1 Introduction

From a typological perspective, it is relatively common to find languages that make semantic distinctions using distinct copular verbs in non-verbal predication; there is a substantial literature suggesting that copular verbs may reflect or encode the semantic properties of the predication relation they help realize (Ramchand 1997; Greenberg 1998; Green 2000; Bochnak et al. 2011; Deo et al. 2017, a.o.). For example, many languages are reported to distinguish between stage- and individual-level prediction using different copular verbs. The Spanish copular be-verbs estar and ser exhibit distributional and interpretational differences akin to the stage-individual contrast (Carlson 1977; Diesing 1990; 1992; Kratzer 1995; Arche 2006 a.o.), with estar being preferred with properties that hold of stages (1), and ser being preferred with properties that hold of individuals (2).¹

Another distinct line of research has investigated the distribution of copulas in ostensibly possessive constructions (Freeze 1992; Kayne 1993, a.o.). The central observation in these works is that some languages, like Russian (3), express possession via the combination of a copular be-verb and a locative or adpositional element, rather than a distinct have-verb.

In yet other languages, e.g., Portuguese (4)–(5), lexical have-verbs are sometimes found to be interchangeable with be + locative/comitative ‘with’ constructions.

Based on these observations, works such as Freeze (1992); Kayne (1993); Ritter & Rosen (1997); Harley (1998); Beavers et al. (2009); Myler (2016; 2018), a.o., attempt to connect abstract be and have compositionally, i.e., have is built from be.

In this paper, I bridge the gap between these two distinct lines of research — namely, the semantic contribution of copulas, and the relationship between abstract be and have — through an investigation of copular predication and possession in Mashi [shr] (Bantu, JD53; Maho 2009), a Great Lakes Bantu language spoken in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo.² Similar to Spanish, we find what appears to be a stage/individual-level distinction between the two copular verbs in Mashi, -li and -ba; -li lexicalizes a stage-level description, while -ba lexicalizes an individual-level description.

However, unlike other languages that make similar copular distinctions (e.g., Spanish), the interpretive contrast shown to hold of the two be-verbs in Mashi extends to possession and possessive predication as well. That is, just as -li and -ba lexicalize a distinction between temporary states and permanent states, the two have-verbs in the language, -dwiire and -jira, lexicalize a distinction between temporary possession (-dwiire), and permanent possession (-jira). To my knowledge, this is the first time that such an interpretive overlap has been reported of be- and have- verb pairs in a Bantu language.

Following previous work relating abstract be and have, I suggest that the interpretational overlap between the copular be-verbs and possessive have-verbs in Mashi provides support for a decompositional approach to have in which it is fundamentally composed from be. In this paper, I will specifically model this as incorporation: have is composed of a verbal head v_be that incorporates a relational element P_have that relates two DPs in a possessive relationship (Freeze 1992; Kayne 1993; Harley 1998, a.o.). In support of this analysis, I provide morphological evidence to show that have has an underlyingly locative structure in Mashi. Specifically, I show that in subjunctive and infinitival clauses, the lexical have-verbs in Mashi exist in complementary distribution with the copular possessive construction be + comitative na (i.e., so-called with-possessive Freeze 1992). Given that the comitative particle is commonly used in conjunction with copular be to yield the possessive in Bantu (Gibson 2012; Halpert & Diercks 2014; Myler 2016), I argue that na is an overt exponent of the relational element P_have presented in incorporation accounts of have (Freeze 1992; Kayne 1993; Harley 1998).

The goal of this paper is to present a novel decompositional approach to abstract have by extending previous analyses of the stage-individual contrast (Carlson 1977; Diesing 1990; 1992; Kratzer 1995; Arche 2006, a.o.), to have constructions. In doing so, this paper does not attempt to explain the semantics of the stage-individual contrast, but rather show that whatever underlies this contrast is involved in the derivation of both be and have in Mashi. As such, the major takeaway from this paper is that the distribution and interpretation of the be/have forms in Mashi can only be explained if have is composed from be.

