# Kuteb Verbal Extensions vs. Bezen Verbal Serialisation: A Comparison

Viktoria Kempf

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

OpenEdition
Journals

**Electronic version**

URL: https://journals.openedition.org/IIa/9938

DOI: 10.4000/IIa.9938

ISSN: 2822-7468

**Publisher**

Llacan UMR 8135 CNRS/Inalco

**Printed version**

Date of publication: 31 December 2018

Number of pages: 31-52

ISSN: 2429-2230

**Electronic reference**

Viktoria Kempf, "Kuteb Verbal Extensions vs. Bezen Verbal Serialisation: A Comparison", *Linguistique et langues africaines* [Online], 4 | 2018, Online since 03 January 2022, connection on 25 August 2023.

URL: http://journals.openedition.org/IIa/9938 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/IIa.9938

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

LLA

Linguistique
et Langues
Africaines

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

- A selecção do √P cause em Nyungwe: Uma análise à luz de Pylkkänen

- Kuteb Verbal Extensions vs. Bezen
  Verbal Serialization - A Comparison

- A Note on the Present Tenses in some
  Southern Tanzanian Bantu Languages

- Consonant Voicing, Tonal Morphemes, and Downstep in Gwari

- Les processus tonals en koyó

- Comptes-rendus / Book Reviews

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

9 782359 352566
LLA

Linguistique
et Langues
Africaines

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

#04

Juin 2018

1. A selecção do vP cause em Nyungwe: Uma análise à luz de Pylkkänen
*Crisofia Langa da Camara*

11

2. Kuteb Verbal Extensions vs. Bezen
Verbal Serialization - A Comparison
*Viktoria Kempf*

31

3. A Note on the Present Tenses in some
Southern Tanzanian Bantu Languages
*Bastian Persohn & Rasmus Bernander*

53

4. Consonant Voicing, Tonal Morphemes, and Downstep in Gwari
*Kolawole Adeniyi & Ben Elugbe*

77

Notes & Documents

Les processus tonals en koyó
*Régina Patience Ikemou*

101

Comptes-rendus / Book Reviews

Sokhna Bao Diop, Le Baynunk guñaamolo, une langue du sud du Sénégal: Analyse phonologique, morphologique et syntaxique
par Noël-Bernard Biagui

117

Sabine Littig, Linguistische Beschreibung des Kolbila. Eine Adamawaspracheder Nord-region Kameruns
par Aurore Montébran

122

Manuele Bandeira, Reconstrução fonológica e lexical do protocrioulo do Golfo da Guiné,
par Jean-Louis Rougé

129

John Vanderelst, A Grammar of Dagik,
par Thilo C. Schadeberg

133

Sara Petrollino, A Grammar of Hamar.
A South Omotic Language of Ethiopia,
par Yvonne Treis

140

En couverture : Partie de babyfoot au Cap-Vert (côte est de l'île de Santiago, dans les environs de Pedra Badejo), photo : Nicolas Quint 2008.

Design : Jean-Irénée Cuin

Production - diffusion : Éditions Lambert-Lucas
LLA

Linguistique
et Langues
Africaines

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

International Journal edited by
Revue internationale éditée par le LLACAN
(UMR 8135 CNRS / INALCO / PRES Sorbonne Paris Cité)

# 4 – 2018
Diffusion

Éditions Lambert-Lucas
4 rue d'Isly - 87000 LIMOGES (France)
Tél 05 55 77 12 36
Por 06 07 41 04 25

Cette revue est en accès libre

téléchargeable sur le site des éditions Lambert-Lucas

n° 1, juin 2015 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-1

n° 2, juin 2016 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-2

n° 3, juin 2017 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-3

n° 4, juin 2018 :

http://www.lambert-lucas.com/linguistique-langues-africaines-4

(etc.)

Pour des exemplaires sur papier,
merci d'écrire à lambertlucas@free.fr
**Comité scientifique**

Emilio BONVINI (LLACAN, CNRS), Denis CREISSELS (DDL, Université Lyon 2), Claude HAGÈGE (EPHE), Bernd HEINE (University of Cologne), Larry HYMAN (University of California - Berkeley), Sambieni KOFFI (Université d'Abomey-Calavi), Jérémie KOUADIO (Université d'Abidjan), Friederike LÜPKE (SOAS, University of London), Gudrun MIEHE (University of Bayreuth), Maarten MOUS (Leiden University), Pape Alioune NDAO (Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar), Margarida PETTERS (Universidade de São Paulo), Thilo SCHADEBERG (Leiden University), John MCWHORTER (Columbia University).

**Comité de rédaction**

Nicolas AUBRY (LLACAN, INALCO), Pascal BOYELDIEU (LLACAN, CNRS), James ESSEGBEY (University of Florida), Gwenaëlle FABRE (LLL, Université d'Orléans), Maximilien GUÉRIN (LLACAN, CNRS), Stefano MANFREDI (Sedyl, CNRS), Sylvester OSU (LLL, Université de Tours), Cédric PATIN (STL, Université de Lille), Marie-Claude SIMEONE-SENELLE (LLACAN, CNRS), Lameen SOUAG (Lacito, CNRS), Yvonne TREIS (LLACAN, CNRS), Valentin VYDRIN (LLACAN, INALCO), Kofi YAKPO (University of Hong-Kong).

**Rédaction**

Paulette ROULON-DOKO (LLACAN, CNRS), Nicolas QUINT (LLACAN, CNRS), Loïc-Michel PERRIN (LLACAN, INALCO).

**Administration**

Jeanne ZERNER

**Directeur de la publication**

Mark VAN DE VELDE
## Contact

LLACAN (UMR 8135, campus du CNRS)

7, rue Guy-Môquet

94801 VILLEJUIF Cedex - France

http://llacan.vjf.cnrs.fr/lla

llafrique@cnrs.fr

## Consignes de soumission

http://llacan.vjf.cnrs.fr/lla

## Comptes-rendus

Les ouvrages sont à adresser à

Maximilien Guérin (maximilien.guerin@cnrs.fr)

(s/c de Nicolas Quint et Yvonne Treis)

LLACAN (UMR 8135, campus du CNRS)

7, rue Guy-Môquet

94801 VILLEJUIF Cedex - France
# Sommaire / Contents

1. A selecção do vP cause em Nyungwe:
   Uma análise à luz de Pylkkänen .................................................... 11
   Crisofia Langa da Camara

2. Kuteb Verbal Extensions vs. Bezen Verbal Serialisation –
   A Comparison .................................................................................. 31
   Victoria Kempf

3. A Note on the Present Tenses in Some Southern Tanzanian
   Bantu Languages ............................................................................ 53
   Bastian Persohn & Rasmus Bernander

4. Consonant Voicing, Tonal Morphemes, and Downstep in Gwari . 77
   Kolawole Adeniyi & Ben Elugbe

# Notes & Documents

Les processus tonals en koyó ................................................................. 101
Régina Patience Ikemou

# Comptes-rendus / Book Reviews

Sokhna Bao Diop
*Le Baynunk guñaamolo, une langue du sud du Sénégal :*
*Analyse phonologique, morphologique et syntaxique* ........................ 117
par Noël-Bernard Biagui

Sabine Littig
*Linguistische Beschreibung des Kolbila. Eine Adamawasprache*
*der Nordregion Kameruns* .................................................................. 122
par Aurore Montébran

Manuele Bandeira
*Reconstrução fonológica e lexical do protocrioulo*
*do golfo da Guiné* ........................................................................ 129
par Jean-Louis Rougé
John Vanderelst
*A Grammar of Dagik* ........................................................................ 133
par Thilo C. Schadeberg

Sara Petrollino
*A Grammar of Hamar. A South Omotic Language of Ethiopia* ..... 140
par Yvonne Treis
# Kuteb Verbal Extensions vs. Bezen Verbal Serialisation.
## A Comparison

Viktoria Kempf

Universität Hamburg, Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften

Asien-Afrika-Institut, Afrikanistik und Äthiopistik

### Abstract

Kuteb and Bezen are both Southern-Jukunoid languages. Whereas the former language seems to have retained Proto-Niger Congo category-preserving verbal derivation and even developed new suffixes, the latter language lacks such devices completely. In the present paper I critically assess the status and origin of Kuteb derivative morphology on verbs by comparing the suffixes with parallel constructions in form of serial verbs in Bezen.

