Comparison in Kambaata: Superiority, Equality and Similarity

 

Yvonne Treis

CNRS-LLACAN

 

This paper is an in-depth study of the expression of comparison in Kambaata, a Highland East Cushitic language of Ethiopia. It discusses not only quantitative comparison, i.e. comparison of relative and absolute inequality and comparison of equality, but also analyses the morphology and syntax of expressions of qualitative comparison, i.e. comparison of similarity. Apart from predicative constructions, the analysis takes into account attributive comparative, superlative, equative and similative constructions. In the comparative construction (lit. ‘X is tall from Y’), the standard of comparison is marked by the ablative case, as in most languages spoken in the Horn of Africa. Kambaata distinguishes between two superlative constructions, one of which is based on the comparative construction (‘X is tall from all’), while the other is characterised by a locative standard of comparison (‘X is tall among Y’). Furthermore, Kambaata has two equative constructions. The first is based on the similative construction (‘X is tall like Y’); the second is a periphrastic construction (‘X is tall to the extent Y’). The paper argues that the enclitic morpheme which marks the standard of comparison in the similative construction originates from a noun meaning ‘manner’.

 

1. Introduction

 

This paper is a study of the expression of comparison in Kambaata, a Highland East Cushitic language of Ethiopia. It encompasses analyses of quantitative and qualitative comparison.[1] It is concerned with comparison of inequality (§3), similarity (§4) and equality (§5). While works on comparison in little known languages often focus on predicative comparison constructions with simple nominal standards of comparison, I will go further, examining constructions with complex clausal standards and attributive comparison constructions. The first sections of this article provide information on the classification and location of the language (§2) and give an overview of important grammatical aspects that are required as background for the discussion of comparison (§3-5). To the best of my knowledge, this paper is so far the most detailed study of the expression of comparison in a Cushitic language. My analyses are based on data collected during fieldtrips to the Kambaata-speaking area from 2002 to 2007 and in 2016. Apart from narratives, conversational data and mock dialogues,[2] my corpus also includes texts from local publications.[3] These sources are supplemented by elicited data. I have generally attempted to avoid translation elicitation but have resorted to target language manipulation elicitation or text-based (ancilliary) elicitation (Chelliah & de Reuse 2011: 370-73, 379), whenever elicitation was necessary at all. All data is presented in the official Kambaata orthography (see Treis 2008: 73-80), supplemented by accents to indicate phonemically distinctive stress.

 

2. Typological overview of Kambaata

 

Within the Cushitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic language phylum, Kambaata belongs to the Highland East Cushitic (HEC) language group. It is spoken in the South of Ethiopia in an area approximately 300 km south-west of the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa in the Kambaata-Xambaaro Zone (Figure 1). The immediate neighbours of the Kambaata are speakers of other Highland East Cushitic languages (Alaaba and Hadiyya) and Ometo languages of the Omotic family (Wolaitta and Dawro). According to the 2007 Ethiopian census, there are 615,000 Kambaata speakers.

 

Figure 1. Kambaata-Xambaaro Zone and its woredas

(Map designed by Jérôme Picard, CNRS-LLACAN, 2016; Sources: ESRI, USGS data.humdata.org; all boundaries are unofficial)

 

Kambaata is exclusively suffixing and, regarding its morphological type, agglutinating-inflectional with many portmanteau morphemes. It is both head- and dependent-marking with a fairly elaborate case system and subject agreement on verbs. It is consistently head-final; hence all modifiers, including relative clauses, precede the noun in the noun phrase, and all dependent clauses precede independent main clauses. The main verb or a copula is usually the last constituent in the sentence. Clefting is a very common focussing device.

 

Kambaata has four major open word classes: nouns, adjectives, verbs and ideophones, all of which can be defined on the basis of morphological and morphosyntactic criteria (Treis 2008: 81-97). Nouns are obligatorily specified for one of nine cases, and for either masculine or feminine gender. Table 1 exemplifies the case paradigms of the masculine noun dum-á ‘back room (of a house)’ and the feminine noun gat-í-ta ‘backyard’. The accusative is the functionally unmarked case. It marks not only direct objects but also certain temporal and manner adverbial phrases, and it serves as the citation form of nouns.

 

Table 1. Case paradigms of a masculine and a feminine Kambaata noun

 

In attributive function, adjectives agree in case and gender with their head noun. They are marked for three cases (nominative, accusative, oblique) and two genders (masculine, feminine). Apart from being used as modifiers, adjectives can be used as the head of a noun phrase without further measures (e.g. nominalisation, dummy head) being taken. In this syntactic function, they have the full case-marking potential, i.e. they inflect for nine cases.

 

Kambaata makes a morphological distinction between fully finite main clause verbs and various types of semi-finite and non-finite dependent clause verbs: relative verbs, converbs, purposive verbs and verbal nouns. In Table 2, the verbs are arranged from left to right on a scale of decreasing finiteness. While Kambaata has nine independent, case-inflecting personal pronouns (1s, 2s, 2hon, 3m, 3f, 3hon, 1p, 2p, 3p), subject agreement morphemes on verbs distinguish maximally between seven (1s, 2s, 2hon = 2p, 3m, 3f = 3p, 3hon, 1p), and minimally between five forms (1s = 3m, 2s = 3f = 3p, 2hon = 2p, 3hon, 1p).

 

Table 2. Inflectional categories on main and dependent verbs in Kambaata

(+ / - = category can or cannot be morphologically marked)

 

Ideophones are invariable and are always accompanied by a support verb which carries the inflection. In intransitive clauses ideophones combine with y- ‘say’ or ih- ‘become’, and in transitive clauses with a’- ~ ass- ‘do’.

 

3. Comparison of inequality

 

Comparison of inequality subsumes comparison of superiority and inferiority. For both types of comparison, a distinction can be made between relative inequality (e.g. Susan is taller than Peter; Peter is less tall than Susan) and absolute inequality (superlativity) (e.g. Susan is the tallest of her family; Peter is the least tall of his family). Kambaata does not have a grammaticalised construction for comparison of inferiority, but expresses inferiority periphrastically (§3.3). Hence the focus of this section will be on comparison of superiority (§§3.1-3.2).

 

3.1. Comparison of superiority

 

In the Kambaata predicative comparative construction, the comparee functions as the subject. As such, it is nominative-marked, e.g. Bóq, the nominative form of the personal name Boqé in (1). The parameter of comparison is expressed by the predicate, which is a member either of the word class of adjectives (1), or of the sub-word classes of property ideophones (2) or property verbs (4).[4] The comparee in subject function triggers gender agreement on adjectival parameters and person/gender agreement on verbal parameters and on support verbs of ideophonic parameters (agreement is marked by underlining in (1)-(2)).