2 Copular Predication

Though property concepts are often expressed as verbs in Bantu languages, non-verbal predicates — in the form of property denoting nominals/adjectives — are also attested (Schneider-Zioga 2018; 2021; Gibson et al. 2019 a.o.). Generally speaking, Bantu languages exhibit significant morphosyntactic variation in how non-verbal property concepts are predicated, i.e., how they express non-verbal predication (Gibson et al. 2019). Though various morphosyntactic strategies may be employed across the different sub-types of non-verbal predication (Higgins 1979; Schneider-Zioga 2018; 2021; Gluckman et al. 2022), Bantu languages tend to express “pure” predication via an overt copular be-verb (Gibson et al. 2019). In many languages, such as Digo (E73), an invariant form of the copula — generally ni or nu — is used to establish a predication relation between the predicate and its subject, regardless of subject noun class (6).³

In contrast, other languages employ an inflectional copula (or copulas) that agree(s) with the noun class of the subject.⁴ Such is the case in Mongo (C61); in (7) the copula -le obligatorily expresses class 1 agreement with the subject, nkómbé ‘kite’.

Like Mongo, Mashi falls into the category of language that utilizes an inflectional copula to establish a predication relation between a non-verbal property concept and its subject. In fact, Mashi exhibits two distinct copular verbs that may be used in non-verbal predication: -li and -ba.⁵ As illustrated in (8), both -li and -ba may be used to predicate a non-verbal property concept, e.g., the adjective -bulee ‘blue’. Again, both copulas obligatorily exhibit subject noun class agreement in such contexts.⁶

While both copulas are generally available in examples like (8), they do not exist in free-variation. At first glance, we find that the distribution and interpretation of the two Mashi copulas aligns with the differences observed between the Spanish copulas estar and ser — which are famously reported to encode a stage-individual-level contrast (Carlson 1977; Diesing 1990; Kratzer 1995; Diesing 1992; Arche 2006 a.o.). In such descriptions of the Spanish copular system, ser is treated as an individual-level copula in that it is used to predicate an inherent/permanent property of the subject, while estar is treated as a stage-level copula, as it is instead used to predicate a transient/temporary property of the subject. As such, the two copulas are reported to exhibit distributional differences in non-verbal predication, with estar co-occuring with stage-level predicates, e.g., presente ‘present’ (9), and ser with individual-level predicates, e.g., inteligente ‘intelligent’ (10).

Likewise, we find that the two copular be-verbs in Mashi exhibit distributional differences in terms of the predicates they may co-occur with. When uttered out of the blue, -li is used to describe time-bounded, stage-like properties, e.g., ‘sick’, (11), while -ba is instead used to describe inherent properties, e.g., ‘tall’, (12).

Though the above examples point toward a lexicalized stage-individual contrast in both Spanish and Mashi, the true nature of this distinction turns out to be much more complicated. In Spanish for example, it is unclear whether the distributional differences between estar/ser (9)–(10) are indicative of a true stage-individual contrast, as the two copulas do not fundamentally determine which genre of predicate is available.⁷ As presented in Deo et al. (2017), both Spanish estar and ser may be used with canonically stage-level predicates and canonically individual-level predicates, they simply yield a distinction in the particular context in which the predication relation holds. Put simply, it is argued that the semantic properties of the predicate (alone) do not dictate which copula will be employed, but rather the semantics of the copula dictate the interpretation of the predicate.

Like what Deo et al. (2017) report with Spanish, we find that both -li and -ba in Mashi may be used with canonically stage-level predicates or canonically individual-level predicates, depending on the context. For example, while -ba is infelicitous with the stage-level predicate ‘sick’ in (12), it may be used if the property ‘sick’ holds indefinitely of the subject. In this sense, the use of -ba does not yield an individual-level property persay per se, but rather a “permanent” state; the property ‘sick’ holds permanently of Mary (13).