### Keywords

Southern Jukunoid, verb-extensions, verbal serialisation.

### Résumé

Le kuteb et le bezen sont deux langues jukunoïdes du Sud. Si le kuteb semble avoir maintenu le système de dérivation verbale intracatégorielle (verbe > verbe) hérité du proto-Niger-Congo et l'avoir même enrichi de nouveaux suffixes, le bezen a, par contre, entièrement perdu ce système. Dans cet article, je passe systématiquement en revue le statut morphologique et l'origine de plusieurs suffixes dérivatifs verbaux kuteb en m'appuyant sur une comparaison desdits suffixes avec les constructions sérielles de sens équivalent attestées en bezen.

### Mots-clés

jukunoïde du Sud, dérivation verbale, séries verbales.
# 1. Introduction<fnref n="1" />

Category-preserving derivational devices in form of suffixes which add a semantic specification to the verb are widely spread in Niger-Congo languages. <fnref n="2" /> <fnref n="3" /> They are found in Narrow Bantu languages like Swahili (Racine 2015) and Kinyarwanda (Idiata 2003b) and in Grassfields Bantu languages such as Isu (Kießling 2011) and Obang (Asohsi 2015). <fnref n="4" /> Beyond Benue-Congo they are also found in the Kwa language Likpe (Ameka 2009).

Voeltz (2004: 5 ff.) summarises the properties of verb extensions as bound morphemes which “change the meaning of the base verb in a predictable way”. They may reduce or increase the valence of their base verb. But apart from that, the “‘extended’ verb [...] behaves in all respects like an unextended verb”.

Reconstructions of Niger-Congo languages lead to the conclusion that verbal extensions have already been present at the Proto Niger-Congo level (Voeltz 1977). However, verbal extensions are not stable: they may be reduced phonologically and finally disappear completely. Serial verbs may functionally replace the lost extensions; and in the course of time, these verb series may grammaticalise to verbal extensions again (Voeltz 1977: 73 ff.). Thus, the emergence and reduction of verbal extensions is an ongoing cycle and we often find morphemes that are at an intermediary stage of development, in which they show both verbal properties and grammatical functions (see also Aikhenvald 2007: 40). Voeltz (2004: 8) argues that in languages, in which verbal extensions have developed recently, it is not possible to combine several extensions with one verbal root. The same holds true for languages which are losing their extensions.

Kuteb and Bezen are two of overall five confirmed members of the Southern Jukunoid grouping, which belongs to the Benue-Congo branch of the Niger-Congo phylum. Both Kuteb and Bezen are spoken in the border area between north-western Cameroon and east-central Nigeria.

<footnote n="1">1. I would like to thank the Bezen community for allowing our team to conduct research in their village. I am most grateful to the village head Jama Umah and his wife Francisca for their hospitality, likewise to Deborah and Ignatius Gideh. Special thanks goes to Robert Amah Shita and Arama Fidelis, who have supported us with their analytic skills since 2011. I am grateful to Roland Kießling, Nicolas Quint and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. All remaining mistakes are my own.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. See Aikhenvald (2007: 36; 42) for the terminology of derivational processes.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. In Africanist literature (Voeltz 1977; Voeltz 2004; Koops 2009; contributions in footnote 4 below), these category-preserving derivational devices attaching onto verbs are called verbal extensions, which is rather unspecific, since the term “extension” does not tell us yet, whether we are dealing with inflectional or derivational morphology. For the sake of simplicity, I will continue to use the term in the present paper.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4. Further Narrow Bantu languages that feature verbal extensions are Isangu, Havu and Duala. Bafut, Lamnso, Kom, Njwɛ and Ngiembɔɔn are Grassfields languages that also have verbal extensions (see Idiata & Mba 2003).</footnote>
Whereas Kuteb has more than 50.000 speakers and is mainly spoken in the Takum Local Government Area in Nigeria, Bezen is restricted to two villages, Bezen I and Bezen II in the Furu-Awa subdivision of Cameroon, with merely 400 speakers (Koops 2009: 2).

Kuteb seems to have retained Proto-Niger-Congo suffixed verbal extensions but Bezen lacks this derivative device altogether.<fnref n="5" /> Koops (2009: 73) relates some of the Kuteb extensions to Proto Niger-Congo forms but concludes that others must be innovations which have developed from verbal series. In the following, I would like to re-evaluate the Kuteb examples and compare them with equivalent constructions in form of serial verbs in Bezen. Cognate verbs in Bezen support the assumption of a verbal origin for some of the extensions.

## Data

The comparison is based on data from two different sources: Robert Koops' 2009 grammar of the Kuteb language and data on Bezen which has been collected during the BeLDoP and the LEMSOC projects, some of it already published in Kempf 2013 and 2017.<fnref n="6" />

The only other Southern Jukunoid language which has been analysed in depth is Yukuben, which does not make use of verbal extensions (Anyanwu 2013). All remaining Southern Jukunoid languages have not been documented yet: there are only short sketches of Akum (Akumbu & Brye 2002; Kempf & Prischnegg in preparation) and Bazim (Lovegren 2012). Kapya (and Bete and Lufu)<fnref n="7" /> has not been described yet in detail, however, morphological data can be found in Prischnegg 2008 and 2010.

Kuteb and Bezen do not seem to be as closely related as Bezen and Yukuben (see also Prischnegg 2010: 99). They are both SVO languages, but whereas Kuteb rather tends to be isolating, with up to three morphemes per word (Koops 2009), Bezen can be classified as an agglutinative language with up to five additional prefixes attached to the verbal root.

The prototypical Kuteb verb is monosyllabic, with a CV or CVC pattern. More complex verbs of the form CVCV have “probably

<footnote n="5">5. There are three other (de)verbal derivative devices in Bezen. The speakers may reduplicate the verbal root post-verbally to indicate intensification or prolonged duration of an action. The other two derivative devices in Bezen are indicated by a tonal shift: it is possible to change the valency of a verb by changing its tonal pattern from HM to MH or from ML to HM. However, this device is restricted to only five verbs. The last device derives adverbs from verbs by assigning a HL tonal pattern to the initial vowel of the verb. This device is also restricted to a few verbs (Kempf 2017).</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6. The BeLDoP project (Bezen Language Documentation Project), which was funded by the Volkswagen Foundation within the framework of the DoBeS program, took place between 2011 and 2015. It has been prolonged under the title LEMSOC (Language of Ethno-medical Discourse in Southern Jukunoid Communities) until 2019. The data is archived in the DoBeS archive at the MPI for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen under https://corpus1.mpi.nl.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7. Bete and Lufu are two moribund languages which probably also belong to the Southern Jukunoid group (Prischnegg 2010).</footnote>
compounded originally from simpler verbs" (Koops 2009: 64). Kuteb exhibits serial pronouns, such as in (3b) which do not exist in Bezen (and Yukuben). These morphemes, which are also called "verb-focus pronouns" occur in the form of suffixes and co-refer to the subject (Koops 2009: 240). Beyond the verb-focus pronouns only the derivational verbal extensions may be attached to the Kuteb verbal root (Koops 2009). Tone does not play a role in the inflectional morphology of Kuteb (Koops 2009).

Bezen verbal roots have the form CV, VC or CVC. However, the bare roots only occur in the imperative, in all other forms they carry an initial vowel of the form /a/, /ɛ/ or /o/. The Bezen verbal morphology allows for a series of prefixes on the verb to indicate tense, aspect or negation. Some categories, such as the adhortative and the obligative are only indicated by a tonal change (Kempf 2017).