 

(1)	Bóq	{Makkeeb-éechch}	qeráa’rr-u-a
	PN.mNOM	PN-fABL	long-mPRED-mCOP2
	‘Boqe is taller than Makkeebe (lit. Boqe is tall {from Makkeebe}).’ (K89: 2.79)

 

(2)	Buttu’ll-a-sí	hagár-u	{garad-d-a-sí=hann-íichch}
	cubs-fGEN-DEF	colour-mNOM	adult-PL1-fGEN-DEF=NMZ2-mABL

 

	gambáll	y-áano
	black.IDEO	say-3mIPV
	‘The colour of the (civet) cubs is darker than that of the adults (lit. The colour of the cubs is dark {from that of the adults}).’ (K89: 6.56)

 

There is no grammaticalised parameter marker; the form of the parameter itself is no different from that of the positive construction (see the literal translation). The standard of comparison, i.e. the entity against which the comparee is measured and found to be unequal, is expressed by an ablative-marked adjunct. In (1) and all following examples, the standard phrases occur in curly brackets in the Kambaata and the translation line. The primary elements of the predicative comparative construction and their grammatical functions are summarised in (3).

 

(3) Predicative comparative construction

 

Whereas two entities are compared in (1)-(2), one can also compare two conditions of one and the same entity at different times. In (4), a current medical condition is compared to the previous condition, and a temporal noun serves as the standard of comparison.

 

(4)	(…)	íib-u-si-i	muggítt-uhu-u	{won-áachch}
		fever-m.NOM-3mPOSS-ADD	diarrhea-mNOM-ADD	before-fABL

 

	woyy-án	marr-óochch	(…)
	be_better-3mIPV	go-3mPFV.REL.ABL
	‘(…) if the fever and the diarrhoea get better {than before}, (…).’ (K89: 4.8)

 

The occurrence of the ablative case is not restricted to the comparative construction. Elsewhere in the language, the ablative case marks oblique objects and adjuncts which may express the source (5), origin or starting point of an actual (literal) or metaphorical (figurative) movement, the starting point in time, the source material of a production process, what is avoided, what one is protected or saved from (6), or the maleficiary of an event.

 

(5)	Daalal-óochch	buul-á	argicc-áamm
	PN-mABL	mule-mACC	borrow.MID-1sIPV
	‘I borrow a mule from Dalaalo.’ (K89: 1.88)

 

(6)	(…)	gid-iichchí-i	wól-o	daaf-iichchí-i
		cold-mABL-ADD	other-mOBL	danger-mABL-ADD

 

	ka’mm-am-áan-sa
	protect.MID-PASS-1sIPV-3pO
	‘I protect them from cold and other dangers.’ (K89: 3.47)

 

Furthermore, some relational nouns, such as zakk-ú ‘after’, etar-ú ‘beyond, exterior; apart (from)’ and bir-íta ‘before, front’, and some adjectives, such as annann-á(-ta) ‘different (from)’ and wol-ú/-íta ‘other (than)’ (7), govern ablative complements.

 

(7)	Góoll-u	maal-íichch	wol-ú=rr-a	it-táa-ba’a
	civet_cat-fNOM	meat-mABL	other-mACC=NMZp-mACC	eat-3fIPV-NEG1
	‘The civet cat doesn’t eat anything other than meat.’ (K89: 6.57)

 

The Kambaata canonical comparative construction would be categorised into the common comparative typologies as follows: In Stassen’s typology, it would be labelled a Separative Comparative (1985: 39f), because the standard of comparison is encoded as an adverbial phrase with a separative (‘from’) interpretation. Like most languages employing this comparative construction type (Stassen 1985: 40), Kambaata has SOV constituent order. In Stassen’s less-fine grained WALS typology (2013), the Kambaata comparative construction would be labelled a Locational Comparative, the most common worldwide type. In Dixon’s (2008) typology, the Kambaata comparative construction would be labelled type A1, which subsumes constructions in which the parameter is the head of a copula complement or a verbless clause complement and in which the comparee is encoded as the subject and the standard of comparison as an oblique NP (2008: 789f). In Heine’s (1997: 112) typology, the Kambaata comparative construction follows the Source schema (‘X is Y from Z’). Zelealem & Heine (2003: 56f) claim that the Source Schema is the primary schema of the Ethiopian Linguistic Area but uncommon elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa. Thus Kambaata is a typical Ethiopian language with respect to the encoding of comparison of superiority.

 

3.1.1. Constituent order

 

As seen in (1)-(2) above, the basic constituent order in the comparative construction is

 

Comparee – Standard – Parameter

 

As is expected of a rigidly head-final language, the parameter is always the final constituent of the comparative construction. The order of comparee and standard is, however, pragmatically determined to a certain extent, and examples in which the comparee follows the standard are also attested in my corpus. Interrogative comparative examples are a case in point: in (8), a speech act participant is asked to which entity the parameter of comparison (richness) is applied to a higher degree. By the very nature of being questioned, it is undetermined which one of the two compared entities serves as the comparee or standard. Hence both entities are encoded in coordinated, additive-marked ablative NPs. The subject function is occupied by a question pronoun enquiring about the comparee. The question pronoun is placed in the pre-predicate slot, as is typical of non-clefted interrogative sentences in Kambaata.

 

(Standard + Standard) – Wh-Comparee – Parameter

(8)	{Handis-oochí-i	Duuball-iichí-i}	áy-i-s	abb-á [5]
	PN-mABL-ADD	PN-mABL-ADD	who-mNOM-DEF	big-mACC

 

	duuballáashsh-a-a	y-itán?
	rich-mPRED-mCOP2	say-2sfICO
	‘Who do you think is richer, Handiso or Duuballa? (lit. {From Handiso and from Duuballa,} who is rich, do you say?)’ [DW_Dialogue_2014-12-10]

 

If the sentence focus is on the comparee it occurs in the pre-predicate slot.[6]

 

Standard – Comparee_[Focussed] – Parameter

(9)	{Ba’-is-soontí	ba’-is-íichch}	qophphán-u-kk
	turn_bad-CAUS-2sPFV.REL	turn_bad-CAUS-mABL	lie-mNOM-2sPOSS

 

	ammóo	baas-á	fárr-a-a
	but	much_more-mACC	bad-mPRED-mCOP2
	‘{Compared to (lit. from) the mischief you have done} your lie is much/even worse.’ (K89: 4.45)

 

(10)	{Ben-á	ir-íichch}	Aacaam-é	ír-u-bay
	PN-fGEN	land-mABL	PN-fGEN	land-mNOM-RHET

 

	lét-a-a-nii?
	green-mPRED-mCOP-ADD
	‘{Compared to (lit. from) Bena’s land,} isn’t Aacaame’s land greener?’ [Elicited]

 

The canonical constituent order Comparee – Standard – Parameter is not retained in the attributive comparative construction (see §3.1.4).