Similarly, while -li is dispreferred with individual-level descriptions uttered out of the blue (11), it can be used with canonically individual-level predicates (e.g., ‘tall’) to yield a “temporary” state reading. As such, we find that -li may be used with the predicate ‘tall’ in (14), but it crucially yields a reading in which the denoted property holds only of a specific (limited) context of evaluation (e.g., John is taller than Mary only at this moment). Such a reading is naturally unavailable with -ba, which yields a permanent state (13).

Moreover, while both copulas were shown to be available in our original example (2, repeated below), they crucially coincide with distinct readings. With the temporary state copula -li, the speaker describes a property that temporarily holds of ‘sky’; the sky is blue right now, but it may not be later. With the permanent state copula -ba, the speaker instead states a general fact about — or a permanent property of — the sky; it is known that the sky is blue (even if it is dark and stormy at the utterance time).

Given the more flexible use of -li/-ba than what is generally described in Spanish, I use the terms “permanent state” (-ba) and “temporary state” (-li), as opposed to “stage-level” and “individual-level”, to describe the meanings of the two Mashi copulas.⁸

3 Possession and Possessive Predication

In this section, I will draw a direct line between the copulas -li/-ba and the two possessive have-verbs in Mashi by showing that they share the same interpretive contrast.

Like with copular predication, Bantu languages vary with respect to the particular strategies they use to encode both pure possession and possessive predication. Nonetheless, we generally find that Bantu languages fall into two distinct categories in terms of how they express possession (Gibson et al. 2019).

For many Bantu languages like Herero (R30), possessive have is expressed via a prefixal subject agreement marker and the comitative particle na, meaning ‘and/with’ (15).

Other languages, e.g., Rangi (F33) in (16), instead employ an overt agreeing copula alongside the comitative to express possession (Halpert & Diercks 2014; Myler 2016).

Though these two strategies for encoding possession both employ the comitative particle — which yields a comitative ‘accompanying’ meaning elsewhere — it is important to note that the above examples encode genuine possession.⁹ That is, the subject in (15) is canonically interpreted to possess a good heart herself, as opposed to simply being in the presence of a good heart that is not her own (the comitative reading). While these two readings are often conflated in Bantu languages that employ comitative na in the possessive, the crucial point here is that the genuine possession reading is necessarily available.

Unlike languages like Herero and Rangi that make use of comitative na in possession, Mashi exemplifies a much less common strategy for encoding possession in Bantu: it employs a lexical have-verb. Moreover, what is particularly interesting about Mashi is the fact that it exhibits two distinct have-verbs, -dwiire and -jira (17).¹⁰

Though both available in examples like (17), these two have-verbs are crucially not in free-variation. In fact, they lexicalize the same temporary-permanent distinction observed of the two be-verbs in section 2; -dwiire encodes temporary possession, while -jira encodes permanent possession. Considering the relative infrequency of lexical have-verbs across Bantu languages (Halpert & Diercks 2014; Myler 2016; Gibson et al. 2019), such an interpretive contrast is unsurprisingly quite rare; this is to my knowledge the first time that such a system has been reported in Bantu.

Let us first consider the interpretive overlap between the temporary state copula -li and the temporary possessive -dwiire. Just as the copula -li describes a property that holds exclusively of a limited context of evaluation, -dwiire expresses a time-bounded associative relationship between two individuals; since the relationship between John and ‘a child’ in (18) is not permanent (i.e., the child doesn’t live in his arms), only the temporary possessive -dwiire is available.

On the other hand, we find that just as the copula -ba encodes a permanent state, the have-verb -jira expresses an inherent associative relationship between two individuals, viz. permanent possession. As such, only -jira is available in contexts where an associative relationship between two individuals holds indefinitely, e.g., the inherent associative relationship between a father and child (19).¹¹

While it may be tempting to treat the two have-verbs as encoding solely alienable/inalienable possession based on the data above, I analyze (in)alienability, like the stage-individual contrast, as a sub-case of the broader temporary-permanent distinction. Accordingly, both have-verbs may describe alienable/inalienable possession, albeit with different interpretations. For example, while -dwiire and -jira are both available in examples like (17), they yield distinct interpretations of the possessive relationship; with -dwiire (20a), the relationship between John and ‘good idea’ is new (e.g., he just came up with it), while with -jira (20b), this relationship is long-term (e.g., John has had this good idea his whole life).