Both languages allow for verbal serialisation, which is defined as a chain of several verbs without coordinating or subordinating devices. These verbs typically describe a single event (Aikhenvald 2006: 1 f.).

<table><caption>Table 1.- Overview of some syntactic and morphological properties of Kuteb and Bezen</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Kuteb</th><th>Bezen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>order of constituents in sentence</td><td colspan="2">SVO</td></tr><tr><td>transparency of word-internal boundaries<sup>8</sup></td><td>isolating</td><td>agglutinating</td></tr><tr><td>pronouns</td><td>copy-pronouns</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>syllable-structure of verbal roots</td><td>CV, CVC, CVCV</td><td>CV, VC, CVC</td></tr><tr><td>category-preserving derivation on verbs</td><td>suffixes</td><td>reduplication, tonal change</td></tr><tr><td>tense-aspect-modality</td><td>particles</td><td>prefixes, tonal change</td></tr><tr><td>syntax</td><td colspan="2">serial verbs</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 2. An overview of Kuteb verbal extensions

Koops (2009: 73) lists altogether thirteen verbal extensions in Kuteb which have a similar syllable structure as verbs, CV or CVC. Some of the extensions, like the abilitative -tù<fnref n="9" />, the extensive -fòb, and the separative -tā, are identical with the verbs ‘find’, ‘reach’ and ‘shoot’, respectively (Koops 2009: 73f.). For others, such as the benefactive nà and the extension mbéb which conveys a notion of DAMAGE, a verbal origin is

<footnote n="8">8. Terminology from Aikhenvald (2007: 3).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9. Koops (2009) does not indicate the low tone in his orthography. I add it, however, for the sake of a unified and unambiguous presentation of the examples.</footnote>
traceable (Koops 2009: 199). The author (Koops 2009) is aware of the problematic status of some of these extensions and concedes that they could be analysed either as “compound verbs [...] or as verb-plus-suffix or as a sequence of verbs” (Koops 2009: 66).

In Table 2, the Kuteb verbal extensions that have equivalents in form of serial verbs in Bezen are presented.<fnref n="10" /> The equivalents are not necessarily cognates of the Kuteb extensions but may also be semantic equivalents, such as ṁrú ‘reach’ and āyī ókū ‘do help’.

<table><caption>Table 2.- List of Kuteb verb extensions (Koops 2009: 73)</caption><thead><tr><th>Meaning</th><th>Kuteb extension</th><th>Kuteb verb</th><th>Bezen verb</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>extensive, abilitative</td><td>-fɔ̄b</td><td>fɔ̄b ‘reach’</td><td>ɔ̄rú ‘reach’</td></tr><tr><td>resulting in closure</td><td>-cī</td><td>—</td><td>ésěk ‘cover’</td></tr><tr><td>resulting in separation</td><td>-tā</td><td>tā ‘shoot; hit’</td><td>ātī ‘shoot’</td></tr><tr><td>benefactive</td><td>-nà</td><td>ndà ‘give’</td><td>ānì ‘give’</td></tr><tr><td>resulting in damage</td><td>-mbéb</td><td>béb ‘be bad; spoil’</td><td>ábāb ‘be bad; spoil’</td></tr><tr><td>habitual</td><td>-kób</td><td>—</td><td>āŋī ‘sit; live’</td></tr><tr><td>assistive</td><td>-yà</td><td>—</td><td>āyī ‘do’; āyī ókū ‘do help’</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3. Comparison of Kuteb extensions and Bezen verbal serialisation

In this chapter, I discuss the above presented verbal extensions. For this, the Kuteb grammar is searched for possible verbal sources of the suffixes, some of which are already presented by Koops (2009) himself (see section 2). As a second step, the functions and occurrences of the morphemes are investigated. The status of a verbal extension will be refused in two cases:

1. If there is a homophonous, fully functional verb in Kuteb from which the proposed extension has most likely developed.

2. If the proposed extension can be separated from the main verb by another lexeme.

The second criterion cannot always be applied, since the author needs to rely on available data from both languages and cannot conduct further tests. Therefore there is no way to test whether it is possible to insert a pause between two morphemes (see Haspelmath & Sims 2010: 196).

As a third step, cognate verbs (and in two cases semantic equivalents)

<footnote n="10">10. Furthermore, Koops (2009: 73) lists the extensive derivation -fɛ́, the comitative -tɛ́, the extensive -yɛ́, the repetitive -cī, and the derivation -rà, which denotes a quick or forceful execution of an activity.</footnote>
from Bezen are presented. The cognate Bezen examples shall support the
hypothesis that some of the Kuteb extensions are simply verbs or are
derived from full verbs.

Extensive/abilitative fòb

The morpheme fòb is one of the tentative candidates for a verbal extension
in Kuteb. It has a verbal equivalent fòb with the lexical meaning ‘reach’.
The verb can be used independently in a clause (1).

(1) àmè rū yī rìtúg tī m fòb àtán
1SG go to market REL 1SG reach there
'I went to the market. When I got there...' (Koops 2009: 250)

In combination with other motion verbs in serial verb constructions, fòb
may retain its original meaning ‘reach’ (2a and 2b) or bear the secondary
meaning of ‘be able to do sth.’ (2c), i.e. ‘ability.’

(2a) àwū tēr rū kà fòb ùwōg ínjā-wū
3SG run move go reach place brother-3SG
‘He ran to his brother’s place.’ (Koops 2009: 193)

(2b) àwū kún sī kùmbúkùnn bá fòb wàkúnùnn
3SG crawl descend hill come reach home
‘He crawled down from the hill and [arrived at] home.’ (Koops 2009: 193
[Kempf])

(2c) ùtā mbér kùfxèn ú càn fòb-wū bē
REL break leg FUT walk reach-3SG NEG
‘The one with the broken leg will not be able to walk.’ (Koops 2009: 99)

With verbs that do not denote motion, the verb fòb encodes the meaning
of ABILITY (3a and 3b). The annotation of the examples indicates that
Koops (2009) himself is not sure of the status of the lexeme. Whereas in
(3a), he writes *báefòb* as one word and glosses it as ‘write-SUF’ (Koops
2009: 65), in (3b) and (2c) he separates fòb from the first verb and labels it
with its lexical meaning ‘reach’. Since the author himself (Koops 2009)
tends to interpret the morpheme as a verb and since it may occur
independently in a clause (1), I conclude that fòb is simply the verb ‘reach’
whose meaning has been expanded to indicate ability. I adjust the
annotation in (3a) according to that.

(3a) àwū báé fòb ìrá
3SG write reach word
‘He is able to write.’ (Koops 2009: 65, 73)

(3b) àtī ú ndè fòb-tī ìtsò ìkén yīnè bē
1PL FUT do reach-1PL kind thing DEM NEG
‘We couldn’t do anything like that.’ (Koops 2009: 281)

Evidence from Bezen

The Bezen verb ōrú ‘reach’ is formally distinct from the Kuteb verb fòb,
however, in Bezen, too, there has been a semantic expansion from a spatial
concept to ABILITY: The verb ōrú ‘reach’ occurs as the only verb in a clause
(4a and 4b) or in series with other verbs. <fnref n="11" />

(4a) Bzna111125-2.025

<table><tr><td>ūdūŋ</td><td>y-ák-òrú</td><td>émí=ní</td><td>āyīr</td><td>àn-âtsì</td></tr><tr><td>SG.chief</td><td>3SG-ADH.CFG-reach</td><td>there=DEF</td><td>3PL.start</td><td>NOM-insult</td></tr><tr><td>ūdūŋ</td><td>àbì</td><td>ītsī</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SG.chief</td><td>with</td><td>abuse</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">'As the chief arrived there, they started abusing him [the chief].'</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">(Kempf 2017: 86)</td></tr></table>

(4b) Bzna111130-6b.023

<table><tr><td>ìsín=ní</td><td>ānìŋ</td><td>órú</td><td>àbì</td><td>ūnū</td></tr><tr><td>SG.fowl=DEF</td><td>who</td><td>SUB-reach</td><td>with</td><td>that</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">'The fowl, who brought it?'</td></tr></table>

In combination with verbs that denote motion, ōrú may have its lexical meaning ‘reach’ (5a and 5b) or denote ABILITY such as in (5c). In both cases, ōrú follows the other verb in series.

