Gueleaya's Non-Verbal Predications From A Typo Logical Perspective

GUELEAYA’S NON-VERBAL PREDICATIONS
FROM A TYPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
KAMAL BAGHOUR
‫كمــــال بغــــور‬
2
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST MERCIFUL, THE MOST GRACIOUS

GRACIOUS
THESIS TITLE:
GUELEAYA’S NON-VERBAL PREDICATIONS

FROM A TYPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
STUDENT NAME: KAMAL BAGHOUR

DATE OF BIRTH: 27 SEPTEMBER 1977
PLACE OF BIRTH: NADOR, MOROCCO
STUDENT NUMBER: 9968695
SUPERVISOR: PROF.DR. P.C. (KEES) HENGEVELD

SECOND READER: DR. U. ANSALDO
TITLE OF DIPLOMA/DEGREE: MASTER OF ARTS IN GENERAL LINGUISTICS

DATE OF AWARD: DECEMBER 15, 2006
UNIVERSITY ADDRESS: UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
SPUISTRAAT 210
1012 VT AMSTERDAM
THE NETHERLANDS
0031 (0)20 525 3862
3
Table of contents
Abbreviations 5
1. Introduction 6
1.1. Gueleaya linguistic profile 7

Figure. 1 The Berber language family tree 7
Map. Areal diffusion of Gueleaya variety in the province of Nador 8
1.2. Gueleaya basic syntax 9
2. Parts of speech system followed by non-verbal predicates in Gueleaya 14
2.1. Parts-of-speech system 14

2.2. Non-verbal predicate types 15
2.2.1. Equative predications set 15
2.2.2. Ascriptive predications set 18
3. Gueleaya in Hengeveld’s (1992) typological profile 21
3.1. Parts of Speech hierarchy 21

3.2. Non-verbal predication hierarchies 22
3.2.1. Predicate hierarchy 1A: (130) 22
3.2.2. Predicate hierarchy 1B 23
3.2.3. Predicate hierarchy 2: Equative predications 24
3.2.4. Predication hierarchy (145a-150) 24
3.2.4.1. Predication hierarchy-Ascriptive predications (145b) 25
3.2.5. Deixis hierarchy 26
3.2.6. Quantification hierarchy 27
3.2.7. Non-presentative predication types 28
3.2.8. Predicativity hierarchy 28
3.2.9. Predication hierarchy 29
3.2.10. Predicate hierarchy 1A: Ascriptive predications 30
3.2.11. Positional verbs and localizing copulas 30
3.2.12. Pronominal copulas hierarchy 30
Figure 2. Sketch: expression formats in Gueleaya 31
4. Gueleaya in Wetzer’s (1996) typological profile 32
4.1. Adjectival encoding in language: Nouniness and verbiness 32

4.1.1. “Nouny” and “verby” adjectivals 32
4.2. Nouniness and verbiness in type-A and type-B languages 35
4.3. Nouny adjectivals in type-A languages 37
4.3.1. Criteria for nouniness 37
4.3.1.1. Person marking 38
4.3.1.2. The use of an overt copula in adjectival and nominal predicates 38
4.3.1.3. Zero marking 38
4.3.2. Optional use of an overt copula with adjectivals and nouns 38
4.3.2.1. A deviant pattern: syntactic dissimilarity between 38
4
4.4. Verby adjectivals in type-A languages 39
4.4.1. Criteria for verbiness 39

4.4.1.1. Person marking in adjectival and verbal predicates 39
4.4.1.1.2. The general pattern: adjectivals and intransitive-

verbs take the same person markers 39
4.4.1.2. Zero marking in adjectival and verbal predicates 39
4.5. The tense Hypothesis 40
4.5.1. Tensedness parameter 41
4.5.2. The Tensedness Universals 41
4.5.3. The Tensedness Universals (revised version) 42

4.6. Mixed languages: Split-adjective languages 42
5. Discussion 47
5.1. Discussion 47
5.2. Gueleaya is a semi-split-adjective language 49
5.3. Documented cases of double-copula in Gueleaya 49
5.4. Multi-functionality of the posture verb ‘qqim’ 50
5.5. Multi-functionality of presentational particle ‘aqa’ 51
6. Conclusion 53
References 55
5
Abbreviations
1st first person

2nd second person
3rd third person
ADJ adjective
AOR aorist
AUX auxiliary
ADV adverb
COP copula
DECL declarative
DEF definite
DEM demonstrative
DET determiner
DIST distal
EMP Emphatic
EXI existential
F feminine
FUT future
IMP imperative
IMPF imperfective
IND indicative
INTENS intensifying
LOC locative
M masculine
N Neuter
NO noun
NEG negative
NPI negative polarity item(s)
P person
PART Participle
PAST past
PERF perfective
PL plural
POSS possessive
PRE presentational particle
PRES present
PRES.PERF present perfect
PRET preterite
PROG progressive
PROX proximate
REL relative
RNM relational prefix
SG singular
V verb
* ungrammatical
6
Introduction
This typological study of non-verbal predications in Gueleaya is predominantly based on
Hengeveld’s functional approach of non-verbal predication. Structurally, Hengeveld’s
framework of non-verbal predication reflects the following general format.
Argument(s) (copula) Predicate

-V
In non-verbal predication, the main predicate assumes only non-verbal assets, while
copula, in contrast, can have pronominal, verbal and/or existential properties. By
applying Hengeveld’s both parts of speech and non-verbal predications hierarchies on the
one hand, and Wetzer’s property concept words continuum hypotheses and Holton’s two
based measure of pragmatic status (activation state and identifiability) on the other to
Gueleaya (an Afro-Asiatic language) non-verbal predications, patterns of variation in the
copula system of this Berber dialect eventually emerged from the finding. Therefore, the
main objective of this study is to investigate patterns of variation inherent in the copula
system of Gueleaya in the light of different non-verbal predications. Structurally, this
paper is methodically divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 is a broad outline of Gueleaya
basic syntax. Chapter 2 attests the compatibility and/or incompatibility of non-verbal
predicates with both parts-of-speech system and non-verbal predicate types in the light of
Hengeveld’s non-verbal predication account. Chapter 3 attests the applicability of
Hengeveld's parts of speech and non-verbal predication hierarchies to the language under
study. Chapter 4 measures the pertinence of Wetzer’s different V-N continuum
hypotheses on property concept words on the one hand and Holton’s two-based measures
of pragmatic status (activation state and identifiability) to Gueleaya non-verbal
predications on the other. Chapter 5 is a concise synthesis of the main findings in the
preceding chapters of this paper.
7
1.1. Gueleaya linguistic profile

Spoken primarily in North Morocco, Gueleaya has actually linguistic affiliation with the
large Berber ‘Thamazight’ (Afro-Asiatic) language family. Ethnically, Berbers, who are a
multi-ethnic Muslim community, dispersed through the country- from the Rif mountain
range in the north to the Atlas mountains, and the desert in the south. Nonetheless,
geography, which is represented mainly in distance, is indeed a contributing factor in
either mutual-intelligibility or unintelligibility of these interrelated languages. That is,
linguistic gaps between Gueleaya, Thashelhit and Thamazight gradually widen out as one
proceeds southward through Morocco and the opposite holds. In Morocco, among the
Berber dialects are Thamazight, Thashelhit and Tharifith, which are said to constitute a
potential dialect continuum. Schematically, the tree diagram below tries to characterize
the relation of the offshoot (Gueleaya) to the ancestor language.
Berber
“Thamazight”
Thamazight Thashelhit Tharifith

-Anti-Atlas-Mountains -High Atlas mountains- - Rif mountains-
Gueleaya- Nador city

and the outskirts.
Figure. 1 The Berber language family tree.
Ethnologically, all contemporary Berber dialects including Gueleaya are, in essence,

orally-based languages, i.e. not-document or written oriented. Nevertheless, by means of
the oral output alone, these verities have stupendously managed to maintain their
existence alongside predominant languages for centuries, and their communal heritage
has been positively transmitted from one generation to the next. Consequently, lack of the
written word has virtually closed the door on the availability of vivid diachronic data on
Gueleaya’s syntax on the one hand. On the other hand, the above phenomenon has also
opened the door on flexible innovations and comparative linguistic speculations on the
part of native speakers and linguists respectively.
After decades of negligence, Morocco has lately turned some attention to the
issue of Berber language. In this regard, Thamazight, Thashelhit and Tharifith are
currently undergoing a large-scale process of codification nationwide, i.e. schools and the
media throughout the kingdom, for instance, have witnessed the introduction of the three
languages into their school curricula and daily broadcasts as well for the first time in
history.
8
Linguistically speaking, Gueleaya is areally surrounded by different languages such as

Kebdana dialect- in the east-, which is spoken namely in Berkane and Beni Yaznassen;
Tharifith, from the west, spoken notably in the city of Al-Hoceima; and lastly, Spanish
(Indo-European)- the official language- in Melilla and in some adjacent Spanish enclaves
in Morocco. Sociolinguistically, the direct language contact of Gueleaya with Moroccan
Arabic on the one hand, and Spanish on the other has naturally engendered many
sociolinguistic phenomena, such as lexical borrowing and code switching, which are
beyond the scope of this study.
Recent demographics posit that more than 195,703 people are active users of Gueleaya at
home and overseas. Abroad, it is the mother tongue of many transmediterranean
Moroccan immigrants, namely in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and France.
In Morocco, the isogloss of this dialect apparently covers the outskirts of Nador-city
including Zegangan, Selouan, Melilla, Beni Sidal, Bou-yafar, etc. Schematically, the
underlined cities on the map underneath roughly refer to the areal-dispersal of this dialect
in the province of Nador.
Map. Areal diffusion of Gueleaya dialect in the province of Nador.

9
1.2. Gueleaya basic syntax

Based on the available data on the syntax of Gueleaya, it stands to reason that two
interchangeable constituent-order patterns, i.e. VO (Pro-drop) and SVO tend to be both
fully-operational in this language. Nevertheless, the null subject construction is the most
commonly used strategy either among people of shared knowledge or for economy
tendencies.
VO (Pro-drop)
(1) Youra thabrat
Write.3rd.M.SG.PAST.PERF letter.F.SG
‘He wrote the letter’
SVO
(2) Ali youra thabrat
Ali write.3rd.M.SG.PAST.PERF letter.F
‘Ali wrote the letter’
As a pro-drop language, the subject of the sentence tends to be inferred from the Person,
Number and Gender [PNG] inflections placed on the main predicate of the sentence.
Person (1st.SG)
(3) Asghigh1 bashakliet
1st.SG.buy.PAST.PERF bicycle.M
‘I bought a bicycle’
Person (1st.PL)
(4) Nasgha ijan bashakliet/ bashaklayat
1st.PL.buy.PAST.PERF one bicycle.M.SG / bicycle.PL
‘We bought a bicycle/ bicycles’
Number (Plural)
(5) Thasghiem bashaklayet
3rd.PL.M-buy.PAST.PERF bicycle.PL.M
‘You bought bicycles’
Number (Singular)
(6) Thasghiem ijan bashakliet
3rd.PL.M-buy.PAST.PERF one bicycle.SG.M
‘You bought a bicycle’
Gender (Masculine)
(7) Yasgha bashekliet
3rd.SG.M-buy.PAST.PERF bicycle
‘He bought a bicycle’
1
To note, words in some examples are sometimes italicized only with the express purpose of
glossing.
10
Gender (Feminine)
(8) Thasgha bashekliet
3rd.SG.F-buy.PAST.PERF bicycle
‘She bought a bicycle’
So far, the focus has been mainly on the mechanisms for encoding PNG grammatical
categories, now it is the turn to consider the internal structure of some sentences.
Conspicuously, a standard transitive sentence in Gueleaya starts mainly with a subject, or
alternatively, a verb inflecting for subject person and number and the object.
1. Subject  Moad
2. Verb  y-asgha
3rd.SG.M-buy.PAST.PERF
3. Object  bashakliet
Bicycle
Subject-verb-object construction
(9) Moad yasgha bashakliet
Moad 3rd.SG.M.buy.PAST.PERF bicycle
‘Moad bought a bicycle’
Verb-object construction
(10) Yasgha bashekliet
3rd.SG.M.buy.PAST.PERF bicycle
‘He bought a bicycle’
From the available data, some property words, which are eligible to function as
intransitive predicates, and thus requiring no copula support are found to quantitatively
outnumber nominal adjectival predicates in the language under study. Morphologically,
on a par with verbs, adjectives are herein also eligible to function as heads of intransitive
predicates, inflecting for Tense Mood and Aspect [TMA] and PNG inflections too. An
example of this case is cited underneath.
Subject-adjectival verb construction

