the suffix -ko) expresses activity at the moment of speech. This form can be used as a
complementation strategy and in dependent clauses expressing activity co-temporaneous
with that of the main clause.
In
addition, just like in many other languages, full reduplication can be used to
differentiate word classes. With nouns, reduplication has a distributive
meaning; with verbs it has a repetitive meaning; and with adjectives it has an
intensifying meaning. There are no productive word-class changing derivations.
A member of any word class can occupy the intransitive predicate slot (with
limited possibilities for non-verbs). Similarly to Manambu and other related languages,
Yalaku has a productive system of serial verbs (which form one grammatical and
one phonological word); these often involve motion verbs. Constituent
order is predominantly verb final (AO(Oblique)V/ S(Oblique)V), but not
strictly so. A constituent in contrastive focus or an afterthought can be
postposed to the predicate. 2. How to express comparison in Yalaku Yalaku has
no dedicated comparative construction for what is known as “comparison of
inequality”. Two comparative “strategies” (in the sense of Dixon 2012: 341-61)
can be used to compare people and objects (but not actions or abstract
entities). Each of the two strategies involves an implicit contrast. We start
with a strategy involving directional verbs. 2.1. Directional
verbs, and the expression of comparison One way of
expressing such contrast is by using directional verbs wor-(e)- ‘go up’ (for comparison of superiority), and tada- ‘go down’ and kaya- ‘go down slope’ for comparison of inferiority. The
directional verbs are used in the meaning of a “parameter marker” (which
corresponds to the index of comparison: see Dixon 2012: 341-61).[3] Comparing
myself with a friend who is much taller than me, I was instructed to say
(clauses are in square brackets):[4]
Either of
the first two clauses can be omitted, if the idea of a comparison is clear from
the context. On another occasion, a speaker commented on a difference in size
between him and another person. Example (3) contains an implicit comparison of
inferiority.
A statement
of a comparison of inferiority can be accompanied by a size adjective. In (4),
this is a copula complement in the first clause.
Example (5)
is an instance of comparison of superiority. The first clause contains a size
adjective; this is a way of clarifying the parameter of comparison. The standard
is implicit; it is always recoverable from the context of conversation.
Alternatively,
the parameter may be stated in a separate clause, as in (6). ‘Age (lit. her
years)’ is the subject of the first (dependent) clause. It is understood as a parameter
within the context.
The two
verbs of downwards motion — tada- ‘go
down’ and kaya- ‘go down slope’ — are
used interchangeably in the comparative context. For each of (1)-(4) and (7),
either was judged acceptable (note that such examples are rare and restricted
to conversations). When used to imply comparison, the verbs meaning ‘go up’ and
‘go down’ in their comparative meaning cannot be serialized or accompanied with
directionals (‘uphill’, ‘downhill’, ‘inside’, ‘outside’), in contrast to their
use as verbs of motion. The verbs wore- ‘go up’ and tada- ‘go down’ can also be used to indicate increase or decrease
in a particular quality, as in (8) and (9). The comitative case marker on the
verbal root indicates the gradual character of the process (see Aikhenvald 2011,
for a typological and areal perspective for the case morphology on verbs in
Papuan languages, and Aikhenvald 2009 on case markers as clause linkers in Ndu
languages).
What we
have seen so far is the deployment of verbs of motion and direction — ‘go up’
and ‘go down’ — as comparative strategies expressing comparison of superiority
and inferiority respectively. Such uses do not seem to be intuitively
implausible. However, cross-linguistically they appear to be uncommon. The verb ‘go
up’ as the indicator of comparison of superiority is reminiscent of the
expression of comparative or superlative with a verb meaning ‘surpass’ or ‘exceed’
(type B in Dixon 2012: 354-5). Using the notions of direction and space in
comparative strategies is not unlike the comparison of superiority in Murui, which
involves spatial notions of distance (‘ahead’), position in space (‘high’) and
interiority (‘outside’). The comparison of inferiority in Murui relates to
interiority (‘inside’) and position in space (‘low’). Verbal modifiers meaning ‘up’
and ‘down’ are deployed as markers of a comparison of superiority and
inferiority respectively in Boumaa Fijian (Dixon 1988: 88). These appear to be the
closest analogies to what we have just seen in Yalaku. However, having a purely
directional verb ‘go up’ used to mark comparison of superiority and its
counterparts meaning ‘go down’ as a marker of a comparative of inferiority
(predominantly in bi-clausal sentences) appears to be cross-linguistically
uncommon. There is no full equivalent to these in any of the related or
neighbouring languages described so far. Comparative
uses of directional verbs in Yalaku occur only in informal conversations, and
are avoided in careful speech and planned narratives. We now turn to a more common
comparative strategy which permeates the language. 2.2.