(5a) Bzna120921-15.258

<table><tr><td>éiyé</td><td>ák-ézém</td><td>ōrú</td><td>émí</td><td>kín</td></tr><tr><td>no</td><td>3PL.FUT\NEG-FUT\cross</td><td>reach</td><td>there</td><td>NEG</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">'No, they will not cross and reach there.'</td></tr></table>

(5b) Bzna120921-17.013

<table><tr><td>w-àyāk</td><td>bázī</td><td>émí</td><td>w-ehīŋ</td><td>ōrú</td><td>émí</td><td>ìyāb â</td></tr><tr><td>2SG-OBL\put</td><td>PL.matters</td><td>there</td><td>2SG-FUT\go</td><td>reach</td><td>there</td><td>again Q</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">'If you cause a problem there, will you go back there again?'</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">(Kempf 2017: 121)</td></tr></table>

(5c) y-āwū ōrú á kītfāŋ=ní

<table><tr><td>3SG-come</td><td>reach</td><td>LOC</td><td>SG.house=DEF</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">'He is able to come to the house.'</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">(Kempf 2017: 91)</td></tr></table>

In combination with verbs that do not denote motion, the verb ōrú ‘reach’ is used to express ABILITY, as presented in (6).

(6a) m-égbén ōrú

<table><tr><td>1SG-FUT\read</td><td>reach</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">'I will be able to read.'</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">(Kempf 2017: 91)</td></tr></table>

(6b) Bzna140903-1.135

<table><tr><td>m-ákí-ēgbén</td><td>ōrú</td><td>bāŋī</td><td>ìyì=kín</td></tr><tr><td>1SG-FUT.NEG-call</td><td>reach</td><td>PL.people</td><td>3SG=NEG</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">'I will not be able to call his people.'</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">(Kempf 2017: 91)</td></tr></table>

As shown above, there are syntactic and semantic parallels of the Kuteb verb fòb ‘reach’ and the Bezen ōrú ‘reach’. In both languages, the verbs serve as coverbs in verbal serialisation, directly following the main verb. Considering the available examples, nothing can be inserted between V1

<footnote n="11">11. Most of the Bezen examples can be accessed electronically in full length in the DoBeS Bezen archive. The labels on top of the examples indicate the date of recording following the pattern: YYMMDD-running number of recordings.utterance number. Examples without a label are elicited and not archived.</footnote>
and V2 in both languages. The audio data of the Bezen examples shows that when *ōrú* ‘reach’ occurs in second position of a verbal serialisation, the verbs are uttered without a break, which, however, does not mean that the second verb is grammaticalised to an extension, as verbs in series are often pronounced as one unit in Bezen.

In both languages, the meaning of the verbs *fòb* ‘reach’ and *ōrú* ‘reach’ has been expanded from a spatial concept to the meaning of ABILITY, respectively. Such a development has also been observed in Koranko (Mande) (Kastenholz, personal communication, cited in Heine & Kuteva 2002: 45) and Mandarin Chinese (Li and Thompson 1981: 66; Heine & Kuteva 2002: 45).

The existence of the fully functional homophonous verb *fòb* ‘reach’ in Kuteb and the comparative evidence of semantic expansion supports the assumption that *fòb* is not a derivative device but a verb.

‘Resulting in closure’ -cī

The status of an extension can be confirmed for the suffix -cī with the meaning ‘resulting in closure’ (Koops 2009: 74). There is no formally similar verb in Kuteb from which this morpheme could have been developed. <fnref n="12" /> Koops (2009) notes that the suffix -cī only occurs with verbs that already imply a closure (7):

(7a) cwùnn-cī
close-CLOS
‘close’ (Koops 2009: 74) <fnref n="13" />
njì-cī
bury-CLOS
‘bury’ (Koops 2009: 33; 74)
bùr-cī
cover-CLOS
‘close by covering’ (Koops 2009: 74; 160)
yīr-cī
tie-CLOS
‘close by tying’ (Koops 2009: 74; 250)

(7b) àmè cwùnn-cī ùfù
1SG close-CLOS door
‘I closed the door’ (Koops 2009: 73)

<footnote n="12">12. The possibility that -cī, has developed from cī ‘eat’ (Koops 2009: 45) is rather low. Koops (2009) does not mention a possible connection, either.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13. I have added a dash between the verbal root and the extension here and in the following examples, since -cī is a suffix. Koops (2009) separates the suffixes in his glossing, labelling them with the general abbreviation ‘SUF’. However, he does not separate the extensions in the transcription. I gloss -cī as CLOS for ‘closure’. There are no examples in Koops (2009) which show the verb cwùnn without the extension. I gloss it as ‘close’.</footnote>
(7c) àtī bùr-cī kùtútòŋ
1PL cover-CLOS pot
‘We covered the pot.’ (Koops 2009: 73)

## Bezen evidence

Bezen has the verb *ésēk* which denotes a complete covering of something with a cloth or with soil. The verb can be used in monoverbal clauses or in series. In (8), *ésēk* is used as the predicate in monoverbal clauses.

(8a) m-ésēk ōpnī àmì=mí
1SG-cover.completely SG.person 1SG=PFV
‘I have buried my person [here: a relative].’

(8b) n-èsēk ìyì
2PL-OBL\cover.completely 3SG
‘Bury him!’

This verb *ésēk* is often used in combination with the verb *ékēb* ‘cover’ in V₁ position (9):

(9a) Bzna111124-18.049
y-āk-ēzē ùtār ū-wúŋ ékēb ésēk émí
3SG-CPT-take SG.garment SG-other cover cover.completely there
‘He took some cloth and covered [the calabash] completely [with it] there.’
(Kempf 2017: 85)

(9b) Bzna131006-5.087
ání w-ékēb ésēk ādāk ádī ìgbìm
so.now 2SG-cover cover.completely place LOC\village God
ámú rè=kó â
LOC or Q
‘So you are only covering the upper part [of the felled palm tree] or how?’

The Kuteb extension -cī ‘resulting in closure’ might have developed from a verb, similarly to the Bezen *ésēk* ‘cover completely’. The two morphemes might be cognate: both contain alveolar sounds and fronted vowels, respectively. <fnref n="14" /> If we assume that the initial vowel in Bezen is a retention and that Kuteb has lost it, we only have to explain the loss of the final consonant, which is not difficult, either. Indeed, both languages tend not to release the final consonant which finally might get lost altogether (Koops 2009: 31, 74; Fogwe-Chibaka & Akumbu 2012; Tabah forthcoming). Furthermore, the verbal root carries the same mid tone. The position of the morphemes in the clause is also similar: *ésēk* occurs in V₂ position and -cī is a suffix. Koops (2009: 74), however, rather sees a connection to the Proto Niger-Congo iterative extension *ti/*si.

## Separative tā

The separative extension tā has its origin in the verb tā ‘shoot, hit’ (Koops 2009: 74). The verb can be used as the predicate of monoverbal clauses, as

<footnote n="14">14. The grapheme <c> represents the phoneme /tʃ/ in Koops (2009: 11).</footnote>
presented in (10a and 10b)<fnref n="15" /> or in V₁ position of SVCs with the object directly following V₁ and preceding V₂ (10c).