(11) Rqahwa-ya thahma
Coffee.F-PROX 3rd.SG.hot.PERF.F
‘This coffee is hot’
On the other level, on a par with nouns, some property words may alternatively behave
like nouns within an NP compound, or as copula complements inflecting for only gender
and number categories (Dixon 2004:26). To mention, property words are discussed in
more detail in chapter 4. Some further clarification of the nominal adjectival predicate
and NP compound cases are illustrated below.
Subject-nominal adjectival construction

(12) Al-jaw da sammad nhara
DEF-weather.M COP.M cold.M today
11
‘The weather is cold today’
NP modification
In the attributive construction below, the lexical item ‘amaqraan’, which follows the
noun ‘rabhaar’, actually acts as a modifier.
(13) Rabhaar amaqraan

Sea.M big.M.SG
‘The big sea’
As a rule, an adverb of place, manner, time, etc. is commonly found to follow the
modified verb as the example below tries to show.
Verb-adverb
(14) Arahad danita
Come.2nd.SG.IMP LOC
‘Come here!’
In Gueleaya, as well as in English, the prepositional phrase, which consists of the

preposition (di: in) and the object of preposition (ljamiaa: university) consecutively, is
said to follow the verb (aqaagh: I study) it modifies. The next example (15) tries to make
this case somewhat clear.
Verb-locative preposition construction

(15) Aqaagh di ljamiaa
1st.SG.M.study.PRES.IMPF LOC university
‘I study at the university’
The coordinate conjunction walakin is eligible to connect the two independent clauses
[thsaat ino da-jdid and tharraz] into one compound sentence as shown below.
Subject-verb-conjunction construction
(16) Thsaat ino da-jdid walakin tharraz
Watch.F my COP.M-new but 3rd.SG.F.break.PAST.PERF
‘My watch is new but (it is) broken’
On account of the fact that copulas in Gueleaya are essentially non-verbal, it stands to
reason that grammatical categories, including negative forms, are encoded by auxiliaries
instead of copulas. To recap, these non-verbal constituents are limited only to gender and
number marking.
Non-verbal peredications
Present-Progressive-Indicative
(17) Ahmad aqath da `l-ostad
Ahmad AUX.3rd.SG.PRES.PROG.IND.M COP.M the-teacher.M.SG
12
‘Ahmad is being the teacher’
Past-Perfective-Indicative
(18) Ahmad togha(th) da `l-ostad
Ahmad AUX.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.IND.M COP.M the-teacher.M.SG
‘Ahmad was (being) the teacher’ or ‘Ahmad used to be the teacher’
Future-Imperfective-Indicative
(19) Ahmad adyiri da `l-ostad anagh
Ahmad AUX.3rd.SG.FUT.IMP.IND.M COP.M the-teacher.M.SG our
‘Ahmad will be our teacher’
In stark contrast with, for instance, Standard Arabic, Hungarian and Sanumá, whereby the
introduction of verbal copulas on the surface structure of sentences is TMA marked
sensitive, Gueleaya non-verbal copulas surface on equal terms, merely in nominal and
nouny-adjectival predicates, with both marked and unmarked TMA categories. A couple
of examples are included below by way of illustration.
Overt pro-copulas in unmarked cases

Present tense
Nouny-adjectival predicate
(20) Rabhaar da-maqraan
Sea.M COP.M-big.M.SG
‘The sea is big’
Nominal predicate
(21) Ahmad da `l-ostad
Ahmad COP.M the-teacher.M.SG
‘Ahamd is the teacher’
Overt pro-copulas in marked cases
Past tense
(22) Rabhaar togha(th) da-maqraan
Sea.M be-3rd.SG.M COP.M-big.M.SG
‘The sea was/used to be big’
(23) Ahmad togha(th) da `l-ostad
Ahmad be-3rd.SG.M COP.M the-teacher.M.SG
‘Ahmad was/ used to be the teacher’
Future
(24) Ahmad adyiri da `l-ostad
Ahmad will-be COP.M the-teacher.M.SG
‘Ahmad will be the teacher’
In terms of mood, if positive and negative constructions are altogether found to be overtly
combining with non-verbal copulas, stative imperative and negative imperative
(prohibitive) make no exception in this regard. However, negation or double negation
properties are marked by auxiliaries instead of non-verbal copulas. Thus, examples (27)
and (28) are consecutive cases in point.
13
Stative imperative
(25) Erish da aryaz
Be-2nd.SG.M COP.M man.M.SG
‘Be courageous’
Positive construction
(26) Aqa da `lostad anag
EMP.EXI.PRES. 3rd.SG. M COP.M teacher.M.SG our
‘He is being our teacher’
Negative imperative
(27) Watt.iri.sha/bo2 ad magwad
Not.be 2nd.SG.FUT.NPI COP.M coward.M.SG
‘Do not be a coward’
Negative construction
(28) Wa-yadji bo da `l-ostad
Not-be.3rd.SG.M NPI COP.M the-teacher.M.SG
‘He is not a teacher’
In terms of compatibility of non-verbal copulas with parts of speech, exclusive of

nominals, the quantity of nouny-adjectives that is eligible to combine with overt non-
verbal copulas is basically finite. However, verby adjectivals and adverbs, despite being
eligibly predicable, their inconsistency with non-verbal copulas is evident from the
examples (29) and (30) underneath.
Verby adjectival
(29) * Rqahwa-ya da thahma
Coffee.F-PROX COP.F 3rd.SG.hot.PERF.PERF.F
‘This coffee is hot’
Adverbial predicate
(30) * Aqayi da mlih
EXI.1st.SG.PRES.IND.M well
‘I am well’
2
Sha and bo are two negative polarity items.
14
Parts of speech system

followed by non-verbal
predicates in Gueleaya
Introduction
In this chapter, different examples from
Gueleaya are cited in an attempt to attest
the compatibility and/or incompatibility of
Gueleaya’s non-verbal predicates with both
parts-of-speech system and non-verbal
predicate types developed by Hengeveld
(1992).
2.1. Parts-of-speech system

Seemingly, the fact that Gueleaya lexical inventory is inevitably entailing the four
traditional parts-of-speech, i.e. V, N, Adj and Adv, identified respectively by Hengeveld
(1992:63), categorizes it into Specialized type of languages. Unlike Flexible and Rigid
(non-specialized) languages, verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs are herein specialized
lexical categories (Hengeveld 1992:93). That is, a verbal predicate has only a predicative
use, a nominal predicate can be used as a head of a term, an adjectival predicate can be
used as a modifier of a nominal head, and lastly an adverbial predicate can be used as a
modifier of a non-nominal head (Hengeveld 1992: 58). Comparatively, Verbs, Nouns
(heads/obligatory categories), Adjectives and Adverbs (modifier/optional), which have
predicative use, tend to be fully operational. What follows are examples of the types of
predicates in Gueleaya. To begin with:
Verbal predicate
(1) Yaffagh
Leave.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M
‘He left’
Nominal predicate
(2) N`Nador atta-ndint
Nador COP.M a city.F
‘Nador is a city’
Adjectival predicates
Attributive cases
(3) Rabhaar amaqraan (4) Thandint tha-amaqraan-t
Sea.M big.M.SG City.F F-big.SG-F
15
‘The big sea’ ‘The big city’

Predicative cases
(5) Rabhaar da-maqraan (6) Thandint atta maqraan.t
Sea.M COP.M-big.M.SG City.F COP.F big.F.SG
‘The sea is big’ ‘The city is big’
Adverbial predicate
(7) Aqayi mlih
1st.SG.EXI.PRES.IND well
‘I am well’
In sum, on the basis of the examples above, it stands to reason that the four separate
lexical predicate categories-the subject matter of this chapter- are altogether quite
elaborate in Gueleaya. In effect, the linear distribution of the parts of speech on the
hierarchy, developed by Hengeveld (1992:68) for his sample languages, is trivially valid
for the language under consideration.
(70) Verb>Noun>Adjective>Adverb
2.2. Non-verbal predicate types

Ascriptive, equative and existential predications are three predominant classes of
predications that can be distinguished under the term non-verbal predicates proposed by
Hengeveld (1992: 101). Initially, relational and bare predicates are two subtypes of
ascriptive predications, whereas term-predicates, predication-predicates, proposition-
predicates and clause-predicates are altogether the subtypes of equative predications
consecutively.
2.2.1. Equative predications set
Hengeveld’s definition of equative predications is that they are ‘non-verbal predications

based on a predicate which, apart from its predicative use, has some referential non-
predicative use’ Hengeveld 1992:104. According to the same author (1992: 77),
referential predicates, ‘include predicates based on terms, i.e. referring expressions with
a nominal head, and predicates based on larger referential units, i.e. predications,
propositions, and clauses’. Basically, term predicates, which are based on a referential
expression with a nominal head, do convey the semantic relations of identification and
classification.
Identifying predications:
In identifying predications, the term that is used predicatively is basically definite, and
the semantic relation expressed by the non-verbal predication, as a whole, is one of
identification (Hengeveld 1992: 81). The identifying predication underneath is a case in
point.
(8) Natta d`oma

He COP.M. brother.M
16
‘He is my brother’
Classifying predications:
In noticeable contrast to identifying predications, wherein the term is definite, in
classifying predications, the term is otherwise indefinite and the semantic relation is of
classification (Hengeveld 1992: 81). In effect, as stated by the same author (1992: 85),
classificational predications split up into expressions of class membership and of class
inclusion.
(9) Natta di ijo madoukar ino

He COP.M.SG one friend.M.SG mine
‘He is a friend of mine’
Type 1: Identification-Specification: (reversible)

In specificational predications, the argument term and the predicate term, which propose
an alternative specification of the referent set of the argument term (Hengeveld 1992: 82),
are both coextensive, that is, they have the same index or referent set. Qualitatively, the
argument and the predicate are herein possibly reversible (Hengeveld 1992: 86-88).
(10) Al-asima na l-maghreb da-arbaat

The-capital of the-Morocco COP.M.SG-Rabat.M.SG
‘The capital of Morocco is Rabat’
(11) Arbaat da al-asima na’l-maghreb
Rabat COP.M.SG the-capital of the-Morocco
‘Rabat is the capital of Morocco’
Type 2: Identification-Characterization: (irreversible)

In stark contrast to specification predications (reversible), characterization predications
are basically irreversible (Hengeveld 1992:88). In characterization, ‘the members of the
referent set of the argument term are also members of the referent set of the predicate
term’ (Hengeveld 1992: 86). Nonetheless, only one of the several characteristics of the
members of the referent set of the argument term is specified in characterization
predications. Functionally, characterization constructions answer the question (what can
you tell me about someone or something?) Hengeveld (1992: 83).
(12) Bruxel da al-asima an Belgic

Brussels COP.M.SG the-capital of Belgium
‘Brussels is the capital of Belgium’
Note that examples (13), (17) and (21) are ungrammatical under the intended meaning.
(13) * Al-asima an Belgic da Bruxel

The-capital of Belgium COP.M.SG Brussels
‘The capital of Belgium is Brussels’
Type 3: Classification-Specification: (reversible)