Similarly in (21)–(22), the two have-verbs are distinguishable only in that -jira yields a “permanent” possession reading, and -dwiire a “temporary” possession reading. In both cases, the possession relationship between the car and the wheels is inalienable.

While the use of the permanent possessive -jira in (21) follows from the general expectation that cars have four wheels (i.e., a permanent associative relationship), the context in (22) presents a context dependent associative relationship; since a car having only three wheels is exceptional and holds only of this context, only temporary -dwiire is available.

In the previous sections, I have demonstrated that both the be-verbs and the have-verbs in Mashi lexicalize the same temporary-permanent distinction. That is, just as the copula -li encodes a temporary state and the copula -ba encodes a permanent state, the have-verb -dwiire encodes temporary possession, and -jira permanent possession. To conclude this section, I would like to discuss one additional observation that nicely illustrates this interpretive overlap: when two predicates that convey the same (general) property exhibit different syntactic requirements, the choice of be/have-verb coincides with the interpretational restrictions of the property they both denote.

Consider the adjectival predicate ndaa ‘pregnant’, and the nominal predicate izimi ‘pregnancy’. Though these two predicates differ in category, they attribute the same general property, ‘pregnant’, to their subject. Nonetheless, the two crucially differ in which predicational strategy they employ; ndaa requires copular predication (23), while izimi requires possessive predication (24). Moreover, since the property ‘pregnant’ holds only of a limited context of evaluation, both predicates require the “temporary” copula/possessive; ndaa obligatorily occurs with the temporary state copula -li, while izimi obligatorily occurs with the temporary possessive -dwiire.

Given that the two predicates ndaa and izimi describe the same general property, and necessarily require the “temporary” copula/possessive, the only difference between the two is predicational strategy. As such, the data in (23)–(24) again suggest a significant interpretive overlap between the temporary state be-verb -li, and the temporary possessive -dwiire. While -li and -dwiire may differ in terms of the morphosyntactic environment in which they may be realized (i.e., they vary according to the predicational requirements of the predicate), they are interpretively quite similar, since they may both be used to describe a single property like ‘pregnant’.

4 The link between be and have

To this point, I have shown that the be/have-verbs in Mashi exhibit a significant overlap in interpretation. While this interpretive overlap alone is perhaps sufficient to make the claim that (abstract) be and have are compositionally related in Mashi, there is also significant distributional evidence to suggest that these forms are quite closely linked. Though the be-verbs (-li/-ba) and have-verbs, (-dwiire/-jira) generally lexicalize a temporary-permanent distinction, their realization is sensitive to Mood and Tense. Specifically, we find that the temporary-permanent distinction is morphologically neutralized for both be and have in two specific contexts: the past tense, and the subjunctive/infinitival (irrealis) moods. In each of these neutralizing contexts, be and have exhibit similar invariant surface forms, e.g., the prototypical “temporary” forms -li/-dwiire obligatorily surface in the past tense, while -ba (along with the comitative particle na in the case of have) surface in the subjunctive/infinitival moods (see Table 1).

As we have seen, Mashi encodes a temporary-permanent distinction in its be- and have-verb pairs. This contrast is salient in the present indicative, where both be-verbs and both have-verbs are available. In the past tense however, be and have obligatorily surface as -li and -dwiire — their “temporary” forms in the present indicative. Crucially, these forms are invariable; they surface regardless of the interpretation of the predication relation. This can be seen illustrated for be below; -li ([-ri]) co-occurs with both temporary (25) and permanent interpretations (26) in the past tense.¹²

Likewise, have may only surface as -dwiire in the past tense, again regardless of the interpretation of the possession relation; the permanent have-verb form -jira is crucially unavailable (27).

