Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

coffee—only the inanimacy of coffee blocks the resultative interpretation and forces a
construal with Mary as depictively modified.
The import of these parallels between D-stem/Gtn-stem reduplications and secondary
predication are difficult to clarify, but two points are worthy of mention: (a) secondary
predicates tend to be associated with the nominal that corresponds to a natural end point
or telos for the verb and (b) the D-stem and Gtn-stem reduplications both refer to the non-
dynamic period of time after any and all telic points have been reached: where the verb is
telic, such a non-dynamic period of time corresponds to the resultant state (analogous to
resultative secondary predication), but when the verb is atelic, the non-dynamic period of
time refers to the entire event (analogous to depictive secondary predication). As
Rothstein reiterates: “… we see that when an AP [adjective phrase] is used as a
secondary predicate, then the property it expresses must hold of the denotation of its
subject for the whole time that the matrix [main] event is going on (for depictives) or for
the whole time that the culmination of the matrix [main] event is going on (for
resultatives)” (Rothstein 2004, 63). In other words, a secondary predicate in English
picks out the nominal that serves as a natural end point for the verb and acts as an
adjectival modifier, qualifying the nominal accordingly.
What is the formal mechanism in Sumerian that allows reduplication of a verbal root
to correspond in semantic terms to the introduction of a distinct, secondary adjectival
form in the English examples? It just so happens that several types of adjective in
Sumerian seem to be formed through the reduplication of a verbal root. The group of
112