(14) Al-jahil ad wani wayasinan-walo
The-ignorant.M COP.M the-one.M NEG-3rd.SG.know.PRES.IMPF-nothing
17
‘The ignorant is the one who knows nothing’

(15) Wani wa-yassinan-walo d-al-jahil
The-one NEG-3rd.SG.M.Know.PRES.IMPF-nothing COP.M. the-ignorant.M.
‘The one who knows nothing is the ignorant’
Type 4: Classification-Specification: (irreversible)

(16) Canari da-ajdid
Canary COP.M.SG a bird.M
‘Canary is a bird’
(17) * Ajdid ad Canari
A bird COP.M.SG canary.M.SG
‘A bird is a canary’
Predication-predicates:
Instantiation-Specification: (reversible)
As defined by Hengeveld (1992: 90), besides being reversible, predications based on
predication-predicates characteristically entail the instantiation of events.
(18) Aryada i-siitaajiban attas ad box

Sport REL-3rd.SG.like.PRES.IMPF.M much COP.M boxing.M
The sport that he prefers much is boxing
(19) Box da-aryada i-sitaajiban attas
Boxing.M COP.M.SG-sport REL-3rd.SG.like.PRES.IMPF.M much
‘Boxing is the sport that he prefers much’
Instantiation-Characterization: (irreversible)
(20) An-natija na-l-mashrou’a togha da-najaah
The-result.F of-DEF-project.F was COP.M-success.M
‘The result of the project was a success’
(21) * An-najaah togha da an-natija na-l-mashrou’a
Success was COP.M the-result.F of-DEF-project.F
‘A success was the result of the project’
Proposition-predicates:
Factuality (reversible)
Predications based on proposition predicates deal mainly with the factuality of
propositional contents (Hengeveld 1992: 90).
(22) As-sabab mayami wa-adyousi-sha togha ad rahrash
The-reason why NEG-3rd.SG.come.PAST.PERF-NPI was COP.M sickness
‘The reason why he did not come was a sickness’
(23) Rahrash togha da as-sabab mayami wa-adyousi-sha
Sickness was COP.M the-reason why NEG-3rd.SG.come.PAST.PERF-NPI
‘A sickness was the reason why he did not come’
18
Clause-predicates:
Interpretation: (reversible)
Predications based on clause predicates deal with the interpretation of speech acts
(Hengeveld 1992: 90).
(24) Min shak assaqssigh togha ad ‘mani ishtogha?’

What you 1st.SG.ask.PAST was COP.M ‘where be-2nd.SG.M.PAST
‘What I asked you was ‘where were you?”
(25) “Mani ish-togha?” ad min shak assaqssigh
Where 2 .SG.M-be.PAST COP.M what you 1st.SG.ask.PAST
nd
‘Where were you?’ was what I asked you.
2.2.2. Ascriptive predications set
As indicated earlier, bare and relational predicates, which ascribe some property to some
entity (Lyons 1977: 148) (Hengeveld 1992: 103), are two subtypes of ascriptive
predications. In this regard, bare ascriptive non-verbal predications ‘are based on a
predicate which, apart from its predicative use, has some non-predicative use’
Hengeveld’s (1992:104).
Bare predicates:
Characteristically, bare predicates bifurcate into two sub-predicates, that is, property
assignment predicate based on an adjectival predicate and status assignment predicate
based on nominal predicate (Hengeveld 1992:76) (Dik: 1980:98/104).
Non-presentative ascriptive predications:

Property assignment predicate based on an adjectival predicate
Non-verbal predications based on bare adjectival predicates encode mainly the semantic
relation of property assignment (Dik 1980: 104).
(26) Rabhaar da-amaqraan

The sea.M COP.M-big.M.SG
Status assignment predicate based on nominal predicate

On the other hand, non-verbal predications based on predicative bare nominal predicates
encode the semantic relation of status assignment (Hengeveld 1992: 76).
(27) Ahmad da mahdaar

Ahmad COP.M.SG student.M.SG
‘Ahmad is a student’
19
Relational predicates:
Based on constructions with a referential use, relational predicates are inherently
prevalent in ascriptive locative predicates and possessive3 predicates (Hengeveld 1992:
74/125). Functionally, the latter are basically found to predicate some concrete property
of the argument term.
Non-presentative locative predications

(28) Mohammed aqa-th di rbiit-anas
Mohammed EXI.PRES-3rd.SG.IND.M in room.M.SG-his
‘Mohammed is in his room’
Non-presentative Possessive predications
(29) Atelefon na Ahmad
Mobile-phone.M of Ahmad
‘The mobile-phone is of Ahmad’ (i.e. the mobile phone is Ahmad’s)
Technically, predicability of the example (29) is detectable by virtue of a lightly audible

stop notably intervening between a falling intonational contour that is placed on the
subject/pronoun/NP and a relative raising intonation placed on the possessive preposition
and the possessor consecutively.
Presentative ascriptive predications:

Intrinsically, presentative constructions (re)-introduce a referent, which might be familiar
or unfamiliar to the addressee, into the discourse (Hengeveld 1992: 119). The example
underneath is an illustration of the above claim from Gueleaya.
Presentative possessive predications

(30) Ijan telefon an-nash
One mobile phone.M.SG of-you
‘A mobile-phone is yours’ (i.e. you have a mobile-phone)
Presentative Localizing predications
Existential predications
As defined by Hengeveld (1992:103), existential non-verbal predications are based on a
predicate, which introduces the referent of the argument term into the discourse by
ascribing existence to it.
(31) Yadja waghroum bra thmadjaht

Exist.3rd.SG.M.PRES bread.M.SG without salt.M
‘Bread without salt exists’
‘There is bread without salt’
Or
(32) Aqa-da yaghroum
EXI.PRES-LOC bread
‘There is bread here’
3
Predicable possessive predicates are framed in this language in the absence of copula.
20
Presentative locative predications

Presentative locative predications, besides (re)-introducing an entity into the discourse,
do also ascribe a concrete location hereto (Hengeveld 1992: 119).
(33) Aqa4-dani aghi di nibira

EXI.PRES-LOC milk in fridge
‘There is milk in the fridge’
Intrinsically, Gueleaya, predicable non-verbal predications characteristically bifurcate

into copular predicable predications and zero-copula predicable predications. In view of
the copular predicable predications, non-verbal copula is a prerequisite for the
predicability of identifying predications, classifying predications and bare predicates,
whereas relational predicates, quantifying predications, by contrast, are predicable
irrespective of copula absence. Distinctively, cases of predicable deictic locative
predicates are evident in either copula or zero-copula constructions.
4
“Aqa” is an invariable presentational particle (PRE) that introduces a (new) topic of discourse, the
equivalent of which, in French, is “voici”.
21
Gueleaya in Hengeveld’s
(1992) typological profile
Introduction
The subject matter of this chapter is to attest
predicability and non-predicability of non-
verbal predications in Gueleaya in the light
of Hengeveld’s typological non-verbal
predication hierarchies (1992). The latter
encompass: part of speech hierarchy, non-
presentative ascriptive predications
hierarchy, predicate 1B, predicate hierarchy
2- Equative predication, Predication
hierarchy ─Ascriptive predications,
predicate 2, deixis hierarchy,
quantificational hierarchy, non-presentative
predication types hierarchy, predicativity
hierarchy, predication hierarchy, predicate
hierarchy 1A- Ascriptive predications,
positional verbs and localizing copulas and
pronominal copulas hierarchy.
3.1. Parts of Speech hierarchy

On the basis of sample of languages, Hengeveld (1992: 68) typologically outlined the
part of speech hierarchy that has the following structure:
(70) Verb>Noun>Adjective>Adverb
The hierarchy above implies that ‘a category of predicates verbs, nouns, adjectives and
adverbs is more likely to appear as a separate part of speech the more to the left it is in
this hierarchy’ Hengeveld (1992: 68). To recap, verbs and nouns are heads/obligatory
categories, while adjectives and adverbs are modifiers/ optional elements (Hengeveld
1992: 62). Analogously, the fact that verbs and nouns are obligatory entities, whereas
adjectives and adverbs are, in contrast, optional categories in Gueleaya lends support to
Hengeveld parts of speech hierarchy.
22
3.2. Non-verbal predication hierarchies

3.2.1. Predicate hierarchy 1A: (130)5
Non-presentative ascriptive predications

1 2 3 4
(xi)Loc > A > N > (xi) Poss
Firstly, Hengeveld’s non-presentative ascriptive predication hierarchy above postulates

that localizing predications are the most easily predicable elements on the predicate
hierarchy, followed by adjectival and then by nominal predications, while possessive
predications are the least predicable categories. For definition’s sake, predicability, in
Hengeveld’s language, encodes the possibility of grammatically acceptable application of
a certain predicate type to a certain argument, i.e. a predicate is predicable of a given
argument if the application of the former is grammatically acceptable to the latter
(Hengeveld 1992: 113). Secondly, the same hierarchy implies that in case a predication
type is predicable at a certain point on the hierarchy…then all preceding predication
types will also be predicable in that language (Hengeveld 1992: 130). In simple terms, if
a language uses possessive predicates predicatively, it can thus use nominal, adjectival
and locative predicates predicatively; if it can use nominal predicates predicatively, then
it can use adjectival and locative predicates predicatively (Hengeveld 1992: 130).
Hengeveld’s current non-presentative ascriptive predications postulate is trivially
apposite for Gueleaya in light of the following examples.
Non-presentative locative predications
Mohammed EXI.PRES-3rd.SG.M in room.M.SG-his
Non-presentative adjectival predication
(2) Thaqmijat ino att-ashamra.tsh
Shirt-F mine COP.F-white.F
‘My shirt is white’
Non-presentative nominal predication
Ahmad COP.M student.M
Non-presentative possessive predication
By way of clarification, Gueleaya’s predicable presentative and non-presentative
predications are distinguished from non-predicable possessive forms notably by virtue of
a phonological criterion. That is to say, predicability of presentative and non-presentative
possessive predications can be detected by a short audible stop intervening between a
falling intonational contour placed on the subject/pronoun/NP and a raising pitched tone
placed on both the possessive preposition, and the possessor consecutively. With respect
of non-predicable possessive constructions, a level tone is said to be the main
5
(130) above stands for the page number where Predicate hierarchy 1A was discussed in more
details.
23
phonological feature of such constructions. A couple of examples are provided below for
illustration.
Possessive forms
(4) Atelefon-ino (5) Thsaat a Ali
Mobile-phone.M.SG-mine Watch of Ali
‘My mobile-phone’ ‘Ali’s watch’
Non-presentative possessive predication
(6) Atelefon ino6
Mobile-phone.M.SG mine
‘The mobile-phone is of mine’ (i.e. the mobile phone is mine).
In terms of the predicability of non-verbal possessive predications, constructions (4), (5)

and (6) are altogether predicable regardless of the copula absence.
3.2.2. Predicate hierarchy 1B
Presentative ascriptive predications

(xi/Ø)Loc > (xi)Poss
Hengeveld’s (1992: 141) reading of the hierarchy above literally implies that
‘presentative localizing predications are more easily predicable than presentative
possessive predications…, and if presentative possessive predications are predicable…,
presentative localizing predications will be predicable as well’. On the basis of the
examples underneath, it turned out that Hengeveld’s theory is trivially applicable to the
language under study.
Presentative possessive predications

One mobile phone.M of-you
Exist.3rd.SG.M.PRES bread.M without salt
(9) Aqa dani aghi di nibira
EXI.PRES LOC milk in fridge
6
The underlined bold-italic items indicate an audible raising pitched tone placed on (both the
possessive preposition and) the possessor in possessive predication.
24
3.2.3. Predicate hierarchy 2: Equative predications
(ixi) > (dxi)
As defined, predications based on indefinite term-predicate ‘ascribe the referent of the

subject-expression a certain property’, whereas predications based on definite term-
predicate ‘identify the referent of one expression with the referent of another’ Lyons
(1977:472) Hengeveld (1992: 142). On the subject of the predicability, the predicate
hierarchy 2 above posits that non-verbal predications based on indefinite term-predicate
are comparatively more predicable than predications based on definite term-predicate.
The fact that indefinite term-predicates are more predicable compared to definite
predicates in Gueleaya clearly goes to prove the relevancy of Hengeveld’s implication.
Identifying predications
(10) Natta da madoukar ino
He COP.M friend.M mine
‘He is my friend’
Classifying predications
He COP.M one friend.M mine
3.2.4. Predication hierarchy (145a-150)7
Equative> Ascriptive
Non-presentative > Presentative
Non-existential >Existential
Hengeveld’s predication hierarchy (145a/150) literally indicates that ‘the equative

predication is the best-predicable type, followed by non-presentative ascriptive
predication type then by the presentative one respectively. On the same hierarchy,
presentative non-existential predications are better predicable than existential ones
(Hengeveld 1992: 145-150). Seemingly, predicability of the different predications
underneath, lends trivial validity to Hengeveld’s predication hierarchy above.
Equative predications

7
(145a) stands for the first Predication hierarchy (21) found consecutively on page 145 and 150 of
Hengeveld’s Non-Verbal predication (1992).
25
He COP.M one friend.M mine

Sea.M COP.M-big.M
Mohammed EXI.PRES-3rd.SG.M in room.M-his
Mobile-phone.M of Ahmad
‘The mobile-phone is of Ahmad’ (i.e. the mobile phone is Ahmad’s).