Contrasting properties: a further comparative strategy in Yalaku Similar to numerous Papuan languages, including some
of the Ndu languages, Yalaku employs a contrastive strategy to express
comparison (see Dixon 2012: 359, and de Vries 2015). Two verbless clauses are
juxtaposed. Examples (10) and (11) show that the order of the terms of
dimension is determined by speaker’s choice. Example (10) comes from a
conversation, and (11) comes from a traditional story.
A
comparative reading of this strategy presupposes a logical connection between
two dimensions (or an “implicature”, as pointed out by de Vries 2015) — that
is, if one person is tall and the other one is short, then the two can be
understood as being compared. The comparative reading is optional. Whether or
not comparison is implied is usually clear from the context. When I asked my
teachers of Yalaku about the fate of the Apukili (an almost extinct group who
were defeated by the Kwoma and the Yalaku about two generations ago), I was
told that their leader, Pakiyey, had been killed in battle and all his
household — except for his two young wives — exterminated. The two women
—married off to a respected Yalaku elder — were very different. They were
contrasted as follows — see (12). The contrast did not have any comparative
overtone; (12) was a simple statement of a fact.
This brings
us to a prominent feature of Yalaku conversations and narratives — contrasting
participants in terms of their properties. This can be done by using antonyms
(as in (12)), or by negating one of the adjectives. In (13), a really big woman
appears to a man; the speaker stresses that she is huge, big and not small
(clauses 2 and 3). The fact that she is ‘big’ is repeated (using the adjective mafui ‘big’) in the fourth clause.
Headlessly used adjectives ‘big’ and ‘small’
are contrasted in (14). This is a way of emphasizing the fact that they had got
a small quantity of firewood.
A spirit
gave a man two wives — two very different women, contrasted in their properties
in (15): one was black and the other one was white, one was good-looking, the
other one was ugly, or bad-looking. Note that the subject cross-referencing is
omitted in a sequence of coordinated main clauses as it is clear from the
context.
All the
speakers of Yalaku are bilingual in Tok Pisin, the creole lingua franca of
Papua New Guinea. Contrasting adjectives in Tok Pisin narratives and
conversations are used in much the same way as in Yalaku. For instance, talking
about a really big house, a number of speakers said em i bikpela, em i no liklik (he/she/it pred big, he/she/it pred
neg small) ‘it is big, it is not small’. Talking about a small boy, a speaker
remarked em i liklik, em i no bikpela (he/she/it
pred small, he/she/it pred neg big) ‘he is small, he is not big’.
None of the
contrastive constructions described in this section has a dedicated comparative
meaning (though each can be understood that way). They can be considered an
expressive device for emphasizing a property, deployed by story tellers. 2.3. How to express a superlative in Yalaku Just like in many Papuan languages, Yalaku has
no dedicated superlative. Several strategies can be interpreted as having
superlative overtones. The augmentative suffix -sak used with two size adjectives mafui ‘big’ and yafa ‘huge’
can be understood as a superlative. The woman discussed in (16) was the biggest
of all on a photograph. This example comes from a conversation. Her large size
was further emphasized by the adjective ‘huge’ with an augmentative in the
second clause.
In contrast, in (13) the augmentative yafa-sake
(huge-aug) ‘huge’ cannot be understood as a superlative, since there is no
comparison implied: the woman discussed there is the only woman in that story
(and so is the ‘huge’ baby). The adjective yafa ‘huge’ has the same form as yafa ‘father’, and in all likelihood is derived from it. Yafa is used as a modifier with the
meaning ‘big’, usually accompanied by the adjective ‘big’, e.g. mafui yafa tu (big father man) ‘a huge
man’, or nubu yafa tu (truly/land-based
father man) ‘a huge man, an important man (Tok Pisin bikpela man, leader)’. The word ‘father’ is used as an augmentative
modifier in related languages, including Manambu (see Aikhenvald 2008: 120). Compounds containing the adjective muy ‘real, good’,[5]
e.g. muy-nar (real/good-nice) ‘very
good’, muy-wul (real/good-multiply/overflow)
‘fat, healthy’, can be interpreted as superlatives given the right context, and
so can a reduplicated adjective with an intensive meaning, e.g. semi-semi ‘very tall’ in (1) (§2.1) and (12).
