[Lingtyp] questions about adverbs

[Östen Dahl]

I would agree with Martin here. I think ideophones can have different functions, so just calling them “ideophones” would be only half the story anyway.
It is also worth mentioning that lexically specific intensifiers may start out with a transparent meaning which is later bleached as the intensifier generalizes. In spoken Swedish, the noun jätte ’giant’ was prefixed to stor ’big’ as a lexically specific intensifier, but is now frequently used with just any adjective, e.g. jättebra ‘very good’. Prescriptivists were not happy with combinations such as jätteliten ‘(lit.) giant small’.


  *   Östen

Från: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> För Martin Haspelmath
Skickat: den 18 juni 2020 11:21
Till: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Ämne: Re: [Lingtyp] questions about adverbs

Yes, they remind one of ideophones, but it seems that Alex François's term "lexically specific intensifiers" captures best what these forms are (though I would prefer "degree modifiers", to avoid confusion with self-intensifiers).

It seems that "ideophones" are generally understood more broadly, because they do not have to be degree modifiers (and maybe more narrowly at the same time, because they have to be "marked", and "depict sensory imagery", according to Dingemanse: http://ideophone.org/working-definition/).

It may be worth studying lexically specific degree modifiers more systematically across languages. Ekkehard König mentioned English "ice-cold", "crystal clear", "pitch-black", and German "hunde-müde" [dog-tired], "stock-dunkel" [stick-dark], and Jussi Ylikoski mentioned Finnish "upo-uusi" (extremeley new) – these are usually treated as marginal phenomena, but the fact that such lexically specific degree modifiers are found on at least three different continents (Wolof, Mwotlap, English) may point to something more general.

Martin

P.S. The term "adverb" is not wrong, but I try to avoid it, because it has been applied to a very heterogeneous range of phenomena.

Am 18.06.20 um 10:56 schrieb Kofi Yakpo:
Dear Aminata,

As Dmitry points out, these words would normally be referred to as ideophones in African linguistics. Most ideophones in "African languages" (they are more of an areal than a genetic feature) are lexically/constructionally restricted in one or the other way, so there is not much need to invent a new label for them besides "ideophone". Colour-specific ideophones can be found in all Atlantic-Congo languages I am familiarity with, and the European-lexifier creoles of Africa incl. Kriyol (Casamance, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde).

You could check the work of Mark Dingemanse and the works he cites for an overview of most of the literature.

Best,
Kofi
————
Dr Kofi Yakpo • Associate Professor
University of Hong Kong<http://arts.hku.hk/> • Linguistics<http://www.linguistics.hku.hk/> • Scholars Hub<http://hub.hku.hk/cris/rp/rp01715>
Resident Scholar: Chi Sun College<http://www.chisuncollege.hku.hk/the-college/>

My publications @ zenodo<https://zenodo.org/search?page=1&size=20&q=yakpo&sort=-publication_date>
On the Outcomes of Prosodic Contact<https://muse.jhu.edu/article/751031>
A Grammar of Pichi<http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/85>


On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:07 PM Majigeen Aminata <aminatamajigeen at yahoo.com<mailto:aminatamajigeen at yahoo.com>> wrote:
Dear all,

I am currently working on what are called “adverbs” (see words un bold) in wolof literature. Wolof, spoken in Senegal (West Africa) has specific words that only work with some colors: white, black, red and each word-adverb match only with its color, they are not commutable.

weex tàll: extremely white (it can't be whiter)

ñuul kukk: extremely black (it can't be more black)

xonq coyy: extremely red (it can't be more red)

Others words adverbs go with state verbs and are specific to them as well. They are not commutable.

baax lool: extremely nice (it can't be nicer)

bees tàq: really new (nobody has ever used it)

dëgër këcc: extremely hard (it can't be harder)

diis gann: really heavy (very difficult to carry)

fatt taraj: extremely blocked (it can't be more blocked)

fess dell: extremely full (it can't be fuller)

forox toll: really acidic (it can't be more acidic)

gàtt ndugur: really short (he can't be shorter)

jeex tàkk: completely finished, ...

In Wolof they are called intensifiers but this term does not convince me because it can be confusing. They do not intensify the verbs. These words mean that the state or action of the verb is at its end of completude. I would like to know if there are languages ​​that work like that and what is the terminology used for this kind of construction. Can someone also recommend me new documentation on the definition of the concepts of verbs, adverbs, adjectives… in African languages?

Thanks and regards.

Aminata

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp



_______________________________________________

Lingtyp mailing list

Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp



--

Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de<mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>)

Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History

Kahlaische Strasse 10

D-07745 Jena

&

Leipzig University

Institut fuer Anglistik

IPF 141199

D-04081 Leipzig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200618/10be38b3/attachment.htm>