One mobile phone.M of-you
Exist.3rd.SG.M.PRES bread.M without salt.M
(20) Aqa-dani aghi di nibira
EXI.PRES-LOC milk.M in fridge
3.2.4.1. Predication hierarchy ─Ascriptive predications (145b)8
Similarly, on the ascriptive predication hierarchy (145b), the statement that non-
presentative ascriptive predication type is far more predicable than the presentative one is
also tenable for Gueleaya.
Ascriptive

8
(145b) stands for the Ascriptive hierarchy-Ascriptive predications (22) found on page 145 of
Hengeveld’s Non-Verbal predication (1992).
26
Sea.M COP-big.M
Mohammed EXI.PRES-3rd.SG.M in room-his
Mobile-phone of Ahmad
‘The mobile-phone is of Ahmad’ (i.e. the mobile phone is Ahmad’s).

One mobile phone of-you
‘A mobile-phone is yours’ (i.e. you have a mobile-phone).
(26) Yadja waghroum bra-thmadjaht
Exist.3rd.SG.M.PRES bread.M without-salt
(27) Aqa dani aghi di nibira
EXI.PRES LOC milk.M in fridge
In general, so far Gueleaya’s major predication types superficially match up with the
ascriptive predication arrangement displayed above.
3.2.5. Deixis hierarchy
Deictic > Non-deictic
Before evaluating the predicability of both deictic and non-deictic locative predicates in
Gueleaya, a brief overview of the inventory of Gueleaya’s deictic categories is vitally
adequate herein. Quantitatively, the deictic inventory encompasses two adverbial locative
deictics (Proximal: da and Distal: diha), two adjectival demonstratives (proximal: wa:
PROX.M.SG, tha/atta: PROX.F.SG, ina: PROX.M.PL, thina: PROX.F.PL and Distal:
win: DIS.M.SG, thin: DIST.F.SG, inin: DIST.M.PL, thinin: DIST.F.PL), and two deictic
suffixes (Proximal: -a: PROX.M/F.SG, -athin: PROX.M/F.SG and Distal: -iin:
DIST.M/F.SG, inin: DIST.M/F.PL). Morphologically, Gueleaya demonstrative pronouns
are marked for proximity, remoteness as well as number and gender categories. Deictic
elements, including distal and proximal demonstrative pronouns, not only do they instruct
or invite the addressee to direct his attention to a particular spatiotemporal region to find
the object that is referred to, but as referring expressions, they also locate the referent in
relation to the speaker (Lyons 1977: 648/654/655).
27
Deictic
Adjectival demonstratives
(28) Atta da atomobin i.yasgha
DEM-PROX.SG.F COP.M car.M REL.buy-3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M
‘This is the car that he bought’
(29) Thin at-tamzida i-di qaagh
DEM-DIST.F.SG COP.F-school.F which-in study-1st.SG.PRES.PROG
‘That is the school where I am studying’
Adverbial demonstratives
(30) Aqa-yi da
PRE.EXIS-1st.SG.IND.PRES here
‘I am here’
(31) Togha da attas an-yawdan idanad
Was LOC many of-people yesterday
‘There were many visitors here yesterday’
Non-deictic
(32) Ahmad da `l-ostad
Ahmad COP.M the-teacher.M.SG
‘Ahmad is the teacher’
(33) Bruxel da al-asima an Belgic
Brussels COP.M.SG the-capital of Belgium
‘Brussels is the capital of Belgium’
In this regard, Hengeveld’s implication that deictic locative predicates are more
predicable than non-deictic is trivially compatible with Gueleaya, which do easily
conduct the predicative use of both deictic and non-deictic locative predicates.
3.2.6. Quantification hierarchy
Non-quantified > quantified
Hengeveld (1992: 153) postulated that, in some languages, predicability of presentative

predications is determined by the presence or absence of quantifiers. In the case of
Yessan-Mayo, presentative predications will be predicable unless a quantifier is present.
Nevertheless, unaffected by either the presence or absence of quantifiers, both
quantifying and non-quantifying predications are found to be predicable in Gueleaya
irrespective of copula. Thus, Hengeveld’s quantification hierarchy is trivially relevant to
the language under discussion.
Quantified
(34) Thnayan na ttaffahin ino
Two of apples.F. mine
‘Two apples are of mine’
Non-quantified
(35) Danita gha yaryazan
28
LOC.PROX only men

‘There are only men here’
3.2.7. Non-presentative predication types
(xi)Loc/-Pres A/-Pres N/-Pres (xi)Poss/-Pres

(ixi) (dxi)
On page 172 of the Non-verbal Predication, Hengeveld made out a case for alternative
strategies for non-predicable predication types, that is, the equative predication type (EQ)
is implied as an alternative for non-predicable (non-presentative) ascriptive predications.
Hengeveld’s recommendation of EQ strategy as a substitute for non-predicable
predication proved inappropriate for Gueleaya by virtue of inherent predicablilty of non-
presentative locative, adjectival, nominal and (non-presentative) possessive predications
in the language under investigation.
3.2.8. Predicativity hierarchy
Bare > Referential > Relational

Hengeveld’s (1992: 199) predicativity hierarchy typifies languages that allow non-verbal
predications to be expressed by means of the Zero-1 strategy. According to the same
author, non-verbal predicates may receive morphosyntactic (intransitive) verbal marking
for tense, mood, aspect and person (Hengeveld 1992: 185). To test out the applicability of
the above hierarchy vis-à-vis Gueleaya, an analysis of bare, referential and relational
predicates is herein of vital importance. To begin with, non-verbal predications based on
bare adjectival predicates, which have an underlying structure similar to that of verbal
predicates9, are found to be the only compliant entities with the zero-1 strategy in
Gueleaya. Second, inconsistencies with the zero-1 strategy are basically appreciable in
non-presentative, presentative possessive predications and non-presentative locative or
localizing predications.
Gueleaya
(36) Adrar y-o’ara yattas
Mountain.M 3rd.SG.M-high-PERF.PRES very
‘The mountain is very high’
Mojave Munro (1976: 72)
(37) M-homi:-k
2-tall-NON-FUT.IND
‘You are tall’
Intrinsically, the adjectival predicate yo’ara (high) is illigible to encode attributes of

intransitive verbs including Tense, Mood, Aspect, Person, Number and Gender.
9
Hengeveld (1992: 200)
29
3.2.9. Predication hierarchy
Equative> Ascriptive
Hengeveld (1992: 201) predication hierarchy proposes that ‘the more easily predicable a
predication type is, the more it tends to operate the zero-2 strategy’. Intrinsically, a non-
verbal predicate tends to have the same morphosyntactic behaviour of (intransitive)
verbal predicate in the zero-1strategy, whereas in the zero-2 strategy, by contrast, such
predicates are simply juxtaposed with the argument term. Comparatively, with the
exception of non-presentative ascriptive locative, non-presentative possessive
predications, presentative possessive and locative predications, which might tolerate the
zero-2 strategy, the rest is simply incompatible with the latter. For the sake of more
elaboration, some examples are introduced below.
Equative predications
Identifying predications
(38) * Natta amadoukar ino
He friend.M mine
Classifying predications
(39) * Natta ijo madoukar ino
He one friend.M mine

Property assignment predicate based on an adjectival predicate
By applying the zero-2 strategy to property assignment predicate based on an adjectival
predicate, an attributive-instead of a predicative construction- immediately results.
(40) * Rabhaar amaqraan

Sea.M big.M
‘The big sea’
Status assignment predicate based on nominal predicate
(41) * Ahmad amahdaar
Ahmad student.M
‘Ahmad the student’
(42) * Aghroum bra thamadjaht
Bread.N without salt
‘Bread without salt’
Strikingly, the introduction of the zero-2 strategy into some of non-presentative ascriptive
predications semantically induces a fundamental change in the predications typology. In
30
this case, zero-2 strategy transforms, on the one hand, property assignment predicate
based on an adjectival predicate into an attributive construction and status assignment
predicate based on nominal predicate into a nominal compound on the other. Examples
(40) and (41) are cases in point.
3.2.10. Predicate hierarchy 1A: Ascriptive predications
1 2 3 4
(xi)Loc > A > N > (xi) Poss
Hengeveld (1992: 203) made out a case for the following two principles: (1) localizing
predications are the most easily predicable elements, whereas the possessive predications
are the least ones on the predicate hierarchy 1A. (2) Localizing predications favour zero-2
over zero-1strategy. Analytically, Hengeveld’s principles roughly hold for Gueleaya.
3.2.11. Positional verbs and localizing copulas
(xi)Loc  A  N  (xi) Poss
On the basis of some historical evidence vis-à-vis the Ibero-Romance languages,

Hengeveld (1992: 246) deduced that original verbs of position are drifted out to non-
verbal predications by virtue of grammaticalization process. That is to say, positional
verbs were originally used with locative predicates but later on their use extended to
adjectival and nominal predicates. Diachronically, these verbs have gradually evolved
from sheer positional verbs into a possible localizing copula, or alternatively, into a
possible multifunctional copula (Hengeveld 1992: 245/6). No concrete proof in support
of the positional verbs and localizing copulas theory was documented in this Berber
dialect. Inapplicability of the positional verbs and localizing copulas hierarchy above to
Gueleaya derives from the fact that copulas are non-verbal in the latter.
3.2.12. Pronominal copulas hierarchy
Pro  (dxi) > (ixi) > A/N
Pronominal copulas hierarchy above implies that pro-copulas tend to be more easily
predicable with both identifying predications (definite), classifying (indefinite), adjectival
and nominal predicates respectively (Hengeveld 1992: 251). Comparatively, the
pronominal copula hierarchy is inoperative for Gueleaya because copulas are herein
substantially non-verbal rather than pronominal.
Based on Hengeveld (1992) typological non-verbal predication hierarchies, the
conclusion that can be drawn from this chapter is as follows: hierarchies that were
trivially compatible with Gueleaya’s non-verbal predications include part of speech
hierarchy, non-presentative ascriptive predications hierarchy: predicate hierarchy 1A,
predicate 1B, predicate hierarchy 2- equative predication, predication hierarchy
─ascriptive predications, deixis hierarchy, quantificational hierarchy. On the other hand,
31
hierarchies that are partially applicable include predicativity hierarchy, predication

hierarchy; whereas positional verbs, localizing copulas and pronominal copulas
hierarchies are, on the basis of the finding, both irrelevant if applied to this language.
To recap, in Gueleaya, predicable non-verbal predications clearly bifurcate into copular
predicable predications and zero-copula predications. In the light of the copular
predicable predications, non-verbal copula is found to be a prerequisite for the
predictability of identifying and classifying predications, and bare predicates; whereas
relational predicates and quantifying predications, by contrast, are predicable regardless
of the copula. In the same language, cases of predicable deictic locative predicates are
evident in either copula or zero-copula constructions. Schematically, the following table
outlines the different expression formats that are available for different types of non-
verbal predications in Gueleaya.
Exist Pres Poss