Much like the past tense, we find that the subjunctive mood serves as a neutralizing environment for both be and have. In this environment, be is obligatorily realized as the permanent state copula -ba; the temporary state copula -li is unavailable (28).¹³

Likewise, have is also limited to one possible realization in the presence of the subjunctive mood. However, this form is distinct from the two have-verb forms we find in the present indicative; both -dwiire and -jira are crucially unavailable.¹⁴ Instead, have is obligatorily realized as the combination of the permanent state copula -ba and the comitative particle na, meaning ‘and/with’ (29)–(30).

Importantly, be (28) and have (29) both realize the permanent state copula -ba in the subjunctive mood. The only difference between the two in this context is the presence of the comitative particle na; have is realized as be + comitative.

We find a similar pattern to the subjunctive in the infinitival mood: both be and have realize the permanent state be-verb form -ba — namely its infinitival form okuba (31), with have being realized as the combination of -ba and comitative na (32).

The important point here is that, just as in the past tense, the surface forms of be and have are invariable in the subjunctive and infinitival moods, as they do not morphologically encode the temporary-permanent distinction.

While both Tense and Mood condition the realization of be/have, it is worth noting the distinct effect of Mood on the realization of have. As illustrated above, neither of the lexical have-verbs (-dwiire/-jira) are available in the subjunctive/infinitival moods. Instead, possessive have is obligatorily realized as the copular possessive construction, be + comitative na. From a Bantu perspective (see section 3), it is not surprising to find such a copula-based possessive construction in Mashi, as this sort of possessive strategy is commonly attested in Bantu languages (Halpert & Diercks 2014; Myler 2016; Gibson 2012; Gibson et al. 2019). Although this copular possessive construction is exceptionally limited to subjunctive and non-finite clauses in Mashi, the fact remains that it exists in a complementary relationship with the have-verbs -dwiire/-jira; when lexical have is unavailable, be surfaces (with the comitative particle na) in its place.

Summarizing the above, we find that in the past tense, be and have are realized as their “temporary” forms -li/-dwiire. In irrealis moods, be forms are realized as the “permanent” form -ba, and have forms are realized as permanent copula -ba with the comitative particle. When considered alongside the general interpretational overlap between the be/have-verbs, the parallel effects of Mood and Tense on the realization of be and have provide a strong case for a decompositional approach to possessive have (Freeze 1992; Kayne 1993; Ritter & Rosen 1997; Harley 1998; Beavers et al. 2009; Myler 2016; 2018 a.o.). The alternation between the lexical have-verbs and the copular possessive construction, be + comitative, provides particularly strong support for a decompositional approach in which have is built via the incorporation of a locative element by be, as I will discuss in subsection 4.1. Importantly, an incorporation-based approach to decompositional have provides a straightforward analysis of the interpretational overlap between the Mashi be/have-verbs; if have is built from be, then the temporary-permanent distinction shown to hold of the have-verbs falls out of the fact that the be-verbs lexicalize the same distinction.

5 Discussion

In this section, I would like to address two related consequences of the proposed VI rules (repeated below in 56), namely the existence of two homophonous v_be allomorphs, -ba₁ and -ba₂, and the ‘default’ status of the temporary forms -li and -dwiire.

Perhaps the most significant consequence of the proposed VI rules is that they result in two homophonous allomorphs (-ba) of v_be — one that applies strictly in the present indicative (56b) and one that that serves as the elsewhere form (56e). While undesirable, this turns out to be a necessary stipulation in the analysis. The problem is that in the indicative, -ba must surface exclusively in the presence of T_[+pres] and Pred_indiv, but in the subjunctive/infinitive, -ba surfaces regardless of what other material is present (e.g., Pred/P_have). By defining two distinct -ba allomorphs, we ensure that -ba — but not -li — surfaces with Pred_indiv in the present indicative (56b) and also that no other allomorph surfaces in the presence of Mood_[-indic] (56e).²⁵ Crucially, these two environments cannot be captured by one synchronic rule; to keep the temporary-permanent contrast between -li/-ba in the present indicative and ensure that only -ba appears in Mood_[-indic] contexts, we need to define two homophonous allomorphs, -ba₁ and -ba₂.²⁶