In each case, a superlative reading is contextual. We now turn to the comparison of equality, and
the ways of expressing similarity. 3. Similarity and equality in Yalaku 3.1. Expressing
similarity Talking
about similarity and also equality is a pervasive feature of Yalaku narratives
and conversations. The suffix -meki (with
a variant -mæki) ‘like, similar, equal, the same’ can be used with a
copula complement, as in (17), where the copula complement of the verb ‘be’ is meda ‘cassowary’, and also in the last
clause in (25). Constituents within the scope of -meki are in braces.
The
suffix ‘like’ can also be used with an object as in (18), and location, as in
(19). This suffix goes onto the last constituent of a possessive noun phrase,
as in (19) (just like case markers in Yalaku: see Aikhenvald). It can occur on
a prehead modifier — see example (22).
A
constituent marked with -meki can
express manner on a noun, as in (20).
In
(22), -meki occurs on a demonstrative
adverb used as a modifier.
The meaning
of -meki is similarity and
resemblance in its many overtones (see, for instance, Fortescue 2010: 198-19,
on a plethora of overtones of similarity markers). It would be an
oversimplification to limit -meki (or
any other similarity marker) to just ‘comparison’. The
suffix can occur on two types of clauses. It is used with a relative clause in
(23). Here, the head of the relative clause is omitted, and the common argument
is the subject. The previous ‘state’ of a cassowary is shown to be ‘like’ what
she was at present.
A
co-temporaneous clause marked with -ko can occur with -meki if activities or states resemble
each other (with implicit comparison of similarity). In (24), from an advice
about how to suck a lozenge, the clause marked with -meki ‘like’ refers to manner of action — that is, ‘consuming’ a
lozenge like one would consume a lolly (similar to other Ndu languages, Yalaku
has just one verb covering ‘eating’, ‘drinking’, ‘sucking’ and ‘smoking’ which
is covered by ‘consume’ in the translation).
In
(25), a clause marked with -meki ‘like’
occupies the copula complement slot:
In
an appropriate context, a clause marked with -meki can be interpreted as expressing pretence (or a ‘simulative’ ‘as
if’) (in agreement with Fortescue 2010: 119). In (26), a spirit woman pretended
she was leaving the house (first clause), but instead killed the real woman,
Heji (third clause). The suffix -meki ‘like’
appears on a headless relative clause (first clause):
Example
(27) was a comment about people who behaved as if they were staying in mourning
(but in fact were not):
The
suffix -meki ‘like’ cannot occur on
subjects, and is not compatible with any of the case markers on nouns. This
feature appears to be shared with the unrelated Kwoma, a language with which
Yalaku has been in contact for a long time (Bowden 1997: 21; Kooyers 1974: 33-4). In contrast, the suffix -pek ‘like, similar to’ in Manambu,
Yalaku’s closest relative, can occur with case markers (Aikhenvald 2008: 191). A
further difference between the similative -pek in Manambu and -meki in Yalaku
lies in the fact that -pek marks
similarity in manner clauses which have all the features of main clauses while -meki can only occur on relative clauses
and on co-temporaneous clauses (examples (23)-(24)).
The
status of the suffix -meki is
debatable. On the one hand, it appears to share features with oblique
case-markers. A major argument in favour of this analysis is the fact that it
attaches to a non-nominative form of a personal pronoun, just like non-nominative
case markers in general, e.g. ñani ‘we
(pl) (nominative case)’, ñana-ka (1pl.NON.NOM-DATIVE) ‘to us (pl)’, ñana-meki (1pl.NON.NOM-like) ‘like us (pl)’. However, the similative can occur on
headless relative clauses and co-temporaneous clauses, unlike any of the case
markers, and thus cannot be considered a member of the same system.[6] 3.2. Expressing equality The only
means of expressing equality in Yalaku is by using a lexical item. The
reduplicated adjective kara-kara ‘equal’
is typically used as a copula complement of the verb te- ‘be’ to express equality between people or qualities. Example
(28) comes from a narrative about what happened with the Yalaku people during
the Second World War:
The form karakara can have the meaning of ‘be enough,
be all over’, as in (29).