 

3.1.2. Higher and lower degree of superiority

 

The comparative construction can be expanded by adverbial modifiers specifying the degree of superiority. The converb form of abbis- ‘exceed’ (11),[7] multiplicative numerals (12) or ACC-marked adjectives in adverbial function, e.g. qah-ú ‘small, a bit’ (13) and baas-á ‘much more’ (9), occur before the parameter.

 

(11)	Mannoom-á	íib-u	{bikk-íichchi-s}	abbíshsh
	body-fGEN	heat-mNOM	norm-mABL-DEF	exceed.3mPCO

 

	abb-ée=da	(...)	móos-i-ta	mal-áa
	be_big-3mPFV.REL=COND		illness-mGEN-fCOP2	sign-fPRED
	‘If the body temperature is much higher (lit. exceedingly high) (…) {than its norm}, it is a sign of an illness.’ (K89: 8.101)

 

(12)	Ziishsh-í	wom-á	umúr-u	{wól-ua-n-s
	bee-mGEN	queen-fGEN	age-mNOM	other-m.OBL-N-DEF

 

	ziishsh-í=hann-íichch}	ont-íta	kod-áta	qeraa’rr-áno
	bee-mGEN=NMZ2-mABL	five-fACC	time-fACC	be_long-3mIPV
	‘The queen bee lives five times longer than the other bees (lit. The age of the queen bee is five times long {from that of the other bees}).’ (K89: 4.27)

 

(13)	Me’-áa	waaliy-íchch-ut	{goon-ch-íichchi-s}	qah-ú<n>ka
	female-fGEN	walia-SG-fNOM	male-SG-mABL-DEF	small-fACC<N>

 

	gabbéem-a-ta
	short-fPRED-fCOP2
	‘The female walia ibex is a bit shorter {than the male (walia ibex)}.’ (K89: 5.40)

 

The adjective abb-á(-ta) ‘big; much’ fulfils various functions in the comparative construction. Firstly, it can express the parameter of comparison as in (14).

 

(14)	Baad-óon-ta-nne	{shomboq-íin	hujat-eennó
	country-mLOC-L-1sPOSS	bamboo_species-mICP	work-3honIPV.REL

 

	huj-éechch}	leem-íin	hujat-eennó	húj-it
	work-fABL	bamboo_species-mICP	work-3honIPV.REL	work-fNOM

 

	ább-a-ta
	big-fPRED-fCOP2
	‘In our country, work with shomboqu-bamboo is more widespread (lit. big, much) {than work with leema-bamboo}.’ (K89: 6.53)

 

Secondly, if modifying the parameter, it marks a higher degree of superiority of the comparee with respect to the standard (15), and thus has the same function as the degree adverbials in (11)-(13).

 

(15)	Qáanc-u	{fuutt-íichch}	abb-á	qáar-a-a-nii
	enset_fibre-mNOM	cotton-mABL	big-mACC	strong-mPRED-mCOP2-ADD

 

	kee’mm-áno-a-nii
	be_heavy-3mIPV.REL-mCOP2-ADD
	‘Enset fibre is much stronger and heavier {than cotton}.’ [Elicited]

 

If fully reduplicated, abb-á ‘big; much’ can express an extra-high degree of superiority (16).

 

(16)	Da’llis-u	{Caakkis-óochch}	abb-á<n>ka	abb-á
	PN-mNOM	PN-mABL	big-mACC<N>	big-mACC

 

	qeráa’rr-u-a
	tall-mPRED-mCOP2
	‘Da’lliso is MUCH taller {than Caakkiso}.’ [DW_Dialogue2014-12-10]

 

Thirdly, abb-á ‘big; much’ makes comparison of superiority possible, if the predicate of the clause is not an adjective, property verb or property ideophone; see the non-property verb qorab- ‘take care’ in (17).

 

(17)	Hadar-áta	{beet-íichch}	abb-á	qoráb-u
	deposit-fACC	son-mABL	big-mACC	take_care-mNOM

 

	has-is-áno
	want-CAUS-3mIPV
	‘One has to take more/better care of the thing/person left in one’s safekeeping {than of one’s son}.’ (K89: 5.48)

 

For the use of abb-á ‘big; much’ with clausal standards see §3.1.3.

 

Kambaata has two inherently comparative adjectives, woyy-á(-ta) ‘better’ (24) and baas-á(-ta) ‘worse, (negative) more’ (19),[8] and two corresponding inchoative-stative verbs woyy- ‘be(come) better’ (18) and baas- ‘be(come) worse, (negative) more’.[9] Even if no standard of comparison is mentioned in the immediate context, these property lexemes imply that two (or more) entities are compared to each other and that the comparee exhibits the parameter encoded by the adjective to a higher (or, depending on the context, to the highest) degree.

 

(18)	Xuujj-oommí=g-iin	át	{esáachch}	abbís-s	woyy-íteent
	see-1sPFV.REL=G-mICP	2sNOM	1sABL	exceed-2sPCO	be_better-2sPRF
	‘I can see (that) you are/have become much better than me.’ (K89: 3.4)

 

(19)	Tíin	báas-a-ta	buxím-a
	P_DEM1.fNOM	worse-fOBL-fCOP2	poverty-fPRED
	‘This is worse/the worst poverty.’ (Possible context: Last year, we were extremely poor, but this year the situation is even worse.) [Elicited]

 

3.1.3. Clausal standards

 

If a whole clause headed by a finite verb expresses the standard, it is nominalised (NMZ2) so that it can carry a case morpheme (20)-(21). Clausal standards are commonly followed by the degree marker abb-á ‘big, much’ (20) or aluud-ú (ACC) (20) / alúud-iin (ICP) ‘above’ (21).[10]

 

(20)	Xáph-u-s	{has-is-anó=hann-íichch}
	root-mNOM-DEF	want-CAUS-3mIPV.REL=NMZ2-mABL

 

	aluud-ú (or: abb-á)	qeraa’rr-ée=da (…)
	above-mACC [~ big-mACC]	become_long-3mPFV.REL=COND
	‘If the roots grow longer {than desired (lit. it makes want)}, (…).’ (K89: 8.9)

 

(21)	Gajáajj-u-s	{has-is-anó=hann-íichch}	alúud-iin
	reason-fNOM-DEF	want-CAUS-3mIPV.REL=NMZ2-mABL	above-mICP

 

	hígg [11]	shamm-ó=tannéehaa-t
	pass.3mPCO	rot-3mPFV.REL=REAS.VV-COP3
	‘The reason (for these bananas tasting bad) is that they are riper (lit. more rotten) {than desired (lit. it makes want)}.’ [TH_Tä2003-09-05]

 

If the clause is headed by a verbal noun, which retains the argument structure of a verb but inflects like a noun (Treis 2012), no additional nominalisation is necessary. In (22), verbal nouns are used as heads of the standard and the comparee NP.