That being said, we do find reasonable support for the existence of two homophonous v_be allomorphs in Mashi. First, we find analysis internal support in the fact that v_be is sometimes realized in isolation rather than as part of a larger span. Consider the “blocking” effects of the subjunctive and infinitival moods; while -ba strictly realizes the span [v_be-Pred_indiv] in the present indicative (56b), irrealis mood limits the size of the insertion span that realizes v_be, resulting in v_be being realized as -ba (56e) and P_have — if present — being realized as na (56f). Given that this blocking effect coincides with the morphological neutralization of the temporary-permanent contrast (i.e., only -ba is available), it is not unreasonable to suspect that -ba is the default realization of v_be in isolation; Pred could simply be unpronounced. As such, one -ba allomorph realizes the span [v_be-Pred_indiv] (56b), while the other realizes the span [v_be] (56e).

Assuming Mashi does exhibit three distinct copular verb forms, viz. -li, -ba₁ and -ba₂, we would expect to find other languages that make a similar tripartite distinction. This is indeed what is observed; such a system is reported in closely related Kifuliiru (Bantu, JD63), which exhibits three copular forms in predicative-environments, -li, -ba, and -tula (Finholt 2023). While the interpretative distinctions between these copulas differ from those in Mashi (see Finholt 2023 for discussion), the fact that a closely related language exhibits a three-way copular system at all provides significant typological evidence to support the analysis that there are two distinct -ba allomorphs in Mashi. Just like Kifuliiru, Mashi has three copular be forms: -li, -ba₁, and -ba₂. The fact that there are two -ba allomorphs in Mashi may simply be attributed to a case of accidental homophony stemming from an unknown series of diachronic changes. I will leave any further explanation of such diachronic processes to future work. What is important here is that there is typological evidence to support the existence of three distinct copular be forms in Mashi.

The second consequence of the proposed VI rules in (44) follows directly from the existence of two -ba allomorphs: if one -ba allomorph arises strictly in the present indicative (56b) and another serves as the elsewhere form (56e), then the temporary forms -dwiire (56c) and -li (56d) become de-facto default forms of have and be respectively, as they occur in much less specific contexts (e.g., [+/–pres]). The exact reason why the temporary (“stage-level”) forms behave as default forms for be/have is unclear, and I will not attempt to resolve this issue here. That said, one possible analysis would be to assume that the temporary forms we see in the present indicative — where the temporary-permanent contrast is morphologically overt — realize unmarked forms of Pred. In this sense, the temporary-permanent distinction would be characterized by a distinction between unmarked Pred and marked Pred_indiv. This would allow for the temporary forms to surface in contexts where Pred is underspecified, e.g., in the presence of past tense (56c)–(56d). Of course, such an analysis would not explain why the temporary forms may appear with both temporary and permanent interpretations in the past tense, e.g., -li in (25)–(26). If the temporary forms realize unmarked Pred, we would expect them to be unavailable with permanent interpretations, which arise from the Pred_indiv head. I will leave any further discussion and/or account of such issues to future work.