The unreduplicated
form kara means ‘enough, finished’,
in archaic stories told by older and traditional speakers. Its typical context
is in the endings of stories, as in (30):
The
polysemy ‘enough, be equal’ described for kara is reminiscent of Manambu: the Manambu stative verb rep ‘sufficient, enough’ means ‘be equal’ if reduplicated, e.g. repe-rep te-na-bran (equal
be-ACTION.FOCUS-1du) ‘we two are equal (e.g. in size or age)’) (cf. Aikhenvald
2008: 90, 671).
4. What can we conclude? Yalaku has
little in the way of comparative constructions. Biclausal or monoclausal
constructions involving directional motion verbs ‘go up’ and ‘go down’ can
express comparison of superiority or inferiority (§2.1). However, when used as
comparative strategies, the verbs ‘go up’ and ‘go down’ have somewhat different
properties than in their typical uses as motion verbs, in terms of occurring
in serial verb constructions. This comparative strategy — limited to conversations
— is somewhat unusual cross-linguistically. Contrasting properties — without
necessarily implying comparison — is a feature of Yalaku narratives (§2.2).
Biclausal constructions involving contrast can be interpreted as implying
comparison, depending on the context. This is a typical comparative strategy,
widespread across Papuan languages. The similative suffix -meki ‘like’ has
a plethora of meanings to do with resemblance and pretense, and can be used to
compare participants and activities. Given the right context, ‑meki can be interpreted as marking ‘comparison
of similarity’ (as, for instance, in (17)).
Not only
does Yalaku lack a dedicated comparative, or superlative. There are no lexemes
to do with winning, exceeding someone and competition in general. This is in
contrast to the closely related Manambu which has a comparative construction
(see Aikhenvald 2008: 190) and two verbs with comparative meanings: kakel- ‘compete’ and yi- ‘go, exceed’. The verb (y)i- ‘go’ in Yalaku does not have the meaning of ‘exceed’, in
contrast to its cognate in Manambu. In narratives and conversations about
beating someone in a battle, one just uses the various verbs for ‘kill’, ‘beat’
and ‘overturn’. The lack of focus on competition and ‘winning’ was brought home
to me by one of the speaker’s comment on how the Manambu people are fixed on
competing with everyone and exceeding others, and the Yalaku people are not. When
talking about this, he used the Tok Pisin verb winim ‘surpass, get ahead of someone’ — there was no lexical or
other means available in Yalaku. There may
be a societal explanation for this. As Dixon (2008: 814) put it, “small tribes
with an egalitarian social system and item-for-item trade do not generally
indulge in competition; they often lack words for ‘compete’, ‘win’, ‘lose’ and ‘beat’
(as in a game). Such concepts are tied in with comparison [...]. Groups of this
type have little use for the idea of ‘more than’ or ‘less than’”. Along similar
lines, “in the traditional culture of Dyirbal speakers, from North Queensland,
and of the Jarawara, from southern Amazonia [...], there was no factor of competitiveness.
The vocabularies include no words which could render ‘compete’, ‘win’, ‘lose’, ‘victory’,
or ‘victor’” (Dixon 2016: 93). Dixon
(2008: 814) continues: “There does, however, appear to be more of a tendency
for such small societies, which lack a comparative construction, to have some
linguistic device for saying ‘be the same as, be equal to’.” Yalaku, spoken in
a small community with no pronounced social hierarchies, adds to this a frequently
used construction involving similarity and likeness. References Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. The Manambu language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2009. ‘Semantics of clause linking in Manambu’. Semantics of clause linking: a cross-linguistic typology, ed. by R.
M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 118-144. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2011. ‘Versatile cases’. Language at large, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W.