 

(22)	{Beeh-íichch}	méxxin	ít-u	wóyy-a-a
	share-mABL	alone	eat-mNOM	better-mPRED-mCOP2
	‘Eating alone is better {than sharing}.’ [Elicited]

 

3.1.4. Attributive comparative construction

 

Apart from the predicative comparative construction, Kambaata also has an attributive comparative construction (23). Here all components of the comparative construction are found inside one NP. The comparee is the head of the NP, which can occupy any syntactic function in the clause. It is modified by a phrase containing the parameter preceded by the ablative-marked standard. Adjectival parameters agree with the comparee in case and gender (23-i); verbal parameters[12] show gender and person agreement and need to be relativised (23-ii). If the relative verb expressing the parameter is negative, it also agrees in case (and, again, in gender) with the head;[13] this additional agreement morpheme occurs in round brackets in (23-ii).

 

(23) Attributive comparative construction

 

The attributive comparative construction is exemplified in (24)-(26). In (24), two coordinated comparee nouns (‘metal and stone’) are modified by an adjective, expressing the parameter (‘better’), which itself governs the adjunct expressing the standard of comparison (‘from/than wood’) (cf. (23-i)). The comparee nouns in (24) are marked for the nominative case because they function as the subject of dagámmee ‘(3m) is found’.

 

(24)	(...)	[[{haqq-íichch}	wóyy-u]modifier	birát-uhu-u	kín-uhu-u]np
		wood-mABL	better-mNOM	metal-mNOM-ADD	stone-mNOM-ADD

 

	dag-ámm-ee=tannée (…)
	find-PASS-3mPVE.REL=REAS
	‘(…) because metal and stone (which are) better (i.e. more useful) {than wood} are found (…).’ (K89: 4.74)

 

In (25), the noun expressing the comparee (‘poem’) is the object of xáaf ‘Write!’ and requires the accusative case in this function. The preceding modifier phrase contains a negative relative verb expressing the parameter of comparison, which itself governs the standard noun phrase (‘from/than ten lines’) as an adjunct.

 

(25)	(...)	[[{tordúm-a	maar-íichch	kot-tumb-úta]modifier	qexeeshsh-áta]np
		ten-mOBL	line-mABL	be_small-3fNREL-fACC	poem-fACC

 

	xáaf
	write.2sIMP
	‘(…) write a poem (which is) not shorter {than ten lines}.’ (K89: 5.35)

 

The attributive comparative construction becomes fairly complex when the standard of comparison in the modifier phrase is again modified. In (26), the standard taméech ‘from/than the use’ is preceded by the genitive noun daabb-ó ‘of bread’, which is itself modified by two coordinated genitive nouns (‘of wheat and oats’) and a relative clause (‘which is very common in Ethiopia’).

 

(26)	[[{Tophph-é	aaz-éen	abbís-s	lall-ítee
	Ethiopia-fGEN	inside-mLOC	exceed-3fPCO	occur-3fPRF.REL

 

	alas-í-na	gardaam-í	daabb-ó	tam-éechch}
	wheat-mGEN-CRD	oat-mGEN	bread-fGEN	use-fABL

 

	[kot-túmb-ut]PARAMETER]modifier	tám-it]np	yóo-se
	be_small-3fNREL-fNOM	use-fNOM	COP1.3-3fO
	‘It (= food made from enset) has a use (i.e. benefit) that is no less important {than the use of wheat and oat bread which is very common in Ethiopia}.’ (K89: 5.55)

 

3.2. Comparison of absolute superiority

 

For the expression of absolute superiority (superlativity), we find two different superlative constructions in Kambaata. One has an ablative-marked universal quantifier as the standard of comparison; the other has a locative standard of comparison. Most commonly, the standard phrase precedes the comparee phrase. The English paraphrases are as follows:

 

(27)  (i) Ablative superlative construction: ‘From all (X), A is good.’
         (ii) Locative superlative construction: ‘Among X, A is good.’[14]

 

These constructions are considered semantically equivalent by native speakers; they may, however, have pragmatic differences that remain to be explored.

 

3.2.1. Ablative superlative construction

 

The ablative superlative construction is built on the model of that expressing relative superiority (see §3.1); the only difference concerns the choice of the standard of comparison, which is either the universal quantifier horá ‘all’ (28a) or a numeral quantifier (28b) that specifies the number of members in the set with which the comparee is compared. The individual standard of comparison of the comparative construction is replaced by a standard denoting the entire set of possible individuals in the superlative construction.

 

(28)	a.	{Hor-íichchi-n}	gabbánch-u-s	áy-ee-t?
		all-mABL-N	short-mNOM-DEF	who-mNOM.VV-COP3
		‘Who is the shortest? (lit. {From all,} the short (one) is who?)’ (K89: 2.79)

 

	b.	Agánn-u	{sas-íichchi-ssa-n}	gabbánch-u-a
		PN-mNOM	three-mABL-3pPOSS-N	short-mPRED-mCOP2
		‘Aganno is the shortest of the three of them (lit. short {from the three of them}).’ (K89: 2.79)

 

The quantifier can also be used as a modifier in the standard phrase, as in (29) where the head of the standard phrase is the nominalising enclitic =r ‘ones, thing(s)’.

 

(29)	{Hór-aa=r-íichchi-n}	abbíshsh
	all-mOBL=NMZp-mABL-N	exceed.3mPCO

 

	kichche’-ishsh-o-’ée-hu	m-á	agújj-ee-he?
	be_sad-CAUS-3mPFV-1sO.REL-mNOM	what-mACC	seem-3mPRF-2sO
	‘Which incidence do you think has made me saddest? (lit. {From all things,} the one that has made me very sad seems (to be) what to you?)’ (K89: 6.124)

 

A morpheme -n of a yet undetermined pragmatic function – and hence just glossed “N” – is obligatorily added phrase-finally after the ablative morpheme of the standard NP in the superlative construction; cf. (28)-(29). While this -n-morpheme is also found in other contexts,[15] it is to be noted that the standard in the comparative construction of relative superiority (§3.1) is not combined with this morpheme except in the following grammatically determined context: If the standard of comparison contains a disjunction, the conjunct preceding íkko obligatorily co-occurs with the -n-morpheme (30). Note, however, that the connector íkko triggers the occurrence of -n in all contexts, i.e. even outside of the comparative construction. More work is still required on the functional range of ‑n, which is simply labelled an “emphasis marker” by Schneider-Blum (2007) in Alaaba, Kambaata’s closest relative.