Yadja/Aqa
Pres Loc
Ø
Aqa
Non-pres Loc Non-pres Adj Non-pres Noun Non-pres Poss
Aqa da da Ø
Class Ident
da da
Figure 2. Sketch: expression formats in Gueleaya

32
Gueleaya in Wetzer’s (1996)

typological profile
Introduction
Chapter 4 main objective is to attempt to

typologically categorize potential patterns
of property concept words encoding in
Gueleaya on the basis of different Wetzer’s
V-N continuums.
4.1. Adjectival encoding in language: Nouniness and

verbiness
4.1.1. “Nouny” and “verby” adjectivals
Property concept words, according to Wetzer's hypothesis (1996: 44), fill a medial
position in a language-independent lexical continuum or “category space” from Verb
(left) to Noun (right). Dynamically, the left-to-right extension on the continuum
implicitly entails an increase of nominal properties and a comparable decrease of verbal
properties and vice-versa (Wetzer 1996: 44).
1. VERBS -----------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------NOUNS
decreasing verbality
===============================>
increasing nominality
On a par with Wetzer continuum above, Gueleaya property concept words, which exhibit
a two-fold distribution, that is, (adjectival) Nouns and (adjectival) verbs, spatially occupy
33
an intermediate position between verbs on the left and nouns on the right of the
continuum. In terms of treatment of property concept words, Wetzer typologically
classified languages of his sample into three major classes, i.e. adjectival verbs, adjectival
nouns and adjectives.
2. VERBS ------------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------------NOUNS
a.Verbs Adjectival Verbs // Nouns
b.Verbs // Adjectival Nouns Nouns
c.Verbs // Adjectives // Nouns
First, “adjectival-verb” languages referred to as (pattern (a)) above. Second, “adjectival-

noun” (pattern (b)) and a unique adjective-class language (pattern (c)). In reference to the
pattern (a) and (b) languages, according to Wetzer (1996: 45), such languages are said to
lack a discrete adjective class, and therefore property concepts are either verbally or
nominally encoded, whereas pattern (c) languages, in contrast, entail the three major
word classes: verbs, adjectives and nouns altogether. As regards the surface of the Verb-
Noun continuum, in “adjectival-verb” languages, the boundary is clearly placed between
adjectival verbs and nouns (pattern (a)), while in “adjectival noun” languages, the
boundary is marked between adjectival nouns and verbs instead (pattern (b)). In contrast
to the pattern (a) and (b), adjectivals’ class in pattern (c) is distinctively isolated from
both verbs and nouns by slashes, which mark the categorical limits. Comparatively, the
distinct fact that Gueleaya is possessed of a discrete adjective class and a quantity of
adjectival class displaying potential nouny and verby encodings undermines the relevance
of Wetzer’s enumerated patterns to the language under study.
3. VERBS ------------------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------------NOUNS
Verbs Adj.Verbs // Adjectives // Nouns
Typical of Nkore-kiga language, the Verb-Noun continuum above in fact allocates

adjectives only a marginal position because discrete adjectives comprise only a small
subset of adjectivals. Other adjectives are simply categorized into verbs (Wetzer 1996:
46). In actual fact, the adjectivals bipartite encoding of verby-adjectives and discrete
adjectives deems the V-N continuum above inapplicable to Gueleaya adjectivals which
potentially shows three-way encoding, i.e. verby-adjectives, adjectives, nouny-adjectives.
Property concept words distribution potentialities are discussed in more detail in the
section 4.6 of chapter 4 on Split-adjective languages.
Gueleaya adjectival encodings

Attributive cases (discrete adjectives)
(1) Rabhaar amaqraan (2) Thandint tha.amaqran.t
Sea.M big.M City.F F.big.F
‘The big sea’ ‘The big city’
Nouny-adjectives
(3) Rabhaar da-maqraan (4) Thandint tta-maqraan.t
Sea.M COP.M -big.M City.F COP.F-big.F
34
‘The sea is big’ ‘The city is big’

Verby-adjectives
(5) Rqahwa thahma
DEF-coffee.F 3rd.SG.hot.PAST.PERF.F
‘The coffee is hot’
Contrary to the first Verb-Noun continuum, which entails namely adjectival verbs and
adjectives, the next continuum typifies the sort of languages in which the adjectivals
category incorporates “Adjectives” and the “nominal Adjectives”.
Verbs // Adjectives // nominal Adj’s // Nouns
By way of illustration, from his languages sample, Wetzer (1996: 47) included an
example of Japanese in which “adjectives” partly show verbal characteristics, whereas
“nominal Adjectives” are somewhat nouny. On closer survey, the Verb-Noun continuum
(3) and likewise the V-N continuum (4) will be applicable to Gueleaya only on the
condition that they are both conjoined into one integral Verb-Noun continuum including,
notably verby-adjectives similar the continuum (6) below.
In terms of the Verb-Noun continuum (5), two different types of languages are
distinguishable here, that is, “verby” adjectival languages (pattern (a)) are said to consist
of both verb-like adjectives and adjectival verbs on the one hand, and “nouny” adjectival
languages (pattern b)) are formed from noun-like adjectives and adjectival verbs on the
other.
5. VERBS -----------------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------------NOUNS
a.Verbs ?? Verby Adjectivals // Nouns
b.Verbs // Nouny Adjectivals ?? Nouns
Terminologically, Wetzer (1996: 49), deemed Ross’ (1972, 1973) “Nouny” and “Verby”
adjectivals discrepancy a better substitute for the traditional approach to adjectives,
namely (adjectival) Nouns and (adjectival) Verbs. Symbolically, in reference to the
current continuum, the slashes do functionally mark the categorical limits between verby
adjectives and nouny adjectives, while the question marks indicate equivocal boundaries
between “verby” adjectivals and core verbs (Wetzer 1996:49). In effect, the Verb-Noun
continuum (5) will only be more relevant to Gueleaya adjectival category in case it
explicitly entails both nouny and verby-adjectival encoding patterns.
So far, with the exception of the Verb-Noun continuum (6), which is typical of split-
adjectival languages, all Wetzer’s continuums have been found to be either partly
consistent or irrelevant when contrasted with Gueleaya’s adjectival predications.
35
Finally, the possible reading of the Verb-Noun continuum (6) below is that words
encoding property concepts are basically subdivided, by a distinctive split, into two
principal categories: nouny and verby adjectivals (Wetzer 1996: 50).
Verbs ?? Verby Adj’s // Nouny Adj’s ?? Nouns
By way of explanation, the split in the adjectival concept words (above) is explained by
the fact that ‘words expressing property concepts can be divided into two major-linguistic
categories; either they share many (not all) properties with the nouns, or they share (not
all) properties with the verbs’ Wetzer (1996: 50). On account of the fact that, in
Gueleaya, only a limited set of adjectivals can be predicatively both nouny or verby,
Wetzer pattern (6) above is therefore only to some degree applicable hereto. By way of
illustration, on one level the adjective ‘amaqraan’ (big), for instance, is eligible for both
nouny and verby encodings, as examples (6) and (7) clearly show but on another level,
adjectives like ‘yahma’ (hot) and ‘yasfa’(clear) have only verby attributes, and hence
they are overwhelmingly incompatible with non-verbal copulas.
Verby Adjectives
(6) Rabhar y-amghar attas
Sea.M 3rd.SG.M-big.PRES.PERF very
‘The sea is very big’
Nouny adjectives
Sea.M COP.M -big.M
Only verby adjectives
(8) Aghroum y-ahma attas
Bread.M 3.SG.M-hot.PRES.PERF very
‘The bread is very hot’
(9) Rkaas-a y-asfa
Glass.M-PROX 3rd.SG.M-clear.PRES.PERF
‘This glass is clear’
(10) * Rkaas-a da y-asfa
Glass.M-PROX COP.M 3rd.SG.M-clear.DECL.PRES
4.2. Nouniness and verbiness in type-A and type-B

languages
In Wetzer’s typological profile, languages are generally classified into two predominant
types, that is, type-A and type-B languages. To mention, type-A languages distinguish
between verbal and nominal predicates by relatively clear morphosyntactic features,
whereas such distinctive features are simply absent in type-B (Wetzer 1996:85). Based on
available data, Gueleaya can be categorized as a type-A language.
36
Wetzer acknowledges three strategies in the formal encoding of intransitive (nominal and
verbal predicates). That is, (1) person marking [PERS], (2) use of an overt copula [COP],
and (3) zero marking [ZERO]. By applying these three strategies, nine possible patterns
resulted, which are “uniformity” patterns (1-3) and “differentiation” patterns (4-9).
Basic Verb-Noun patterns

Vpred Npred
Uniformity (1) PERS PERS
(2) COP COP
(3) ZERO ZERO
Differentiation (4) PERS ZERO
(5) PERS COP
(6) ZERO COP
(7) COP ZERO
* (8) COP PERS
* (9) ZERO PERS
In Wetzer’s sample languages, the formal encoding of intransitive verbal and nominal
predicates in kernel sentences in type-B is defined according to the uniformity pattern
(1)-(3) of basic verb-noun patterns. By definition, uniformity pattern is inherent in
languages, which use the same predicate formation strategy as mentioned earlier. For
instance: (1) [PERS] person marking (both predicate nouns and verbs take person/
number subject prefixes), (2) [COP] use of an overt copula for both verbal and nominal
predicates, and (3) [ZERO] zero marking (absence of the overt markers used in the
former two strategies) for both verbal and nominal predicates. According to Wetzer
(1996: 109) nominal predicates are essentially distinguished from verbal ones by
accepting an overt copula. On the other hand, in type-A languages, formal encoding of
intransitive verbal and nominal predicates in kernel sentences allows a description in
terms of the four differentiation patterns (4)-(7). To begin with, in the differentiation
pattern (4), verbal predicates receive person marking, while nominal predicates are zero
marked. In pattern (5), verbal predicates are marked for person category, whereas
nominal predicates, by contrast, are accompanied by an overt copula. In the last but one
pattern (6), verbal predicates are zero-marked, but nominal predicates are combining with
an overt copula instead. Lastly, verbal predicates favour an overt copula, whereas
nominal predicates accept zero-marking in pattern (7). All in all, on the basis of the
differentiation list above, Gueleaya can be trivially classified as type-A language since
the formal encoding of intransitive verbal and nominal predicates showed consistency
with pattern 5 inherent in the former differentiation list. Two examples are cited below by
way of illustration.
37
Differentiation patterns (5)

V-Pred (5)
Sea.M 3rd.SG.M-big.PERF.PRES very
N-Pred (5)
As far as the predicate formation strategy of person marking is concerned, Wetzer’s

(1996: 90) implicational universal implying that “if the predicate formation strategy of
person marking applies to nouns, then it will be applicable to verbs as well” is fully
predictable from the examples below.
Nominal predicate
Verbal predicate
(14) Gasolina th-ighra
Gasoline.F 3rd.SG.F-expensive.PRES
‘Gasoline is expensive’
4.3. Nouny adjectivals in type-A languages

4.3.1. Criteria for nouniness
According to Wetzer (1996: 116), nouniness of predicate adjectivals is found in cases

where both adjectivals and nouns are accompanied by an overt copula as in pattern (b)
and (c) below, or alternatively when both adjectival and nominal predicates are zero-
marked (a) and (d) cases.
Nouniness in type-A languages
Vpred Apred Npred