6 Conclusion

In this paper, I present novel data on copular predication and possession in the Bantu language Mashi (JD53; Maho 2009). The central observation is that Mashi exhibits an interpretive overlap in its be-verbs and have-verbs; just as the two be-verbs, -li/-ba, lexicalize a distinction between “temporary” and “permanent” states, the two have-verbs, -dwiire/-jira lexicalize a distinction between “temporary” and “permanent” possession.²⁷ From these descriptive observations, this paper makes a theoretical point. Following a long line of previous research, I argue that the interpretive overlap between the be/have-verbs provides novel evidence of a compositional relationship between abstract be and have (Freeze 1992; Kayne 1993; Ritter & Rosen 1997; Harley 1998; Beavers et al. 2009; Myler 2016; 2018 a.o.). I specifically show that Mashi be/have allomorphy — which I characterize as v_be allomorphy — provides strong support for an incorporation approach to decompositional have whereby have is derived via the incorporation of a locative element P_have by a verbal head v_be (Freeze 1992; Kayne 1993; Ritter & Rosen 1997; Harley 1998 a.o.). Under certain morphological conditions, e.g., in the presence of irrealis mood, both lexical have-verbs in Mashi are unavailable; in this environment have is obligatorily realized as the copular possessive (i.e., with-possessive Freeze 1992) construction be + comitative na. Given that the combination of be and the comitative particle na is a common strategy for encoding possession in possession in Bantu languages in general (Gibson 2012; Halpert & Diercks 2014; Myler 2016 a.o.), I treat na as an overt exponent of the locative element P_have described in incorporation accounts (Freeze 1992; Kayne 1993; Ritter & Rosen 1997; Harley 1998 a.o.).

To account for the interpretive overlap between be/have and fully capture v_be allomorphy, I invoke a spanning insertion analysis modeled after that presented in Merchant (2015). This approach allows for a simpler analysis of complex allomorphic patterns by defining the target for Vocabulary Insertion as a contiguous series, or span, of heads, and defining locality conditions according to the adjacency of said spans. I propose two distinct spans of heads that are relevant to the realization of v_be in Mashi. One span, namely [v_be-Pred-P_have], serves to directly realize v_be. This span captures the general contrast between be/have, which is distinguished by the presence/absence of P_have, and also the broader temporary-permanent distinction, which I attribute to a distinction between two Pred heads, Pred_stage/indiv. The second span, [Mood-T] is not directly involved in the composition of be/have, instead serving to condition its realization. By defining two distinct spans, [Mood-T] and [v_be-Pred-P_have] we account for both the conditioning effects of the features associated with Mood and Tense, and also the fact that Mood/Tense morphology may co-occur with overt exponents of v_be.

In summary, this paper presents a novel decompositional approach to abstract have that extends the stage-individual (or temporary-permanent) contrast (Carlson 1977; Kratzer 1995; Diesing 1990; 1992; Arche 2006 a.o.) to have constructions, relates be and have via incorporation (Freeze 1992; Kayne 1993; Ritter & Rosen 1997; Harley 1998, a.o.), and defines the domain for insertion and allomorphic conditioning according to spans of heads (Merchant 2015).

Abbreviations

agr: agreement

aug: augment

com: comitative

comp: complementizer

cop: copula

dem: demonstrative

indic: indicative mood

inf: infinitival mood

hab: habitual

loc: locative

mod: modal

perm: permanent

poss: possessive pronoun

pres: present tense

sbjv: subjunctive mood

sg: singular

sm: subject marker

temp: temporary

Ethics and consent

The collection of human subject data was approved by the University of Kansas IRB Board. Data was collected as part of two separate IRB-approved projects: 00148259 - Bantu complementizers, and 00146220 - Documentation of African Languages in Kansas.

Funding information

This work has been partially funded by NSF grant 2140000-908-1003445, PI: John Gluckman, University of Kansas.

Acknowledgements

I would especially like to thank my advisor John Gluckman, as well as Philip Duncan, Andrew McKenzie, and the other members of the Research in Field and Formal Linguistics seminar at the University of Kansas for their invaluable feedback on this project. I would also like to thank the anonymous Glossa reviewers and the audiences at NELS 52 at Rutgers University, and the 2022 LSA Annual Meeting in Washington D.C. for their comments and questions. Considerable thanks as well to Emily Hanink, Jens Hopperdietzel, and Andrew Koontz-Garboden for inviting me to present this work to the Syn-Sem Lab at the University of Manchester. Finally, I would like to express my sincerest thanks to Mitima Burhungane for his time and considerable effort in teaching me about Mashi.

Competing interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.