 

(30)	(…)	{lokk-áachchi-n	íkko	gammaam-íichch}	ább-at	tám-it
		foot-fABL-N	or	equine-mABL	big-fNOM	use-fNOM

 

	yóo-s
	COP1.3-3mO
	‘(They) are of better use {than feet or equines} (...).’ (K89: 5.55)

 

Kambaata’s primary superlative construction, in which the standard is expressed by a universal quantifier, belongs to the cross-linguistically most widespread Type A (Absolute Comparison Superlatives) in Gorshenin’s typology (2012: 83).

 

3.2.2. Locative superlative construction

 

Whereas the ablative superlative construction (§3.2.1) is widely attested in my corpus, the locative type is less common. Two instances are attested in a mock dialogue, on the basis of which I was able to elicit several additional examples; two other examples were overheard, and one example was found in a local publication. The ablative superlative construction (§3.2.1) can be considered a sub-type of the comparative construction (§3.1). In contrast, the locative superlative construction is not directly formally related to the comparative. Instead, it is a simple positive construction, i.e. non-comparative qualifying construction, extended by a locative adjunct. The locative standard qophphan-áan ‘among lies’ in (31) refers to the totality of lies from which the comparee, isé=bíi ‘hers (i.e. her lie)’, is singled out and to which it is compared. Another superlative construction with a locative standard is given in (32). The ablative and locative superlative types do not only differ with respect to the case marking on the standard NP but the locative type also lacks a universal or numeral quantifier.

 

(31)	{Qophphan-áan}	isé=bíi	baas-á
	lie-mLOC	3fGEN=NMZ1b.mNOM	much_more-mACC

 

	fárr-a-a!	Hatt-íta	ám-a-’	re-tée
	bad-mPRED-mCOP2	how-fACC	mother-fNOM-1sPOSS	die-3fPRF

 

	y-ít	qophphan-táa-la?
	say-3fPCO	lie-3fIPV-MIT
	‘Her lie is the worst ever (lit. {among lies}, hers is very bad)! How dare she say that her mother has died (lit. How dare she lie, saying: ‘My mother has died.’)?’ [DW_Simulation Market Dialogue_2014-12-24]

 

(32)	Āā	xúujj-eemm,	{min-éen}	isí=bii	qeráa’rr-u-a.
	yes	see-1sPRF	house-mLOC	3sGEN=NMZ1b.mNOM	tall-mPRED-mCOP2

 

	Tadáa	iill-án	qax-ée	isí=g-a	shool-ú
	now	reach-3mICO	extent-fDAT	3mGEN=G-mACC/OBL	four-mACC

 

	fooq-á	minn-ee’íi	áy	yóo’?
	floor-mACC	build-3mPRF.REL.NMZ1a.mNOM	who.mNOM	COP1.3
	(Preceding question by dialogue partner: Have you seen the house that Degefu built?) ‘Yes, I have seen it, it’s the tallest house (lit. {among houses,} it is tall). Who has ever built (a house with) four floors like he (has done)?’ [DW_Simulation Market Dialogue_2014-12-24]

 

A native speaker confirmed that qophphanáan ‘among lies’ (31) and minéen ‘among houses’ (32) could be replaced by ablative standards plus a universal quantifier (§3.2.1), i.e. qophphaníichch horíichchin ‘from/than lies’ and miníichch horíichchin ‘from/than all houses’, respectively.

 

Ex. (33) is taken from a local Kambaata publication on oral literature; ex. (34) was overheard.

 

(33)	{Haqq-áan}	fárr-u	m-áha-a-n?	Undulúmm-a-a
	wood-mLOC	bad-mNOM	what-mPRED-mCOP2-Q	mortar-mPRED-mCOP2
	‘What is the worst wood(en thing) (lit. Among wood, the bad is what?) – The mortar.’ (Geetaahun 2002: 152)

 

(34)	{Haqq-áan}	fárr-u	tontóon-a-a,
	wood-mLOC	bad-mNOM	plant_species-mNOM-mCOP2

 

	{cii’-áan}	fárr-u	hagás-oo-t,
	birds-fLOC	bad-mNOM	wattled_ibis-mNOM.VV-COP3

 

	{mann-áan}	fárr-u	ebál-oo-t
	people-mLOC	bad-mNOM	PN-mPRED.VV-COP3
	(Context: Speaker A mentions the creeper tontoona in a conversation, which makes Speaker B recite a mock poem) ‘The worst tree is the [smelly] tontoona-creeper, the worst bird is the wattled ibis, [and] the worst person is So-and-so.’ [overheard]

 

Unlike the comparative construction (§3.1) and the ablative superlative construction (§3.2.1), the locative superlative construction has a rigid word order. As seen in all attested examples, the standard of comparison always precedes the comparee. Permutations tests have shown that the superlative interpretation is lost if the order of standard and comparee is reversed (35)-(36).

 

(35)	{Kambaat-í	hegeeg-óon}	Angácc-u	gíd-a-a
	PN-mGEN	area-mLOC	PN-mNOM	cold-mCOP2
	‘Angacca is the coldest area of Kambaata.’ [Speaker judgment: Expression of highest degree] [Elicited]

 

(36)	Angácc-u	{Kambaat-í	hegeeg-óon}	gíd-a-a
	PN-mNOM	PN-mGEN	area-mLOC	cold-mCOP2
	‘Angacca is a cold place in the Kambaata area.’ [Speaker judgement: Not necessarily the coldest place] [Elicited]

 

Kambaata’s secondary superlative construction, in which the scope is expressed in a locative adverbial phrase and marked by a morpheme not used as a standard marker in the comparative construction, belongs to Type S[cope] Superlative of Gorshenin’s (2012: 111f) typology.

 

3.2.3. Attributive superlative construction

 

Kambaata has an attributive superlative construction in which all components of the comparison (comparee, standard and parameter) are found inside one NP. In (37), the comparee kasalá ‘charcoal’ is the direct object of áffeemm ‘I have grabbed (i.e. I have)’. In the comparee NP, of which kasalá is the head, we find a modifier consisting of the adjective danaam-ú ‘good’, expressing the parameter of comparison, and the universal standard hor-íichch-in ‘from all’.

