Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

Whereas D-stem reduplication introduced an adjectival component to the transitive verbs
above, with respect to adjectival roots, which are necessarily intransitive, the D-stem
reduplication introduces a direct object through causativization. 15
(7) OBGT XI (MSL IV; Yoshikawa 1993, 305)
11. [gun 3].≠gun 3±.na.ab bu-≠ri-im± make colored!
12. [sig 7].sig 7.ga.ab bu-ri-≠iq± make green!
Likewise in example (7), the reduplication of the verbal root yields a resultative form and
in the case of adjectival roots results in a causative semantics. Note, then, that in purely
formal terms, the examples of originally transitive predicates in (4) and (5) form a
resultative secondary predicate through simple reduplication of the root, whereas the
adjectival examples in (6) and (7) start out as a verbal root followed by the
nominalizing/resultative suffix, *-a, and form the resultative secondary predicate by
verbal reduplication that preserves the nominalizing/resultative suffix in final position.
The fact that the resultative D-stem construction of both the transitive and the
adjectival roots yields a semantic complex that includes both a direct object and an
adjectival predicate that modifies the direct object should probably be taken as evidence
that it is a resultative secondary predication (see Rothstein 2004, 59-90 and references
therein). Yoshikawa drew a fundamental contrast between the D-stem ˙amt¬u
reduplications dealt with above and the Gtn-stem ˙amt¬u reduplications that I turn to now
15 Whether the causativization of the predicate follows from reduplication alone or is related in one way or another to
the *-b- morpheme remains an open question: this is the generalization that best fits the grammatical texts (Kowaki
1982), but it probably needs to be investigated more thoroughly in non-lexical environments.
109