Dixon, 3-43. Leiden: Brill. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2015a. ‘Differential case
in Yalaku’. Oceanic Linguistics 54.240-269. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2015b. The
art of grammar. A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bowden,
Ross. 1997. A dictionary of Kwoma, a
Papuan language of North-east New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Dixon,
R. M. W. 1988. A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Dixon,
R. M. W. 2008. ‘Comparative constructions. A
cross-linguistic typology’. Studies in Language 32.787-817. Dixon,
R. M. W. 2012. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume
3. Further grammatical topics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Dixon,
R. M. W. 2016. Are some languages better
than others? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fortescue,
Michael. 2010. ‘Similitude: A conceptual category’. Acta Linguistica
Hafniensia 42/2. 117-142. Kooyers,
Orneal. 1974. ‘Washkuk grammar sketch’. Workpapers
in Papua New Guinea Languages 6.5-74. Laycock,
D. C. 1965. The Ndu language family
(Sepik District, New Guinea). Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra
Publications. de
Vries, Lourens. 2015. ‘Comparative and superlative constructions in Papuan
languages’. Paper presented at the Special Workshop Comparative and superlative constructions: typology and diachrony.
Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, 16-17 June 2015. [1] I am grateful to my Yalaku
family, especially Joel Ukaia, Mark, David Kwaibori, and Solomon who taught me
their remarkable language. I am indebted to R. M. W. Dixon for extensive
comments and suggestions, and to Kasia Wojtylak for her insightful analysis of
Murui, her comments and discussions. Thanks go to Brigitta Flick and Jolene Overall for proof-reading
the paper. [2] The
original name of the language and the people is Yelahambura. The language was
formerly called Yelogu (Bowden 1997; Laycock 1965). It is called Kaunga by the
Kwoma (hence this alternative name cited in Bowden 1997). The language has never
been previously described. A four-page outline of Yalaku grammar by Laycock
(1965: 139-43) is replete with mistakes and misinterpretations (details in
Aikhenvald 2015a). This study is based on original fieldwork in the Yalaku
village and the surrounds in 2013, 2014 and 2016. The corpus consists of ten
hours of transcribed narratives in addition to fieldnotes based on
participant-observation. Just as in all my work, grammatical elicitation using
a contact language has been carefully avoided. [3] A note
on the glossing principles adopted here and in my other publications on Ndu
languages. Firstly, independent pronouns, such as wuni ‘I’ in (1), are glossed using corresponding English
independent pronouns. Bound pronouns, including clitics (set off with the equal
sign =) and suffixes (set off with a dash), are glossed using grammatical
labels such as 3fem.sg in (1). Secondly, many Yalaku words are polysemous, that
is, have more than one meaning. To make the glossing as reader-friendly as
possible, I gloss each occurrence of a polysemous word with the meaning it has
in that instance of use. So, the adjective mafui
which can mean ‘big’ or ‘fat’ is glossed as ‘big’ in (8) (where it means ‘big’)
and as ‘fat’ in (10) where it means ‘fat’, rather than ‘big’. See Aikhenvald
(2015b: 17) on user-friendliness in glossing and in grammar-writing. [4] ACC - accusative, ALL - allative, ANAPH - anaphoric, AUG - augmentative, COMIT - comitative, COMPL - completive, COMPL.SS - completive same subject
clause, COTEMP - co-temporaneous clause marker, DECL - declarative, DEM.DIST - distal demonstrative, DEM.FURTHER.DIST -
demonstrative denoting a distance further than mid-distance, DEM.MID.DIST
- demonstrative denoting mid-distance, DEM.PROX
- proximal demonstrative, DS - different
subject, DU - dual, FEM.SG - feminine singular, FOC -
focus, FUT - future, GEN - genitive, IMPV - imperative, MASC.SG -
masculine singular, NEG - negation, NEG.EXIST -
existential negator, NEG.NOM
- nominal negator, NON.NOM - non-nominative form
of a pronoun, PL - plural, PRED - predicate marker, PURP - purposive, RED - reduplication, REL - relative clause
marker, SG - singular, SS - same subject [5] Value
terms in Ndu languages are polysemous (cf. Aikhenvald 2008: 568-70) The adjective muy ‘real’ in
Yalaku means ‘real, good, appropriate’ and covers the meanings of its Manambu
cognate muy ‘real, true’ and a
non-cognate Manambu adjective vyakat ‘good,
appropriate for its purpose’. [6] A number of other cases (including dative and aversive ‘for
fear of’) can occur on verbal roots to form dependent clauses (Aikhenvald
2015a); no cases can occur on the predicate of non-main clauses of other types.
Etymologically, -meki is cognate to the
generic verb megi ‘do whatever, act in whatever manner, act
like (previously mentioned action)’ in Manambu (see Aikhenvald 2008:
571-2). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||