 

(37)	(…)	mát-o	[{hor-íichchi-n}	danaam-ú]modifier	kasal-á]object np
		one-mOBL	all-mABL-N	good-mACC	charcoal-mACC

 

	áff-eemm	y-áyyoo	manch-íin	gambá	y-éemm
	grab-1sPRF	say-3mPROG.REL	man.SG-mICP	come_across.IDEO	say-1sPFV
	‘(…) I came across a man who claimed: “I have the best charcoal (lit. I have grabbed {from all} good charcoal)”.’ [DW_Simulation Market Dialogue_2014-12-24]

 

Adjectives can be used as heads of NPs without being nominalised, as the use of fayy-á ‘healthy’ in (38) illustrates. The referent with the quality expressed by the adjective is determined by the (extra-)linguistic context.

 

(38)	Fayy-á	aaqq-itéent
	healthy-mACC	take-2sPRF
	‘You took the healthy one (understood from the context: healthy child).’ [TH_2003-05-28]

 

Hence, we also find examples in which the comparee of an attributive superlative construction is retrievable from the context and thus omitted. In (39), the adjective kee’mmáashsh-u ‘(the) heavy (ones)’ has become the head of the NP from which the comparee was dropped.

 

(39)	[{Ka’llixx-íichch	hor-íichchi-n}	kee’mmáashsh-uPARAMETER]	ÆCOMPAREE
	accident-mABL	all-mABL-N	heavy-mNOM

 

	makíin-i-a	ka’llíxx-a
	car-mGEN-mCOP2	accident-mPRED
	‘The most dangerous accidents are car accidents (lit. {From all accidents,} the heavy (ones) are car accidents).’ (K89: 4.106)

 

Attributive superlative examples with a locative standard NP (§3.2.2) are not (yet) attested in recorded or written data. Elicitation confirmed, however, that they are possible (40).

 

(40)	{Woqq-áan}	orc-áam-u	woqq-óo	Duuráam-e-a
	road-mLOC	mud-AAM-mNOM	road-mNOM	PN-fGEN-mCOP2
	‘The muddiest road is the Durame one (lit. {Among roads,} the muddy one is the one of Durame).’ [Elicited]

 

3.3. Comparison of inferiority

 

Kambaata does not have a grammaticalised or conventionalised comparative construction of inferiority. In order to express that someone has a quality to a lesser degree than somebody else, periphrases with the inchoative-state verb kot- ‘be(come) not enough, less, insufficient, small, decrease’ are possible but rarely attested in my database (41).

 

(41)	Handis-ó	dúub-u	{hiz-ee-sí=hann-íichch}
	PN-mGEN	wealth-mNOM	brother-mGEN-3mPOSS=NMZ2-mABL

 

	qah-ú<n>ka	kot-áno
	small-mACC<N>	be_small-3mIPV
	‘Handiso’s wealth is a little less {than his brother’s} (i.e. Handiso is a little less rich than his brother).’ (K89: 3.17)

 

Instead, inferiority is expressed by negative equative constructions (§5) (42)-(43).

 

(42)	Hór-a-ni-i!	Haláab-u	Hoosaan-í	qax-á	qee’rr-áno-ba’a
	all-mOBL-L-ADD	PN-mNOM	PN-mGEN	extent-mACC	be_far-3mIPV-NEG1
	‘Not at all! Alaaba is not as distant as Hosaina.’ [Intended translation target: ‘… Alaaba is less distant than Hosaina.’] [Elicited]

 

(43)	Is-óoni-n	béet-u-ssa	y-eennó	qax-á
	3m-mLOC-N	child-mNOM-3pPOSS	say-3mIPV.REL	extent-mACC

 

	kaa’ll-im-bá-ssa
	help-3mNIPV-NEG1-3pO
	(Context: Now the couple is old, and they cannot cultivate their land any longer.) ‘On top of that, their son doesn’t help them as much as expected (lit. as much as one says).’ [Intended translation target: ‘… their son helps them less than expected.’] [Elicited]

 

4. Comparison of similarity

 

A similative construction is a type of comparison construction expressing equal manner or quality between a comparee and a standard of comparison (Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998, Fuchs 2014). Kambaata marks the standard of similative comparison by an enclitic multifunctional morpheme =g (gloss: G); the standard is a genitive modifier to =g (44).

 

(44)	Án	{qurxummeem-á=g-a}	waachch-ú	dand-eemmí=da
	1sNOM	fish-fGEN=G-mACC/OBL	swim-mACC	be_able-1sPFV.REL=COND

 

	m-á	ih-áno
	what-mACC	be-3mIPV
	(Wish) ‘If only I could swim {like a fish}!’ (lit. ‘What would be if I was able to swim like a fish?’) [TD2016-02-11_001]

 

The standard phrase is an adverbial modifier to the predicate. It consists minimally of a genitive noun plus =g; the enclitic is itself case-marked; see -a ACC/OBL in (44). The double case-marking in the standard phrase – once on the semantic head, once on the standard marker =g – points to a nominal origin of the enclitic. The standard marker =g is in fact a manner nominaliser. Before proceeding with the analysis of the similative construction (§4.4), information on the historically primary function of =g as a manner nominaliser is provided in §§4.1-4.3. Treis (2017b) gives a more detailed account of the multifunctionality of =g, which is used, among others, as a marker of complement clauses (85), purpose clauses and temporal clauses of immediate anteriority (‘as soon as’).

 

4.1. The morphology of the manner nominaliser =g

 

The morpheme =g belongs to a group of enclitic nominalisers including =b ‘place’ (45), =bii(‑ta) NMZ1b ‘one (m/f)’ (31)-(32), =hann NMZ2 ‘one (m)’ (2), =tann NMZ2 ‘one (f)’ and =r NMZp ‘thing(s), ones’ (7), (29), all of which are of (pro)nominal origin and take modifier phrases, i.e. genitive (pro)nouns, inflected adjectives and relative clauses rather than roots or stems as their input.[16]

 

(45)	lal-í=b-a	‘(the) place of (the) cattle, (the) cattle-place’
	cattle-mGEN=PLACE-mACC
(46)	lal-í=g-a	‘(the) manner of (the) cattle,
	cattle-mGEN=G-mACC/OBL	the cattle’s way of doing things’

 

The case marker following the nominalisers is not fixed but dependent on the syntactic function and the semantic role of the phrase in the clause, e.g. the ACC/OBL-marking -a on the standard phrase in the similative construction in (44) is due to its adverbial function. The morpheme =g is inherently masculine (see the gloss of the case/gender portmanteau suffix with which it combines) and inflects almost like a full noun (Table 3).