(a) PERS ZERO ZERO
(b) PERS COP COP
(c) ZERO COP COP
(d) COP ZERO ZERO
Based on the data below, it stands to reason that, contrary to the pattern (a) and (d),
nouniness of predicate adjectival in Gueleaya is detectable only in cases where both
adjectivals and nouns are accompanied by an overt copula as in pattern (b) and (c).
38
Ajectival nouniness
Sea.M COP.M -big.M
Nominal predicate
(16) Ahmad da-chifour
Ahmad COP.M-driver.M
‘Ahmad is a driver’
4.3.1.1. Person marking
As a type of predicate formation strategy, person marking is a distinctive criterion of

verbal predicates. Nonetheless, cases of nouny predicates marked for person are inherent
in Kalishan (Salishan language) Wetzer (1996: 91).
4.3.1.2. The use of an overt copula in adjectival and nominal predicates
Wetzer’s (1996: 116) first criterion for nouniness (overt copula) posits that ‘if, in a given
language, nominal predicates can be distinguished from verbal predicates because
predicate nouns are accompanied by an overt copula, and if predicate adjectivals are
accompanied by an overt copula as well, then adjectivals will be considered nouny’.
Based on the available data, Gueleaya actually shows signs of compliance only with the
first part of the implication above, while the second part, in contrast, is partly consistent
on the principle that only a finite amount of nouny-adjectives are eligible to combine with
non-verbal copulas.
(17) Rabhaar da-maqraan (18) Mourad da mahdaar

Sea.M COP.M -big.M Mourad COP.M student.M
‘The sea is big’ ‘Mourad is a student’
According to Wetzer (1996: 134), the formation of adjectival and nominal predicates in
type-A languages entails the use of an obligatory copula, yet the copula may or must be
omitted under specific grammatical conditions such as with least marked tense forms or
with third person forms. Comparatively, if the first claim finds support in Gueleaya, the
second one is simply irrelevant to a language where both marked and unmarked
categories have no impact on either introduction or omission of the copula.
4.3.1.3. Zero marking
In his second criterion (Zero marking) vis-à-vis nouniness, Wetzer (1996: 118, 166)
affirms that “if, in a given language, nominal predicates can be distinguished from
verbal predicates because nominal predicates are encoded by means of zero marking,
and if adjectival predicates are encoded by means of zero marking as well, then
39
adjectivals will be considered nouny”. This claim is largely irrelevant to the language
under consideration.
4.3.2. Optional use of an overt copula with adjectivals and nouns
4.3.2.1. A deviant pattern: syntactic dissimilarity between adjectival and nominal

predicates
Adjectivals and nominal predicates are encoded by means of an overt copula, but they are
syntactically dissimilar, either because adjectivals and nouns are accompanied by
different copulas or because adjectives and nouns have to meet different requirements so
that to be used as complement of the (same) copula. The syntactic dissimilarity pattern
between adjectivals and nouns that Wetzer consecutively discussed on pages 158-9 has in
fact no equivalence in Gueleaya because both and nominal adjectival and predicates are
operate the same type of copula.
Adjectival predicate Nominal predicate

(19) Assa(r)war da-qodad (20) Natta da l-modier
Trousers.M COP.M-short.M He COP.M the-headmaster.M
‘The trousers are short’ ‘He is the headmaster’
4.4. Verby adjectivals in type-A languages

So far, the focus has been placed mainly on nouniness of adjectival predicates in the type-
A languages, yet verby adjectivals are worth particular attention too.
4.4.1. Criteria for verbiness

4.4.1.1. Person marking in adjectival and verbal predicates
According to Wetzer (1996: 182), person-marking category is the first criterion for
verbiness of the adjectival predicates. In his own terms, “if, in a language, verbal
predicates can be distinguished from nominal predicates because verbs, not nouns, are
marked for person, and if predicate adjectivals are marked for person as well, then
adjectivals will be considered verby”. The fact that verbal and verbal-adjectival
predicates altogether display patterns of person markings in Gueleaya obviously implies
that Wetzer’s person-marking criterion for verbiness of predicate adjectivals roughly
holds for the language under study.
4.4.1.1.2. The general pattern: adjectivals and intransitive verbs take the same person
markers
Wetzer (1996: 193) posited, “While predicate adjectivals may take the person markers
which are obligatorily used with verbs, they can also be predicated non-verbally, i.e.
without person markers”. Apparently, by reason of displaying both verbal and non-verbal
40
specifications, Gueleaya predicate adjectivals are found to be trivially compliant with

Wetzer’s general pattern above.
4.4.1.2. Zero marking in adjectival and verbal predicates
On the subject of zero marking in adjectival and verbal predicates, Wetzer’s postulated
that “if, in a given language, verbal predicates can be distinguished from nominal
predicates because verbal predicates are encoded by means of zero marking, and if
adjectival predicates are encoded by means of zero marking as well, then adjectivals will
be considered verby” (Wetzer 96: 220). Seemingly, Gueleaya is inconsistent with
Wetzer’s current conditional simply because zero marking is herein not the criterion that
distinguishes both adjectival and verbal predicates from nominal predicates.
4.5. The Tense Hypothesis
According to Wetzer (1996), the Tense Hypothesis posits that the assignment of nouny or
verby adjectivals is affected by the presence or absence of morphologically bound tense
marking on verbs.
(1)
(a) “If a language has nouny adjectivals, then it will have person marking on verbs.
If a language has person marking on verbs, then it will have nouny adjectivals”
Wetzer (1996: 273). Judging by the examples below, the above putative bi-
directional universal is trivially valid for Gueleaya.
Nouny adjectival
Verbal predication
(22) Ali youra ija(n) e-mail
Ali write.3rd .SG.M.PAST.PERF one e-mail
‘Ali wrote an e-mail’
(b) “If a language has verby adjectivals, then it will lack person marking on verbs. If
a language lacks person marking on verbs, then it will have verby adjectivals”
Wetzer (1996: 273). No supportive data in favour of universal 1(b) can be found
in the language under study.
(2)
(a) “If a language has nouny adjectivals, then it will have person marking on verbs”
Wetzer (1996: 273). The current universal, which is virtually identical to the
previous universal 1(a), is once again relevant to the language under
consideration.
(b) “If a language lacks person marking on verbs, then it will have verby adjectivals”
Wetzer (1996: 273). If verbs in this Afro-Asiatic variety are marked namely for
41
person category, then it stands to reason that the above universal is irrelevant to
this language.
(3)
(a) “If a language has nouny adjectivals, then verbs will be morphologically marked
to indicate TMA distinctions” Wetzer (1996: 274). On the basis of former
examples, Gueleaya does trivially accord with the putative universal (3)(a).
(b) “If, in a given language verbs are not morphologically marked to indicate TMA
distinctions, then this language will have verby adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 274).
Contrary to the current universal, core verbs in Gueleaya are altogether
morphologically marked for TMA categories. Examples of verby adjectival
predicate and core-verbal predicate are supplied below by way of clarification.
Verby adjectival
(23) Rabhaar yamghar attas
Sea.M 3rd.SG.M.big.PERF.PRES very
Core-verbal predicate
(24) Ali y-oura ijan e-mail
Ali 3rd .SG.M-write.PAST.PERF one e-mail
‘Ali wrote an e-mail’
4.5.1. The Tensedness parameter
(a) Tensedness
According to Wetzer (1996: 276), a language is tensed if the former has a
grammatical category of tense, which is encoded on the main verb by means of
bound morphology, and which minimally involves a distinction between past and
non-past tense. Seemingly, the fact that tense (past and non-past) is encoded on
verbs via bound morphology classifies Gueleaya into tensed-languages’ group.
Past tense
(25) Omar y-anjah
Omar 3rd.SG-succeed.PAST.PERF
‘Omar succeeded’
Non-past tense
(26) Qa-attatagh ijan-ttaffaht
PRE-eat.1st.SG.PRES.PROG one-apple.F
‘I am eating an apple’
(b) Non-tensedness
A language is non-tensed if it does not meet all the requirements for tensedness at
the same time. In other words, the term “non-tensed language” is understood as
being complementary to the notion of “tensed language”. Actually, data in support
of the non-tensedness claim is nowhere to be found in Gueleaya.
42
4.5.2. The Tensedness Universals
(a) “If a language has nouny adjectivals, then it will be tensed. If a language is
tensed, then it will have nouny adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 285)
(b) “If a language has verby adjectivals, then it will be non-tensed. If a language is
non-tensed, then it will have verby adjectivals” Wetzer (1996: 285)
In terms of the Tensedness parameter, identified by Wetzer on page 276, Gueleaya

can be partly included in the list of Tensedness type of languages, i.e. the
tensedness of Gueleaya verby adjectivals renders this language more compliant
with the Tensedness Universal (a) than (b), and the verby adjectival in the
construction below can be a case in point.
Verby Adjectives
(27) Akhaam-a yamghar attas
Room.M-PROX 3rd.SG.M.big.PRES.PERF very
‘This room is very large/big’
4.5.3. The Tensedness Universals (revised version)
(a) “If a language has an open class of nouny adjectivals, then it will be tensed. If a
language is tensed, then it will have an open class of nouny adjectivals” Wetzer
(1996: 287). Comparatively, there is a degree of relevance in Wetzer’s present
Tensedness Universal (a) to Gueleaya.
(b) “If a language has an open class of verby adjectivals, then it will be non-tensed.
If
a language is non-tensed, then it will have an open class of verby adjectivals”
Wetzer (1996: 287). Gueleaya’s examples run counter to (revised version) of the
Tensedness Universal (b) in that despite being an open verby-adjectival language,
the former is substantially tensed.
4.6. Mixed languages: Split-adjective languages

Strikingly, in “split-adjective” languages, properties encoding units are basically found to
bifurcate into nouny adjectivals and verby adjectivals. Schematically, on the split-
adjective Verb-Noun continuum, a clear boundary divides adjectivals so that some
prototypical adjectivals are attributed to the nouny section and the rest to the verby one
(Wetzer 1996: 311). The Wetzer’s schematic continuum below is a characterization of the
lexical category distribution inherent in Split-adjective languages.
6. VERBS------------------------ADJECTIVALS-------------------------NOUNS
Verbs ?? Verby Adj’s // Nouny Adj’s ?? Nouns
43
Relatively speaking, it is worth highlighting that only a finite set of property concept
words in Gueleaya seem to comply with the two-way lexical category distribution
proposed by Wetzer (1996: 50-113) in that not all adjectives can be predicatively nouny
and/or verby and the property word ‘amaqraan’ (big) is a case in point. On the other
hand, property words such as ‘yahma’ (hot) and ‘yasfa’(clear) are basically verby and
thus incompatible with non-verbal copulas.
Verby Adjectives
Nouny adjectives
Sea.M COP.M-big.M
Verby adjectives10
(30) Aghroum y-ahma yattas
Bread.M 3rd.SG.M-hot.PRES.PERF very
‘The bread is very hot’
(31) Rkaas-a y-asfa
Based on the previous cases, the fact that Wetzer’s hypothesis is partially relevant to
Gueleaya derives actually from the fact that only a finite amount of property words has
the potentiality to display the split-adjective pattern inherent in mixed languages.
Correspondingly, the nearest approach to Wetzer’s split-adjective hypothesis is found in
Holton’s (1999) work on ‘categoriality of property words in Tobelo’ wherein nouny
and/or verby property words are pragmatically regulated. Instead of morphological,
syntactic or semantic distinctions, property words in Tobelo11, which tend to appear as
either nouny or verby, are pragmatically defined. That is, ‘a property word is coded as a
noun when the noun it modifies represents “new” information, and a as a verb when the
noun it modifies represents “old” information’ Holton (1999: 342). In sum, nouns
functionally introduce new referents, whereas verbs, in contrast, represent established
referents (Holton 1999: 354). Example (32), in which the property word amazyan (small)
modifies the new referent rabhaar (sea), is a relevant case in point.
New referent
(32) Ibahaan dawrand
Fishermen return.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M
minzi rabhaar amazyan togha yhaaj
Because NM-sea.M RNM-small.M was rough.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M
‘Fishermen returned home because the small sea was rough’
10
Property concept words such as y-ahma (hot), y-asfa (clear), y-oa’ra (high), etc. are
preponderantly lexicalized as verbs that are incompatible with non-verbal copula(s). Therefore,
such adjectives assume no nouny encodings.
11
A Papuan language.
44
Typically, Tobelo’s property words elaborating properties of established referents are

virtually not always verby encoded (Holton 1999: 355) in that nouny encoding is also
found to be a subtle feature of lexical items predicating a property of an established
referent (Holton 1999:351). Examples 33 and 34 are rough illustrations from Gueleaya of
the previous principles.
Established referent
Verby property words
(33) Raqtan ad wozzar wa-wazanan-bo kifkif.
Cotton.M and iron.M NEG-weight.3rd.SG.M-NPI the same
Raqtan y-afsous, wazzar yadqar
Cotton. M 3rd.SG-light.M.PRES.IND, iron. M. 3rd.SG.M-heavy.PRES.IND
‘Cotton and iron do not weight the same. The cotton is light and the iron is
heavy’.
Nouny property words
(34) Raqtan da-dhab wa-dahan-bo kifkif.
Cotton.M and gold.M NEG-weight.3rd.SG.M-NPI the same
Raqtan da-shamrar, adhab da-wragh