(10a) àwū tā wū
3SG shoot 3SG
‘He shot him/her/it.’ (Koops 2009: 240)

(10b) àmè tā ùnzù ìpìŋ kínzō àmá ìpìŋ ndè béb-wū
1SG shoot mouth gun one but gun do be.bad-3SG
‘I got off one shoot, but the gun jammed.’ (Koops 2009: 223)

(10c) àbā tā ìbyē bá
3PL shoot animal come
‘They shot and brought an animal.’ (Koops 2009: 197)

The verb tā ‘shoot’ is combined with verbs which already imply a separation of (parts of) entities, as presented in (11) (Koops 2009: 74): <fnref n="16" />

(11a) tàén tā ‘split’
nyāŋ tā ‘break’
sáén tā ‘free’
kán tā ‘divide’
‘divide shoot’ (Koops 2009: 22, 74)
yá tā ‘leave’
‘leave shoot’ (Koops 2009: 74, 258)

(11b) àwū táén tā ùkùm wū
3SG split shoot stick ?
‘He split the stick’ (Koops 2009: 73)

(11c) ā kàn tā wúcī
3PL divide shoot food
‘They divided the food’ (Koops 2009: 73)

Koops (2009: 74) classifies tā as a tentative suffix, however, this interpretation is problematic, since, in some cases at least, the morpheme may be separated from the verb by the direct object, as in (12). If it were a suffix, no lexeme could stand between the verb and the extension.

(12a) á **sáén** wū tā
3SG release 3SG shoot
‘They released him.’ (Koops 2009: 75)

(12b) tī ā nā yá kùsóg nā tā nà ùwá-wū
PURP 3PL IS leave house IS shoot give wife-3SG
‘They must leave the house [to the benefit of] his wife.’ (Koops 2009: 286
[Kempf])

<footnote n="15">15. I modified the transcription and annotation of this example, see the section on the tentative extension mhéb for further details.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16. Contrary to the extension -cī ‘resulting in closure’, I separate tā ‘shoot’ from the other verb since the examples convincingly show that the latter is not an extension but simply a verb. I did not find a literal translation in Koops 2009 for any of the verbs presented above; the annotation for tàén ‘split’ is my own.</footnote>
Koops (2009) considers *tā* to be a verbal extension because he is not sure whether there is a connection to the verb *tā* ‘shoot’. He speculates that “it may be related to an earlier CAUSATIVE suffix” (Koops 2009: 74, capitalisation in the original) and thus compares it with the Hausa stativiser -tā and the Mandinka perfective marker -tā (Koops 2009: 225). Here, the Bezen data supports a link between the alleged extension and its verbal origin.

## Bezen evidence

Bezen has a similar verb *ātī* which has a broad range of meanings, the most basic being ‘shoot’ or ‘throw’. It serves as a source for lexicalisations: it is combined with verbs of utterance, and to denote SEPARATION. In (13a), the verb *ātī* is presented with its lexical meaning ‘shoot’. In (13b), the meaning is ‘throw’.

(13a) Bzna161011-1.143

bākān=nī àtī àmì úrú àkíŋ m-òsūr=mí
juju=DEF OBL\shoot 1SG day REL.SG 1SG-OBL\accept=PFV
‘The juju shall shoot me the day that I will have admitted.’

(13b) Bzna111130-5b.512

ø-tī êrè kédànī
IMP <fnref n="17" />-shoot down now
‘Throw (it) down now!’

The verb *ātī* ‘shoot’ may occur in V₁ or V₂ position in verbal
serialisation. Whereas in (14a), *ātī* has its basic lexical meaning, in (14b)
it has the broad meaning of SEPARATION, similar to the Kuteb examples.

(14a) Bzna111125-1.005

ìyí ùhōb ū-wúŋ āpīn k-àtī
SG.ETHN Akum.person SG-other leave CFG-shoot
ōwōn ímbār ìyì ámú úsàn à bì īwū ìyì kīkyār
kill SG.sibling 3SG in SG.farm with SG.wife 3SG all
‘A certain Akum person went and killed his brother and his wife in the
farm.’ (Kempf 2017: 83)

(14b) Bzna131006-5.007

īlāk=ní w-òtúr àtī=ní
PL.palms=DEF 2SG-OBL\chop OBL\fell=DEF
‘The palms, when you fell them, ...’

The Kuteb and Bezen verbs *tā* and *ātī* ‘shoot’ are cognate. <fnref n="18" /> They share the alveolar /t/ and the mid tone on the root vowel; the initial vowel is missing in Kuteb and the root vowels differ, however. They have the same lexical meaning and have broadened their semantics in a similar way, from the specific meanings ‘throw’/‘shoot’ to a broader notion of SEPARATION,

<footnote n="17">17. The imperative modality is indicated by the missing initial vowel a.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18. In Yukuben, *tā* means ‘throw’ (Prischegg 2008: 402). The meaning is similar to ‘shoot’, implying a fast separation of an object from an agent.</footnote>
especially when occurring in V₂ position in SVCs.

Due to the language-specific and the comparative evidence, *tā* is
probably simply the verb ‘shoot’ in Kuteb. Especially the fact that *tā* may
be separated by other morphemes from the first verb of a series supports
the assumption that it is a verb, rather than a suffix.

Benefactive *nà*

Koops (2009) provides several conflicting interpretations for the bene-
factive extension *nà*.<fnref n="19" /> The author (Koops 2009: 199) states that it has
probably developed from the verb *ndà* ‘give’ and glosses it as ‘give’ at
times (Koops 2009: 200). On the other side, he speculates that *nà* is related
to the ‘applied’ extension *DE in Proto Niger-Congo* (Koops 2009: 75;
Voeltz 1977: 59).

Whereas *ndà* ‘give’ is used as a full verb in Kuteb, the usage of *nà* is
restricted to verbal serialisations. In (15), *ndà* ‘give’ serves as the predicate
of monoverbal clauses. It is accompanied by three arguments, respectively:
the agent (A), the recipient (R), which directly follows the verb (V), and
the theme (Th), which itself follows the recipient.

(15a) àmè à bá m ú ndà fù kóbò
1SG if come 1SG FUT give 2SG kobo
A V R Th
‘If I come, I’ll give you a kobo <fnref n="20" />’. (Koops 2009: 26)

(15b) ā ndà izé rìnyànwàè
3PL give Ize present
A V R Th
‘They gave Ize a present.’ (Koops 2009: 170)

In (16), the benefactive co-verb *nà* is presented. <fnref n="21" /> The order of the
arguments is similar as in monoverbal clauses: the agent (A) stands in pre-
verbal position, expressed in the 3PL pronoun *ā* in (16a) and the 1PL
pronoun *àtī* in (16b). The recipient (R) and theme (Th) follow each other
(with R preceding Th) and occur after the benefactive co-verb *nà*.

(16a) ā ndè nà m wándè
3PL do give 1SG work
A V V R Th
‘They did [the] work for me!’ (Koops 2009: 74 [Kempf])

<footnote n="19">19. Whereas on p. 74, Koops (2009) labels *nà* as a ‘benefactive extension’ and writes it together with the main verb, on p. 177, he annotates it as BEN and writes it separately from the verb. On p.183, *nà* is glossed as ‘to’; on p.199, as ‘give’ and on p. 200 no glossing is provided. It would make it easier for the reader to be presented directly with the author’s final analysis, which would not prevent him for making remarks in due course about his own hesitations.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20. Kobo is the name of a subdivision of the naira, the official currency in Nigeria. One naira consists of 100 kobo. See: Central Bank of Nigeria http://www.cbn.gov.ng.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21. I have added the glossing to the examples.</footnote>
(16b) àtī tō nà fù ùtòŋ
1PL cooked give 2SG soup
A V V R Th

‘We cooked soup for you.’ (Koops 2009: 74)

By now, one may think that the case is clear: the verb *ndà* ‘give’ has grammaticalised to produce a verbal extension -nà. However, things are not that straightforward, as it is possible to separate the tentative extension from the verb (17)<fnref n="22" />:

(17a) àmè sà kóbò nà wū
1SG take kobo give 3SG
‘I gave him a kobo.’ (Koops 2009: 200)

(17b) àmè sà kóbò kú nà wū
1SG take kobo IPFV give 3SG
‘I am giving him a kobo.’ (Koops 2009: 200)

Considering the examples in (17), it is clear that *nà* still has verbal properties. Koops himself comes to this conclusion, after having presented various contradicting solutions: “The aspect markers show that **na** must be treated as a verb. Though it cannot occur by itself as a verb, it does function as a normal verb in the SVCs. I therefore call it a ‘restricted verb’.” (2009: 200; bold in the original).