 

Table 3. Case paradigm of =g compared to that of masculine full nouns

 

The case paradigms of =g and the noun dum-á ‘back room’, a masculine noun of the ‑á-declension, are almost identical.[17] The =g-morpheme only lacks a difference between the accusative and oblique case (the syncretic form is glossed ACC/OBL), which is a type of syncretism not attested for any other nominal declension.[18] While the vast majority of masculine nouns distinguish between eight cases, the =g-morpheme distinguishes only between seven. Another small difference concerns the genitive form, which is a long ‑íi for the manner morpheme but a short ‑í for nouns of the ‑á-declension. The equal sign indicates that the enclitic =g is phonologically and syntactically dependent on a host. It is stressless in certain cases and can never be used in isolation.

 

4.2. The manner nominalising function of =g

 

The =g-morpheme is attached to any type of modifier phrase and generates nominalised phrases that are translatable as ‘manner/way of [(pro)noun]’ (47), ‘[adjective] manner/way’ (48)-(49), or ‘manner/way that [relative clause]’ (50). The resulting manner phrases can assume any syntactic function and any semantic role in the clause. Ex. (47) contains two manner-nominalised phrases, the subject noun phrase Sabir-ó=g-u ‘Sabiro’s way’ and the ablative-marked adverbial noun phrase Shaameeb-í=gíichch ‘from/than Shaameebo’s way’.

 

(47)	{Shaameeb-í=g-íichch}	{Sabir-ó=g-u}	wóyy-a-a
	PN-mGEN=G-mABL	PN-mGEN=G-mNOM	better-mPRED-mCOP2
	‘Shaameebo’s way (of doing things) is better than Sabiro’s way (lit. {From Sabiro’s way,} {Shameebo’s way} is better).’ [Elicited]

 

Apart from genitive (pro)nouns, the manner nominaliser takes adjectival phrases as input. Most frequently, =g is used with the adjectives ‘good’, i.e. danáam-o=g(g)-a ‘well, in a good way’ (49), and ‘bad’, i.e. fárr-a=g(g)-a (48) and híil-a=g(g)-a ‘badly, in a bad way’. Apart from these three adjectives, =g is attested in 14 other adjectives in the Kambaata schoolbooks (K89).

 

(48)	Ku	hegéeg-u	{fárr-a=gg-a}	fooshsheeh-áyyoo’u
	A_DEM1.mNOM	area-mNOM	bad-mOBL=G-mACC/OBL	smell-3mPROG
	‘This area smells {in a bad way/badly}.’ [Elicited]

 

(49)	Ta	huj-íta	hujat-íi	kann-íichch
	A_DEM1.fACC	work-fACC	work-mDAT	P_DEM1m-mABL

 

	{danáam-u=gg-u}	yóo-ba’a
	good-mNOM=G-mNOM	COP1.3-NEG1
	‘There is no better way than this (one) to do the work (lit. There is no {good way} from this (one) to do the work).’ [Elicited]

 

In Kambaata, modifying adjectives always agree with their head noun (Treis 2008: 88-93) – and thus with the manner nominaliser – in case and gender. The oblique case of the adjective in (48) and the nominative case of the adjective in (49) are triggered by the accusative/oblique and the nominative case markers of the enclitic =g, respectively.[19] As seen in (47)-(49), the manner morpheme is realised either as a single =g or a geminate =gg in free variation. The geminate =gg is a frequent variant of =g when the stress falls on the penultimate syllable of the host.

 

Finally, the manner nominaliser takes clausal inputs; more precisely, it is added to modifying (relative) clauses. The nominalised entity is used in object function in (50).

 

(50)	(…)	{mat-íta	zar-án-tee	oddishsh-áta
		one-fACC	tear-PASS-3fPRF.REL	clothes-fACC

 

	gob-baantí=g-a}	kúl
	sew-2sIPV.REL=G-mACC/OBL	tell.2sIMP
	‘Explain (lit. tell) {the way in which you mend torn clothes} (…)!’ (K89: 6.74)

 

4.3. The nominal origin of the manner nominaliser =g

 

Even though =g is no longer used as an independent word, it is very likely that =g goes back to a fully-fledged noun ‘manner, way of doing something’. The original form is, however, unknown. Sidaama, a closely related HEC language, has a noun gara (m.) ‘manner, way of doing something’ (Gasparini 1983: 114, Kawachi forthcoming), whose Kambaata cognate may have served as the source for =g. The nominal origin of =g is reflected in its case-marking potential (Table 3). It can also host morphemes that are found on regular nouns, e.g. the additive morpheme ‘also, too’ (ADD) (51), the interrogative ‑’nnu-morpheme ‘and what about?’, and the pragmatically determined -n-morpheme (N) (59).

 

(51)	(…)	{bun-á	kaas-sáa=g-á-a
		coffee-mACC	plant-3fIPV.REL=G-mACC/OBL-ADD

 

	qorab-báa=g-á-a}	caakk-is-anó	raappoor-á
	keep-3fIPV.REL=G-mACC/OBL-ADD	light-CAUS-3mIPV.REL	report-mACC

 

	hínc	á’
	bring_closer.IDEO	do.2sIMP
	‘Bring a report (to class) which explains {how/the way in which they plant coffee (plants) and how/the way in which they look after (them)}.’ (K89: 8.99)

 

The position of the copula in non-verbal clauses provides further evidence for the nominal origin and status of =g. In (52), the manner nominalisation (in curly brackets) is the predicate; the headless, nominative-marked relative clause is the subject. The masculine gender allomorph of the non-locative copula -a (mCOP2) is triggered by the masculine gender of =g.

 

(52)	Gens-á	haww-ishsh-óo-hu	{daddaabb-íta
	PN-mACC	problem-CAUS-3mPFV.REL.NMZ1a-mNOM	letter-fACC

 

	soh-éenno-a=g-a}
	send-3honIPV.REL-mCOP2=G-mPRED
	‘What troubles Gensa is {the way that one sends a letter} (i.e. Gensa does not know how to send a letter).’ (K89: 2.109)

 

According to a general syntactic rule in Kambaata, the non-locative copula (COP2) is found after derivational and inflectional morphemes towards the end[20] of the predicate if the predicate consists of a single morphological nominal word. It shifts to the preceding word if the predicate is modified by a genitive noun, adjective, numeral or relative clause (Treis 2008: 414f). In (49), the copula is found predicate-medially, in other words, on the relative modifier – which is evidence that the manner nominalisation is still considered a multi-word noun phrase consisting of a modifier and a head noun rather than a single morphological word.

 

4.4. Predicative similative construction

 

Returning to the similative construction, this section discusses how comparee and standard of comparison are marked morphologically and which syntactic functions they can assume. The focus here is on the predicative construction with a phrasal standard of comparison (53). See §4.5 for the attributive construction and §4.6 for the predicative construction with a clausal standard of comparison.