Cotton.M COP.M white, gold.M COP.M yellow.M
‘Cotton and gold are not the same. The cotton is white and the gold is yellow’
Predominantly, Tobelo nominal property words are most prevalent, notably in possessive
constructions wherein the property word is morphologically marked with a relational
prefix RNM12 (Holton 1999: 350). Example 35 is another well-matched case in point
documented in Gueleaya.
Nominal property words

(35) Thaganjajt o.kashod
Spoon.F.SG of.RNM-wooden.M
‘A wooden spoon’
On the other hand, verbal property words are found to reflect the same syntactic and the
same range of inflectional and derivational morphology of other verbs. An example from
Gueleaya in support of this claim is stated below.
Verbal property words

(36) Rkaas-a y-asfa
In principle, Tobelo’s property words are nominally encoded provided that they assign
attributes to referents. By contrast, property words, which function to predicate a property
12
RNM (the relational prefix) indicates that the noun, to which it is attached, is related to another
referent. Semantically, the relational prefix expresses three types of relations. That is, linking a
genitive construction, previous mention in discourse, and inherent possession (Holton 1999: 346).
45
of an established referent, may operate either as verbs or alternatively as nouns (Holton

1999: 351). A couple of examples corresponding roughly to the current hypothesis are
again inherent in Gueleaya.
Attribution
(37) Rabhaar amaqraan
Sea.M big.M.SG
‘The big sea’
(38) Rabhaar i-y-amghan
Sea REL-3rd.SG.M-big.PART.PERF
‘The sea which is big’
Predication
Nominal property word
Sea.M COP.M -big.M
Verbal property word
Admittedly, pragmatic factors have a large bearing on status of property words, that is,
the switch of property word in this Papuan language from nominal to verbal forms is
predominantly regulated by the (pragmatic) status of the modified noun. That is, Tobelo
property words, which do basically introduce new (inactive) referents, opt for nominal
encoding, whereas the ones modifying properties of already established (given) referents,
by contrast, are usually coded as verbs (Holton 1999: 355).
Activation state
Being a measure of pragmatic status, Chafe (1994) defined activation ‘as the status of
information in the listener’s consciousness, as measured on a continuum from active
(given) to inactive (new information)’ Holton (1999: 354). Practically, property words
introducing new (inactive) referents are usually coded as nouns (Holton 1999: 355). An
identical tendency is evident in Gueleaya where the new introduced referent rabhaar
(sea) is modified by the nominal property word amazyan (small).
(41) Ibahaan dawrand

Fishermen return.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M
minzi rabhaar amazyan togha ihaaj
Because NM-sea.M RNM-small.M was rough.3rd.SG.PAST.PERF.M
‘Fishermen returned home because the small sea has been rough’
46
On the other hand, Tobelo property words, elaborating or modifying properties of

established (given) referents, are usually coded as verbs (Holton 1999: 355). A
comparable example in Gueleaya is provided below.
(42) Raqtan ad wozzar wa-wazanan-bo kifkif.

Cotton.M and iron Not-weight.3rd.SG.M.NPI the same
Raqtan yafsous, wazzar yadqar
Cotton.M light.3rd.SG.PRES.IND.M, iron.M heavy.3rd.SG.PRES.IND.M
‘Cotton and iron do not weight the same. Cotton is light and iron is heavy’.
After having defined only one of the two text-based measures of pragmatic status, that is,
activation state, it is now turn to define identifiability. According to Chafe (1994),
‘identifiable referents are those which a speaker assumes that the listener will be able to
identify’ Holton (1999: 355).
In Holton’s own words (1999: 356-357), ‘Tobelo verbal property words always modify
identifiable referents’. To put it simply, the referent ija (price), which is potentially
identifiable within the frame of reference of ‘buying’ in the discourse, is found to be
modified by the verbal property word i-lyamoko (large).
Identifiability in Tobelo
(43) o-gaharu yo-ija,
NM-kind.of.tree 3PL.SUBJ-buy
Yo-uti o-Labi-Labi-iha
3 PL.SUBJ-descend NM-Labi.Labi-DIR
O-Labi-Labi-iha.
NM-Labi.Labi-DIR
Ma-ija
PNM-price
i-lyamoko
3SUBJ-large
‘They came down to Labi-Labi to buy gaharu wood. The price was high’
Identifiability in Gueleaya
(44) Attas an-yawdan i-yasghin ihoriyan i Riid.
Many of-people REL-buy.3rd.P.PAST.PERF sheep for Feast of sacrifice.
Attaman an-san ya(r)khas attas
RNM-Price.M of-which cheap.3rd.SG.PRES.IND very
‘Many people bought sheep for Feast of Sacrifice. The price is low’.
The main points of Holton’s arguments can be summarized in the following lines: in case
of Tobelo, which is a non-inflecting language, a property word is nouny encoded when
the noun it modifies represents “new” information. Comparatively, already established or
identifiable referents are simply modified by verby property words (Holton 1999: 342).
In addition to that, the integration of nominal property words with possessive
constructions is a second distinguishing criterion of nouny and verby property words.
Syntagmatically, Tobelo’s property words, which have an attributive function of
introducing new referents, are encoded with nominal inflectional morphology, whereas,
47
by contrast, the ones that predicate a property of an established referent clearly operate
either as verbs or as nouns (Holton 1999:351). In Holton’s own pragmatic terms,
activation state and identifiability are the two text-based measures of pragmatic status
whereby nouniness and verbiness can be entitled to property words.
Conclusion
Seemingly, nouny and verby distribution of individual property words in both Gueleaya
and Tobelo is not at all free-will in that findings pertinent to Gueleaya indicate that the
inventory of property words, which do exhibit both nouny and verby encodings, is
basically finite. By contrast, nouniness and verbiness of property words in Tobelo is the
exclusive feature of constituents that do predicate a property of an established referent.
5
5.1. Discussion
The main objective of this synopsis is to discuss the distinctive features of the Gueleaya
copula system from morphosyntactic, syntagmatic (copula compatibility with different
parts of speech) and from pragmatic angles. Conspicuously, the nature of the constituent
under study (copula) is intriguing as it clearly displays non-verbal and, by implication,
verbal features too. To put it simply, on a par with non-verbal copulas, copulas do
morphologically inflect for gender and number, but on a par with verbs, the present tense
is implicitly concomitant of the copula in both nominal and/or nominal adjectival
constructions. Inflectional categories including TMAP distinctions are superficially
marked on auxiliaries, which syntactically accompany the non-verbal copula, as the
examples (5), (6) and (7) roughly try to demonstrate. On the other hand, the compatibility
of non-verbal predications, agreeing with the subject in gender and number, with non-
verbal copulas is evident from the next four examples.
Gender distinctions
(1) Thada(r)th att-amaqraant
House.F COP.F.SG-big.F
‘The house is big’
Ahmad COP.M.SG student.M
Number distinctions
(3) Thodrin-in att-i maqraan-in
House.F.PL-DIST COP.F-PL.big.F-PL
‘Those houses are big’
(4) Ahmad ad Saad di mahdaa-n
Ahmad and Saad COP.M.PL student.M-PL
‘Ahmad and Saad are students’
48
Firstly, contrary to Standard Arabic, Hungarian and Sanumá, in which the introduction of
verbal copulas on surface structure is TMA-marked sensitive; Gueleaya non-verbal
copulas inherently surface on equal terms in nominal and with a limited cases of nouny-
adjectival predicates regardless of markedness or unmarkedness of TMA categories,
personal pronouns and/or deictic markers. Secondly, to rephrase what was said earlier, on
account of the fact that copulas in Gueleaya are not verbal in essence, grammatical
categories such as tense, mood, aspect and person are alternatively encoded by auxiliary
verbs, while copulas are essentially tasked with marking of only gender and number
distinctions. A couple of examples are provided below for the purpose of further
illustration.
Non-verbal peredications
(5) Ahmad (a)qa da `l-ostad
Ahmad AUX.3rd.SG.PRES.PROG.M COP.M the-teacher.M
‘Ahmad is (still) being the teacher’
(6) Ahmad togha-th da `l-ostad
Ahmad AUX.PAST.PERF.M-3rd.SG.M COP.M the-teacher.M
‘Ahmad was (being) the teacher’
(7) Adyiri da `l-ostad anagh
AUX.3rd.SG.FUT.IMP.M COP.M the-teacher.M of- us
‘He will be our teacher’
Apart from nouns, which are the foremost consistent traditional parts of speech with non-
verbal copulas, the inventory of nouny-adjectives that show consistency with copula is
fundamentally finite, whereas verbs and adverbs are totally lacking in consistency with
copula. Examples (8), (9), (10) and (11) underneath are included by way of illustration.
Nominal predicate
Nouny-adjectival predicate
(9) Thandint atta maqraan.t
City.F COP.F big.F.SG
‘The city is big’
Verbal predicate
(10) Thashajaath th-oa’ra
Tree.F 3rd.SG.F-high.PRES.PERF
‘The tree is high’
Adverbial predicate
49
(11) Aqayi mlih

EXI.1st.SG.PRES.IND.M well
‘I am well’
Seemingly, Gueleaya’s non-verbal copula can be primarily described in terms of a multi-

functional category in that, in addition to copula function, the former fulfills the
pragmatic function of a predicate marker (PM) in cleft-constructions. As a rule, predicate
markers, such as ad/da, spontaneously precede the foregrounded entity, as it is the case in
the cleft-construction below.
(12) Da rqahwa i-swigh idanad

PM.M coffee.M REL-drink.1st.SG.PAST.PERF.M yesterday
‘It is coffee that I drank yesterday’
5.2. Gueleaya is a semi-split-adjective language

Based on Wetzer’s typological approach to adjectives, Gueleaya can be thus described in
terms of a semi-split-adjective language in that nouny and verby encoding is a natural
pattern of only a finite set of adjectives. Morphologically, on a par with verbs, some
adjectives are eligible to function as a head of an intransitive predicate where they
obviously receive some morphological verbal attributes, including TMAP as well as GN
categories. On a par with nouns, other adjectives do in fact inflect for only gender and
number distinctions within NP compound or copula complement cases (Dixon 2004:26).
For consideration, some examples of nouny and verby adjectivals from Gueleaya are
given below.
Nouny adjectival
Verby adjectival
(14) Adrar y-oa’ra yattas
Mountain.M 3rd.SG.M-high.PRES.PERF.IND very
‘The mountain is very high’
5.3. Documented cases of double-copula in Gueleaya