## Bezen evidence

In Bezen, *ānì* ‘give’ may occur as the only verb in a sentence or in series with other verbs. In any case, it introduces the BENEFICIARY or RECIPIENT role (see Kempf 2017: 100). In (18), *ānì* ‘give’ is presented as the predicate of monoverbal clauses.

(18a) Bzna161011-1.564
kīrīk àrì ùtún
SG.thing OBL\be SG. possession 2SG God give 2SG=PFV
‘Something that is your own, God has given it to you.’

(18b) Bzna140903-4.080
ázì ìyì éhìŋ
3PL.ADH\take 3SG ADH\go óbū sàdúnà
ánì ák-ànì ìyì ērīk ámyāŋ tírī
so.that 3PL.ADH\CFG-give 3SG PL.food now
‘They should take her and go to Saduna’s place so that they go and give her something to eat now!’ (Kempf 2017: 100)

In verbal serialisations, *ānì* ‘give’ may follow directly the first verb, as in (19a) or occur after the object, as in (19b) –see also (29c). The RECIPIENT/BENEFICIARY role necessarily follows *ānì* ‘give’.

<footnote n="22">22. Koops (2009: 200) does not provide a glossing for *nà* in these two examples. I label it as ‘give’ here.</footnote>
(19a) Bzna131006-5.061

| | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| ánì m-àryáŋ | kō m-átī | ánì | |
| so.that 1SG-OBL\want | QUOT 1SG-ADH\shoot | ADH\give | |
| ōŋī=ní kīrīk | ūwóŋ ákí-ōsū | émí kín | |
| SG.person=DEF SG.thing | other FUT\NEG-descend | there NEG | |

‘So that if I want to pour it for somebody, nothing will fall inside the wine.’

(19b) Bzna161011-1.148

| | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| ùwù ímbār | ùwù ōkōb | āmbār | īzīn | |
| 2SG SG.sibling | 2SG SG.woman | deliver | SG.child | |
| ānì ùwù | | | | |
| give 2SG | | | | |

‘You, your sister delivered a child to you (gave you a nephew).’

There is evidence from Yukuben for similar benefactive constructions (Anyanwu 2013). Here, the verb "dà ‘give’ is cognate with the Kuteb verb ndà ‘give’ which is only used as predicate in monoverbal clauses. In Yukuben, similarly as in Bezen, "dà can be used alone, or in combination with other verbs to introduce the recipient or the beneficiary role. In (20), the verb is used as the predicate of monoverbal clauses. It is directly followed by the recipient, respectively, encoded in the 3PL pronoun bī in (20a) and the 1PL pronoun dì in (20b). The theme is postponed to the recipient and encoded in the noun állá ‘food’ in (20a) and the NP ánáŋ □jí ‘the money’ in (20b).

(20a) ì ndá bī | á-llá | ó-yīŋ | ó-yīŋ
---|---|---|---
3SG give IMPERS.3PL CL-food PREF-each PREF-each
A V R Th

(20b) "dà-dì á-náŋ lńí | give-1PL CL-money DET
---|---
V-R Th

In verbal serialisation, "dà ‘give’ occurs in second position and introduces the RECIPIENT or the BENEFICIARY role (21). Whereas in (21a), the serial verbs bú ‘do’ and "dà ‘give’ are juxtaposed, in (21b) the verbs tóm ‘cook’ and ndà ‘give’ are separated by the theme, encoded by the noun kizú ‘something’.

(21a) ìyēè mè ré ò-bú à-"dà | úú-dɔ́ŋ | kɔ́ŋ
---|---|---
NEG 1SG IPFV SM-do ANAPH.AGR-give CL-chief NEG
A A V V R

(21b) ú tóm kì-zú | ↑"dà | ī-ba | "dú
---|---|---|---
2SG cook CL-(some)thing give CL-husband 2SG.POSS
A A V Th V R

āāā
Q-tag

‘Did you cook (some)thing for your husband?’ (Anyanwu 2013: 227)
Whereas in Bezen and in Yukuben, the verbs for ‘give’, ānì and "dà respectively, can be used in monoverbal clauses or in SVCs, Kuteb has two different lexemes which express the meaning ‘give’: ndà for monoverbal clauses and nà for verbal serialisations. It seems as if nà has developed from the full verb and is in the process of grammaticalisation to a verbal extension or preposition. The presence of the multifunctional cognate form "dà in Yukuben suggests that in Kuteb, too, ndà was used in all syntactic contexts in the past but has undergone a differentiation.

The development from a verb meaning ‘give’ to a benefactive marker is very common cross-linguistically. In West-African languages it is accounted for in Jimini (Carlson 1991: 214; Heine & Kuteva 2002: 149), in Twi, in Awutu (Lord 1993: 39; Heine & Kuteva 2002: 149) and in Efik (Welmers 1968: 68f.; Heine & Kuteva 2002: 149).

‘Resulting in damage’ mbéb

A further verbal extension that Koops (2009: 73) proposes is *mbéb* ‘resulting in damage’. He sometimes transcribes it as *mbéb* (2009: 73, 74, 118, 164) and sometimes as *béb* (2009: 165, 167, 223, 246, 255, 279, 280).<fnref n="23" /> Based on comparative data from Bezen, I propose that the extension *mbéb* is derived from the verb *béb* in Kuteb (Koops 2009: 139). The range of this verb seems to include the stative meaning ‘be bad’ and the dynamic meaning ‘spoil’. This polysemy seems to be in agreement with Koops’ observation (2009: 66) that “[m]ost [Kuteb] verbs can have multiple senses, one of which may be transitive, another stative, and another intransitive.”

In (22), the verb *béb* ‘be bad, spoil’ is presented as the predicate of a monoverbal clause.<fnref n="24" />

(22) kó ùndè à béb rímāŋ ùwàè ùtēnsè iké
even person COND be.bad how in world here
àfù nā sáérū-fù àwū bē
2SG IS despise-2SG 3SG NEG
‘No matter how bad a person is here in this world, do not despise him...’
(Koops 2009: 286)

Koops' (2009) grammar contains many sentences which exemplify the word *ndèbéb/ndèmbéb*, translated as ‘spoil’ so that I started to wonder, whether the component *ndè* ever occurs on its own, which is the case: It has the meaning ‘do’, as presented in the following two examples (23a) and (23b).