 

(53) Predicative similative construction

 

(54)	{Adan-ch-ó=g-a}	gá’l-a	agg-óomm
	cats-SG-mGEN=G-mACC/OBL	shard-mOBL	drink-1sPFV
	‘I drank from a shard {like a cat}.’ [TH_Proverbs2003]

 

(55)	{Xabar-í=g-a}	bínn	y-í
	ashes-mGEN=G-mACC/OBL	disperse.IDEO	say-2sIMP
	(Curse) ‘May you be dispersed {like ashes}!’ [AN2016-02-19_002]

 

The standard of comparison is an adverbial phrase to the predicate. The standard marker =g is always followed by an ACC/OBL case morpheme in the similative construction, not only in (54)-(55) but in all the examples in my corpus. Whereas the syntactic function of the standard of comparison is set, the comparee occurs in different syntactic functions. In (54)-(55) the comparee is the subject of the clause and as such it is marked by subject agreement on the verb; see 1s in (54) and 2s in (55). In contrast, the comparee ha’mmichchús ‘enset corm’ functions as the direct object in (56): ‘One boils the enset corm like (one boils) potatoes’. But not: *‘One boils the enset corm like potatoes (boil the enset corm)’.

 

(56)	Ha’mm-ichch-ú-s	{danekk-á=g-a}	gaf-éen
	enset_corms-SG-mACC-DEF	potato-fGEN=G-mACC/OBL	boil-3honPCO

 

	it-eemmá=da	godab-íi	iitt-am-áno-a
	eat-3honPFV.REL=COND	belly-mDAT	love-PASS-3mIPV.REL-mCOP2
	‘It is good for the belly if one boils the enset corm {like potatoes} and eats it.’ (K89: 5.28)

 

In (57), the comparee is the unexpressed indirect object of aass- ‘give’, namely the children understood from the context. If they had been expressed overtly, they would have been encoded in the dative case. In (58), two possessors, hair and grass, are in a comparee-standard relation.

 

(57)	(…)	zabb-ú	áass-u	has-is-anóo
		medicine-mACC	give-mNOM	want-CAUS-3mIPV.REL.NMZ1a.mNOM

 

	{géex-aa	manní=g-aa-n-t}
	adult-mOBL	people-mGEN=G-mACC/OBL.VV-N-COP3
	‘(…) it is {like (to) adults} that one has to give medicine (to the children).’ (K89: 8.130)

 

(58)	Muumm-íi	hix-é=g-a	xáph-u	yóo-s
	hair-mDAT	grass-fGEN=G-mACC	root-mNOM	COP1.3-3mO
	‘The hair has roots like grass (lit. There are roots to the hair like (to) the grass).’ (K89: 2.34)

 

The comparee, plaaneet-áan ‘on the planet’, is a locative adverbial in (59).

 

(59)	(…)	qakkíchch-u	láah-u	he’-anó	plaaneet-áan
		small-mNOM	prince-mNOM	live-3mIPV.REL	planet-mLOC

 

	{wól-o	plaaneet-í=g-a<n>ka}	danáam-u=rr-u-u
	other-mOBL	planet-mGEN=G-mACC<N>	good-mNOM=NMZp-mNOM-ADD

 

	fárr-u=rr-u-u	mut-áno-a
	bad-mNOM=NMZp-mNOM-ADD	sprout-3mIPV.REL-mCOP2
	(…) on the planet where the little prince lived there grew good ones (= plants) and bad ones (= plants) {as on other planets}. (QL 2018)

 

The comparee can also be a temporal adverbial. Example (60) does not compare the similarity in manner of two entities with respect to a predicate but the similarity of a situation or an event at two different points in time, i.e. this year and last year.

 

(60)	Aní-i	kazammáan-u	wóyy-a-a.
	1sNOM-ADD	this_year-mOBL	better-mPRED-mCOP2

 

	{Nur-é=g-a}	xíd-at	haww-is-sim-ba-’e
	last_year-mGEN=G-mACC/OBL	pain-fNOM	problem-CAUS-3fNIPV-NEG1-1sO
	‘Me, too, I am better this year. Pain doesn’t trouble me (as badly) {as last year}.’ (K89: 4.125)

 

To summarise, the invariably ACC/OBL-marked standard phrase gives no indication about which other explicit or implicit noun phrase in the clause is the comparee for which it serves as the standard of comparison.

 

By definition, similative constructions express sameness of manner (Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998: 278), whereby manner needs to be understood in a broader sense, i.e. not merely as the techniques, the instruments and the means that are applied and the type of movements (motor patterns) that are carried out. For example, in (54), the compared entities share the same instrument (a shard), and probably also the same technique (licking) and body posture for drinking. In (56), the compared entities share the same means of preparation, namely boiling water. Sameness of manner could also mean that the actions are carried out at the same rate (57) or that the disposition, the attitude or other psychological, social and physical conditions are shared by the compared entities. One can, therefore, argue that the morpheme =g in its function as standard marker in constructions expressing comparison of similarity, as illustrated in the examples in this section, has undergone semantic extension. While =g is a nominaliser of manner in the narrow sense of the word (techniques, instruments, means, types of movement) in the non-comparison examples in §4.2, the manner encoded by =g in similative constructions embraces the broader sense of the word. The comparee and the standard of comparison may, for instance, have similar properties and possess the same attributes, e.g. in (58) and (59) and they may have a similar shape, habits, needs, intentions, etc. A narrow manner interpretation is often not possible in similative constructions. In (61), the respect in which comparee and standard are similar is left completely open to interpretation. They could, for instance, carry out an action in the same way, to the same extent, with the same goal, or just share a certain physical, psychological, or social quality.

 

(61)	Aní-i	kíi-haa=g-a<n>ka
	1sNOM-ADD	2sGEN-mCOP2=G-mPRED<N>
	‘Me, too, I do/am like you.’ [Elicited]

 

4.5. Attributive similative construction

 

All elements of a similative construction may be found in one noun phrase (62).

 

(62) Attributive similative construction

 

In the attributive construction, ‘an X which V-s like a Y’, the comparee serves as the head of the noun phrase, see beet-ú ‘son’ in (63), and the standard of comparison, marked by =g, is expressed in a relative clause modifying the head noun.

 

(63)	[{Is-í=g-a}	xeleel-ámm-ee]MODIFIER	beet-úCOMPAREE
	3mGEN=G-mACC/OBL	curse-PASS-3mPRF.REL	son-mACC

 

magan-uhú-u

aass-ún-ka