A typological look at some African languages definitely indicates that double-copula
cases are, beyond dispute, neither rare nor anomalous. That is to say, despite being
linguistically unrelated and geographically distal, both Bambara (Niger-Kongo) and
Gueleaya (Afro-Asiatic) do converge on the introduction of the double-copula strategy
into nominal constructions. Nonetheless, Bambara distinctively shows a multiple-copula
system of four types of copulas, that is, each predicate selects its concomitant copula, for
instance, the double copula ye……ye combines only with nominal predicates in this
regard (Pustet 2003: 46).
50
Nominal predicate
(15) Min ye námása ye
This COPa banana COP
‘This is a banana’
The Bambara’s single nominal predicate is compatible with double-copula system, while
Gueleay double nominal predicates combined with double non-verbal copula cases, by
contrast, is indeed a striking linguistic pheonomenon identified in this research thus far.
Intrasententially, double copula cases are found to systematically abide by the following
constituent order.
[(Proper) Noun/pronoun/NP.COP¹. One {two, three, four, etc.} predicate

nominal¹ COP² predicate nominal²]
By way of elaboration, the NP, in the example below, is twice modified by one man and
good respectively).
(16) Mohammed di-ijan waryaz da-sabhaan

Mohammed.M COP¹.M-one man COP².M-good.M
‘Mohammed is a man (who) is good’
‘Mohammed is a good man’
5.4. Multi-functionality of the posture verb ‘qqim’

In an attempt to lend some validity to the theory stating that the postural verb (qqim
sit/sit down) has diachronically evolved into both a copulative verb (be/remain) and a
continuative/ progressive marker as a result of the grammaticalization process, Kuteva
(2001: 63/64) included a couple of examples from Kabyle (Afro-Asiaitic) language
spoken in Algeria by way of exemplification.
Kabyle (Naït-Zerrad 1996:69)

Qqim  Copula
(17) Abuqal ye- qqim deg texzant
Vase 3rd.SG.M-sit/be/remain.PRET in cupoard
‘The vase is in the cupboard’
Qqim  Continuative
(18) Ye- qqim ye- ttru
3rd.SG.M-sit/be/remain.PRET 3rd.SG.M-CRY.AOR.INTENS
‘He cries all the time’
Seemingly, both Kabyle and Gueleaya lexical inventories do convergently admit the
operation of the posture verb qqim despite the widely divergent pathways along which
this particular verb has historically evolved. Therefore, the functions that this
grammaticalized verb presently do serve in both Kabyle and Gueleaya are slightly
51
different. That is, in this Algerian variety, copulative and continuative functions are the
only two potential by-products of this grammaticalization drift, while in Gueleaya, by
contrast, continuative and existential serve as two potential imports of qqim.
Qqim  Continuative
(19) Ye- qqim itat
3rd.SG.M-sit/be/remain.PRET 3rd.SG.M-.eat.AOR.INTENS
‘He was eating all the time’
Qqim  Existential
(20) Ramfatah qqiman di tomobin
Keys.M 3rd.SG.M-sit/be/remain.PAST in car.M
‘The keys have been inside the car’
Equivalent to:
(21) Ramfatah toghathan di tomobin
Keys.M 3rd.SG.M-EXI.PAST.PERF in car.M
‘The keys were inside the car’
*Qqim  Copula
(22) Agroum ya-qqim da-atri
Bread.M 3rd.SG.M-sit/be/remain.PRES.PERF COP.M-fresh.M
‘The bread remained/is fresh’
In this language, the posture verb qqim can have either continuative or existential, but no
copulative function at all. Strikingly, in a sense analogous to posture verbs, linking verbs,
which function as full-lexical (action) verbs, can possibly combine with non-verbal
copula. The constructions below are cases in point.
(23) Aghamboub-anas yadwar da wragh

Face.M-his/her turn.3rd.SG.PAST COP.M yellow.M
‘His/her face turned/ become yellow’
(24) Douragh da l-modier
Turn.1st.SG.PRES COP.M the-headmaster
‘I become a headmaster’
5.5. Multi-functionality of presentational particle ‘aqa’
The presentational particle ‘(a)qa’ with the meaning of ‘look here’, which is
pragmatically used to introduce or bring new topic(s) into discourse, has diachronically
evolved, owing to presumable grammaticalization process, from a deictic (locative-
demonstrative) adverb into an existential verb, and later on into a possible auxiliary with
basically tense and aspect markings, as examples (28), (29) and (30) respectively try to
demonstrate below. In this case, Lyons’ (1977: 656) assumption about a deeper
interrelationship between deixis and the presupposition of existence is evident from the
following set of examples.
52
Deictic particle
(25) Aqa thataffaaht !
Look here apple.F!
‘Here is the apple’!
Existential verb
(26) Aghi aqa-th di nibira
Milk.M EXI.PRES-3rd.SG.M in fridge
‘Milk is in the fridge’
(27) (A)qa dani aghi di nibira
EXI.PRES LOC milk.M in fridge.M
Auxiliary with tense and aspect marking

(28) Aicha (a)qa-thaqaar thabrat
Aicha AUX.PRES.PROG-read.3rd.F.SG letter.F
‘Aicha is reading a letter’
(29) Ahmad togha-th da `l-ostad
Ahmad AUX.PAST.PERF-3rd.SG.M COP.M the-teacher.M
‘Ahmad was a teacher’
(30) Adyiri da `l-ostad anagh
AUX.3rd.SG.FUT.IMP.M COP.M the-teacher.M.SG of- us
‘He will be our teacher’
Deictically, aqa (look here) is compatible only with proximal spatial contexts, whereas
ayaqa (look there), in contrast, combines with constructions of distal spatial designation.
From the examples below, aqa and ayaqa, which are two variable deictic expressions, are
found to morphologically inflect for gender and number of the addressee.
Proximal representation
(31) Aqa thataffaaht (near with respect to the speaker)
Look here apple.F
‘Here is the apple’
Distal representation
(32) Ayaqash thataffaaht (far with respect to the speaker)
Look.2nd p.s.there.IMP apple.F
‘There is the apple’
53
Conclusion
Three different typological approaches were investigated in the study of both non-verbal
copula system and non-verbal predications in Gueleaya. That is, (1) Hengeveld (1992)
non-verbal predication, (2) Wetzer (1996) the typology of adjectival predication and (3)
Holton (2006) categoriality of property words in a switch-adjective language
respectively. Intrasententially, in Gueleaya non-verbal predications, copula, which
morphologically inflects only for gender and number distinctions, operates on the
principle that TMAP inflectional categories will be marked on auxiliaries instead. On
another level, inconsistent with both verbal and adverbial predicates, Gueleaya non-
verbal copula occurs on equal terms, in nominal as well as in some nouny-adjectival
predications, with both marked and unmarked TMA categories, with all personal
pronouns and with distal and/or proximal deictic markers indiscriminately. In the same
language, predicable non-verbal predications demonstrably bifurcate into copular
predicable predications and zero-copula predicable predications. In view of the copular
predicable predications, non-verbal copula is found to be a prerequisite for the
predictability of identifying and classifying predications as well as bare predicates,
whereas relational predicates and quantifying predications, by contrast, are intrinsically
predicable irrespective of the copula. Distinctively, cases of predicable deictic locative
predicates are evident in either copula or zero-copula constructions.
54
On the basis of the finding, Gueleaya can be categorized as a semi split-adjective

language in that only a finite amount of property concept words are eligible for both
verby and nouny adjectival distribution.
Intrinsically, documented cases of double (nominal) predicates combined with double
non-verbal copulas are undoubtedly the main distinguishing feature of non-verbal
predications in Gueleaya thus far.
55
References
Chafe, Wallace L.
1994Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of
conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dik, Simon C
1980 Studies in a Functional Grammar”, London: Academic Press.
Dixon, R. M. W.
& Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004 Adjective classes. A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holton, Gary
1999 Categoriality of property words in a switch-adjective language. Linguistic
Typology 3.341-360.
Hengeveld, Kees
1992 Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Hewitt, B. George
1979 Lingua (now Croom Helm) Descriptive Studies 2: Abkhaz. Amsterdam:
North Holland (now Croom Helm).
Kuteva, Tania
2001 Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press.
Munro, P
56
Mojave Syntax (New York: Greenland) Page: 292
Naït-Zerrad, K
1996 Grammaire de berbiri contemporain. Vol.ii: Syntaxe. Algiers: ENAG.
Pustet, Regina
2003 Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ross, John Robert

1972The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort, Papers from the eight
regional meeting. Chicago Linguistics Society 8: 316-328.
1973Nouniness”, in: Osamu Fujimura (ed.), 137-257.
Wetzer, Harrie
1996 The typology of adjectival predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gueleaya's Non-Verbal Predications From A Typo Logical Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gueleaya's Non-Verbal Predications From A Typo Logical Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUELEAYA’S NON-VERBAL PREDICATIONS

FROM A TYPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST MERCIFUL, THE MOST GRACIOUS

GUELEAYA’S NON-VERBAL PREDICATIONS

STUDENT NAME: KAMAL BAGHOUR

SUPERVISOR: PROF.DR. P.C. (KEES) HENGEVELD

TITLE OF DIPLOMA/DEGREE: MASTER OF ARTS IN GENERAL LINGUISTICS

UNIVERSITY ADDRESS: UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

1.1. Gueleaya linguistic profile 7

2. Parts of speech system followed by non-verbal predicates in Gueleaya 14

2.1. Parts-of-speech system 14

3. Gueleaya in Hengeveld’s (1992) typological profile 21

3.1. Parts of Speech hierarchy 21

4. Gueleaya in Wetzer’s (1996) typological profile 32

4.1. Adjectival encoding in language: Nouniness and verbiness 32

4.4. Verby adjectivals in type-A languages 39

4.4.1. Criteria for verbiness 39

4.4.1.1.2. The general pattern: adjectivals and intransitive-

4.5.3. The Tensedness Universals (revised version) 42

1st first person

Argument(s) (copula) Predicate

1.1. Gueleaya linguistic profile

Thamazight Thashelhit Tharifith

Gueleaya- Nador city

Figure. 1 The Berber language family tree.

Ethnologically, all contemporary Berber dialects including Gueleaya are, in essence,

Linguistically speaking, Gueleaya is areally surrounded by different languages such as

Map. Areal diffusion of Gueleaya dialect in the province of Nador.

1.2. Gueleaya basic syntax

Subject-adjectival verb construction

Subject-nominal adjectival construction

‘The weather is cold today’

(13) Rabhaar amaqraan

In Gueleaya, as well as in English, the prepositional phrase, which consists of the

Verb-locative preposition construction

‘Ahmad is being the teacher’

Overt pro-copulas in unmarked cases

In terms of compatibility of non-verbal copulas with parts of speech, exclusive of

Parts of speech system

2.1. Parts-of-speech system

‘The big sea’ ‘The big city’

2.2. Non-verbal predicate types

2.2.1. Equative predications set

Hengeveld’s definition of equative predications is that they are ‘non-verbal predications

(8) Natta d`oma

(9) Natta di ijo madoukar ino

Type 1: Identification-Specification: (reversible)

(10) Al-asima na l-maghreb da-arbaat

Type 2: Identification-Characterization: (irreversible)

(12) Bruxel da al-asima an Belgic

(13) * Al-asima an Belgic da Bruxel

Type 3: Classification-Specification: (reversible)

‘The ignorant is the one who knows nothing’

Type 4: Classification-Specification: (irreversible)

(18) Aryada i-siitaajiban attas ad box

(24) Min shak assaqssigh togha ad ‘mani ishtogha?’

‘Where were you?’ was what I asked you.

2.2.2. Ascriptive predications set

Non-presentative ascriptive predications:

(26) Rabhaar da-amaqraan

Status assignment predicate based on nominal predicate

(27) Ahmad da mahdaar

Non-presentative locative predications