<footnote n="23">23. Furthermore, there is the verb *mbùb* ‘spoil’, which may be a phonetic variant of *béb/mbéb* ‘be bad’ (Koops 2009: 205f.).</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24. In the original, *béb* is glossed as ‘bad’, which I have adjusted here to ‘be bad’. The fact that the lexeme is modified by the conditional marker *à* in (22) supports the interpretation that *béb* is a verb.</footnote>
(23a) àpùrá ú ndè
Apura FUT do
‘Apura will do it.’ (Koops 2009: 55)

(23b) ndè wándà-fù títàwé
do work-2SG first
‘Do your work first.’ (Koops 2009: 77)

Whenever *mbéb* or *béb* is combined with another verb in series, it directly follows the preceding verb; there is no evidence that something may stand between the verb and the proposed extension. In (24a) and (24b), the verb ‘be bad, spoil’ is written as *mbéb*, in (24c) and (24d) as *béb*-see also (10b).<fnref n="25" />

(24a) ndè mbéb-fù ùtōb bē
do spoil-2SG heart NEG
‘Don’t be upset.’ (Koops 2009: 74)

(24b) rédìò tī àwū jāēb iké ndè mbéb pú-wū
radio REL 3SG buy here do spoil PFV-3SG
‘The radio he bought here is spoiled.’ (Koops 2009: 118)

(24c) rìsū tī àfù kú bōm nè ndè béb
head REL 2SG IPFV strong DEM do spoil
m ùtōb
1SG heart
‘This stubbornness of yours bothers me.’ (Koops 2009: 167)

(24d) ùmbàè tī ndè béb kìsīm-fù nwúnn pú-wū
child REL do spoil knife-2SG arise PFV-3SG
‘The child who spoiled your knife has gone.’ (Koops 2009: 255)

The varying transcription of the proposed extension *mbéb/béb* hints towards a relatedness to the homophonous verb *béb* ‘be bad, spoil’. The fact that the verb may occur as the predicate of monoverbal clauses leads to the conclusion that *mbéb/béb* is not an extension but simply a coverb in series. Comparative data from Bezen supports this analysis.

## Bezen evidence

Bezen has the verb *ábāb* which is cognate to Kuteb *béb*. The Bezen equivalent also occurs as a stative intransitive verb and as a dynamic transitive verb with the meaning ‘spoil’. It may occur in monoverbal clauses, as in (25a) and (25b) or in verbal serialisations, as in (25c) and (25d). In the latter, it stands in $V_2$ position, similar as in Kuteb.

(25a) Bzna120921-15.105
ūkwák àkīŋ ówūr ámú=ní ábāb
SG.angl. REL.SG LOC\front here=DEF be.bad
ézīn àkīŋ ámú ūkwāŋ ânī=kín
seemingly REL.SG on LOC\SG.road there=NEG
‘The angle which is in front here is not as bad as the one on the road there.’
(Kempf 2017: 93)

<footnote n="25">25. I have streamlined the transcription of all four examples, separating *mbéb/béb* from the verb *ndè ‘do’* and annotating it as ‘spoil’.</footnote>
(25b) Bzna111130-5b.455
ārī ùwù ánǐ-ábʌb â
be 2SG FUT-spoil Q
‘Is it you, who will spoil it?’ (Kempf 2017: 93)

(25c) bɛ́lɪm=ní āyī ábʌb ùtàr=ní
PL.children=DEF do spoil SG.cloth=DEF
‘The children damaged the cloth.’ (Kempf 2017: 93)

(25d) Bzna111130-8b.021b
bɔ́sún bɛ́wúŋ āhū ábʌb~bʌb~bʌb
PL.fowls PL.other fall be.bad~INT~INT
‘Other fowls fell very badly.’ (Kempf 2017: 93)

The varying transcriptions of the proposed verbal extension *mbéb/béb*
hints towards its origin in the verb *béb* ‘spoil’ in Kuteb (Koops 2009). This
hypothesis is supported by evidence from Bezen, in which there is a verb
béb ‘be bad, spoil’.<fnref n="26" /> It is highly disputable, whether the Kuteb morpheme
mbéb/béb can be analysed as a verbal extension. On the one hand, it occurs
as the predicate of a clause but on the other hand, the examples presented
in Koops (2009) suggest that no other morpheme may stand between the
first verb in series and mbéb/béb. However, it is not clear, whether in the
imperfective modality, for example, the two verbs could be disrupted, since
“[t]he imperfective marker kú preferably precedes the final verb in a
string.” (Koops 2009: 185, bold in the original).

Habitual *kób*

From the morphemes discussed so far, the habitual -kób may be one of the
true verbal extensions in Kuteb. There is one verb which has the same form
as the suffix, kób ‘be tall’, but it is unlikely that the extension has developed
from this verb since the semantics of ‘be tall’ does not imply REGULAR
ACTION (see also Heine & Kuteva 2002, who do not mention such a
grammaticalisation path).<fnref n="27" /> Furthermore, there is no evidence in Koops
(2009) that another morpheme may stand in between the verb and the
suffix.

In ex. (26), the extension -kób is presented in context.<fnref n="28" />

(26a) ànī kú bá-kób iké
2PL IPFV come-HAB here
‘You are always coming here.’ (Koops 2009: 73)

(26b) àwū kú rū-kób yī bíká
3SG IPFV go-HAB to Bika
‘He always goes to Bika.’ (Koops 2009: 138)

<footnote n="26">26. In Yukuben, ‘be bad’ is bāb (Prischnegg 2008: 402).</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27. Nicolas Quint (personal communication), however, reports a grammaticalisation path from *tawil*
*’long (dimension)’* > *tawwala* ‘spend a lot of time (somewhere)’ in Sudanese Arabic.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">28. The transcription and the glossing have been adjusted to the analysis and the extension is attached
to the verb by a dash.</footnote>
The fact that in both available examples the habitual -kób co-occurs with the imperfective marker *kú* hampers the interpretation of -kób as a verbal extension. However, Koops (2009: 222) remarks that there is a possibility to omit the morpheme: “It [the habitual extension] often, but not necessarily, co-occurs with the imperfective marker *kú*.” (bold in the original).

## Bezen evidence

In Bezen, HABITUAL is expressed by the prefix āŋī, which has probably developed from the verb āŋī ‘sit; live’ (Kempf 2017: 31 ff.). Thus, the Bezen habitual marker formally diverges from the Kuteb extension -kób. The position in the clause is also different: whereas the Kuteb morpheme occurs after another verb, the Bezen marker is preverbal. In (27a) and (27b), the Bezen verb āŋī ‘sit; live’ is presented as the predicate of monoverbal clauses. In (27c) and (27d), it is used as a habitual prefix (see also ex. 29a).

(27a) Bzna111130-5b.110

w-āŋī àbì bāŋī ákīb
2SG-sit with PL.people be.old

‘You are sitting with the elders!’

(27b) Bzna140903-3.048b

māŋī bīdán bé-bī kūhú ōwūn àmì=mí
1SG-sit SG.chair SG-bad death kill 1SG=PFV

‘I sit in a bad chair; death has killed me.’

(27c) Bzna130914-1.201

ɛyāŋ ōbū àwū āŋī-ākár ókūŋ ámú
PL.fingers PL.hands 3PL.POSS HAB-trek only LOC

àlákā ūnū
something that

‘Their fingers are always trekking on that thing [the notebook]!’

(27d) Bzna140903-1.302

bélim=ní āŋī-ōwūb àbì būzí á kītfāŋ
PL.children=DEF HAB-scorch with stealing LOC SG.house

ámúŋ ōgbū ògbú
here surpass strength

‘The children always steal in this house!’

It may be possible that the Kuteb habitual extension -kób has developed from a verb, similar as in Bezen. However, I did not find a verb in present day Kuteb which may have served as a source for this grammaticalisation path.

## Assistive yà

The assistive extension -yà also does not have any verbal cognate in Kuteb and it can plausibly be considered as a real verbal extension. In (28), it is presented in context. The extension is often combined with the verb ndè
'do' (28b), to result in *ndèyà*, which is glossed as 'help' by Koops (2009: 29, 72, 95).<fnref n="29" />

(28a) àmè kūr-yà wū kìrāēn
1SG cook-ASS 3SG food
'I helped her cook food.' (Koops 2009: 73)

(28b) ā ndè-yà m
3PL do-ASS 1SG
'They helped me.' (Koops 2009: 74)

There are no examples in Koops (2009) which indicate that another morpheme may intervene between the verb and the extension.

## Bezen evidence

In Bezen, the lexical equivalent of English 'to help' is expressed by the verbal phrase āyī ókū 'do help (n.)'. I have chosen to compare these Kuteb and Bezen expressions because of the formal similarity of the 'assistive' - yà in Kuteb and Bezen āyī 'do'. However, there is a problem in the comparison: whereas -yà encodes the notion of assistance in Kuteb, in Bezen this notion is encoded in the noun ókū 'help'. Furthermore, the position of the lexemes is different: while -yà occurs after the verb, āyī serves as the main verb, being accompanied by the object ókū. Nevertheless, it is interesting that in both languages the concept of HELP is expressed by means of rather complex constructions. In (29a) and (29b), the verb āyī 'do' is used as the predicate of monoverbal clauses; in (29c) and (29d), we see the VP āyī ókū 'do help' in context.

(29a) Bzna140903-1.074
m-ákí-āŋī-āyī ìsàr=ní kìtítík à mì=kín
1SG-FUT\NEG-HAB-do divination=DEF alone 1SG=NEG
'I never do the divination alone.'

(29b) Bzna140903-3.013
únāní ērīk bētʃīn èzī úrū́j
this PL.things PLparents 1PL.POSS long.ago
áŋī-áyī=ní â
SUB\HAB-SUB\do=DEF Q
'Are these not things of our parents of long time ago that they did?' (Kempf in preparation)

(29c) Bzna111125-2.031
m-āyī ókū àwú àn-ôtsɔ́k kītʃāŋ ānì àwū=mí
1SG-do help 3PL NOM-build SG.house give 3PL=PFV
'I helped them to build a house for them.'

(29d) Bzna140926-5.208
ārī ùwù ánì àmì ātʃī=ní kō
be 2SG ADH-give 1SG medicine=DEF QUOT
m-àyī ókū ōŋū
1SG-OBL\do help SG.person
'It is you who has given me the medicine so that I could help somebody.'

<footnote n="29">29. I separate the extension -yà by a dash in the examples and gloss it as ASS for 'assistive'.</footnote>
4. Conclusion

Koops (2009: 73) states that some verbal extensions in Kuteb are
retentions from Proto Niger-Congo and others innovations. A
reassessment of the examples presented by Koops (2009) and the
comparison with equivalent serial verbs in Bezen help clarifying
which of these extensions might have recently developed from verbs
in Kuteb.

Thus, for four of the seven analysed morphemes, the status of a verbal
extension has to be rejected, including the abilitative fòb (‘reach’), the
separative tā (‘shoot’), the benefactive nà (‘give’) and mbéb, ‘resulting in
damage’ (‘be bad, spoil’). As was shown above, these proposed extensions
are merely verbs whose meaning has been expanded. In the case of nà, a
phonological reduction has taken place additionally to the semantic
expansion, combined with a functional split: whereas ndà ‘give’ occurs in
monoverbal clauses, nà ‘give’ is restricted to verbal serialisations. For the
other three morphemes that were considered in the discussion, -cī
‘resulting in closure’, -kób ‘habitual’, and -yà ‘assistive’, the status of
extensions is confirmed: they do not have homophonous verbs in Kuteb
from which they could have possibly developed and they only occur as
bound suffixes on verbs.

Abbreviations

A = agent; ADH = adhortative; ANAPH.AGR = anaphoric agreement;
ASS = assistive; CFG = centrifugal; CL = class prefix; CLOS = closure;
COND = conditional; CPT = centripetal; DEF = definitive; DEM =
demonstrative; DET = determiner; ETHN = ethnonym; FUT = future; H
= high tone; HAB = habitual; IMP = imperative; IMPERS = impersonal;
IPFV = imperfective; INT = intensification; IS = indirect speech; L =
low tone; LOC = locative; M = mid tone; n. = noun; NEG = negation;
NOM = nominaliser; NP = noun phrase; OBL = obligative; PFV =
perfective; PL = plural; POSS = possessive; PREF = prefix; PURP =
purpose; Q = question; QUOT = quotation; R = recipient; REL =
relative; SG = singular; SM = subject marker; SVC = serial verb
construction; Th = theme; V = verb; VP = verbal phrase.

Works cited

AIKHENVALD Alexandra Y., 2006, "Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective", in A. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), *Serial Verb Constructions. A Cross-Linguistic Typology*, Oxford: OUP, p. 1-68.

AIKHENVALD Alexandra Y., 2007, “Typological Distinctions in Word-Formation”, in T. Shopen (ed.), *Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon*, 2nd ed., Cambridge, CUP, p. 1-65.
AKUMBU Pius and BRYE Elizabeth, 2002, *A Rapid Appraisal Language Survey of Akum*, Yaoundé, Ministry of Scientific and Technical Research.

AMEKA Felix K., 2009, “Verbal Extensions in Likpe (Sèkpèlé)”, *Journal of West African Languages*, Vol. 36, n° 1-2, p. 139-157.

ANYANWU Rose-Juliet, 2013, *Reference Grammar of Yukuben (Jukunoid, Nigeria)*, Köln, Köppe.

ASOHSI Melvice, 2015, *Structural and Typological Approaches to Obang Grammar*, Köln, Köppe.

CARLSON Robert, 1991, “Grammaticalization of Postpositions and Word Order in Senufo Languages”, in E.C. Traugott, and B. Heine (eds), *Approaches to Grammaticalization* 2, Amsterdam, Benjamins, p. 201-223.

FOGWE-CHIBAKA Evelyn and AKUMBU Pius, 2012, “Unreleased Final Consonants in Bezen”, Paper presented at the DoBeS Workshop in Nijmegen, 6th July 2012.

HASPELMATH Martin and SIMS Andrea D., 2010, *Understanding Morphology. 2nd ed.*, London, Routledge.

HEINE Bernd and KUTEVA Tania, 2002, *World Lexicon of Grammaticalization*. Cambridge, CUP.

IDIATA Daniel Franck and MBA Gabriel (eds), 2003, *Studies on Voice through Verbal Extensions in Nine Bantu Languages Spoken in Cameroon, Gabon, DRC and Rwanda*. Munich, Lincom.

KEMPF Viktoria, 2013, “Remnants of a Noun Class System in Bezen”, *Afrikanistik Aegyptologie Online*.

KEMPF Viktoria, 2017, *Verbal Serialisation in Bezen (Southern Jukunoid). With a Prelude on Verbal Morphosyntax*, Köln, Köppe.

KEMPF Viktoria (in preparation), *Divination Discourse in Bezen*, University of Hamburg.

KEMPF Viktoria and PRISCHNEGG Tamara (in preparation). *A Sketch of Akum (Southern Jukunoid)*. University of Hamburg and University of Vienna.

KIESSLING Roland (with the assistance of Bong Marcellus Wung), 2011, *Verbal Serialisation in Isu (West-Ring) - a Grassfields Language of Cameroon, Köln, Köppe*.

KOOPS Robert, 2009, *A Grammar of Kuteb. A Jukunoid Language of East-Central Nigeria*, Köln, Köppe.

LI Charles N. and THOMPSON Sandra A., 1981, *Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar* Berkeley, University of California Press.

LORD Carol D., 1993, *Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions*, Philadelphia, Benjamins.

LOVEGREN Jesse, 2012, “Sparse notes on Baazəm”, online.

PRISCHNEGG Tamara, 2008, *Das Yukuben und seine Bedeutung für die Legitimierung eines Südjukunoid* [PhD thesis], University of Vienna.

PRISCHNEGG Tamara, 2010, „Zur Klassifikation ‚südjukunoider‘ Sprachen: lexikalische Evidenz“, *Afrika und Übersee*, B. 91, S. 87-107.

RACINE Odile, 2015, *Les Extensions verbales en Swahili Standard*, Köln, Köppe.
TABAH Emmanuel (forthcoming), *Elision and Contraction in Bezen Phonology* [PhD thesis], draft from May 2015, University of Buea.

VOELTZ Erhard F.K., 1977, *Proto Niger-Congo Verb Extensions*, Ann Arbor, UMI.

VOELTZ Erhard F.K., 2004, "Introduction", *Annual Publication in African Linguistics*, Vol. 2, p. 5-9.

WELMERS William E., 1968, *Efik*, University of Ibadan, Institute of African Studies.