Chapter 61The Adverbializer -no and Adverb Formation from Verbs

61.1 Form and domain

The form no converts a predicate into an adverbial constituent. At the word level it appears as a suffix on a descriptive intransitive stem — moyre-no 'slowly', tunas-no 'quickly' — and the output is a manner or degree adverb. At the predicate level it follows a saturated finite predicate phrase, especially a stative predicate or a negated action predicate, and links that predicate as an adverbial circumstance to the following one. The two uses share a form; the boundary between suffix and post-predicate particle is difficult to draw exactly. Nakagawa finds a particle analysis cleaner for the finite-predicate cases but observes that it cannot account for the frozen quantity adverb poronno 'many, much', whose status as a single, semantically distinct word is well established Nakagawa (2024: 340–341) ‹contested›.

Property meanings belong to the intransitive verb in Ainu. Forms such as poro ‘be big, become big’ and pirka ‘be good, become good’ are predicates, and a stative reading ordinarily carries an inchoative one alongside it Nakagawa (2024: 124); Shibatani (1990: 33–34); Satō (2008: 2). The adverbializer takes such a predicate as its input. The position of adverbial material relative to valency and person morphology is set out in Chapter 56 (The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template); the broader status of property predicates is treated in Chapter 37 (The 'No Adjective Class' Thesis: Property Concepts as Stative Verbs).

61.2 Manner and degree adverbs

Descriptive intransitive stems form manner and degree adverbs by suffixation with -no. Ijäs gives the learner formulation: moyre ‘be slow’ yields moyre-no 'slowly' Ijäs (2023). Shibatani's example illustrates the pattern in a full utterance: tunas-no, from tunas ‘be fast’, modifies the property predicate pirka ‘be good; become good’, which in the imperative carries its inchoative reading Shibatani (1990: 33).

The lexicalized quantity forms poronno and ponno are morphophonologically distinct from the transparent derivation. Ijäs explicitly records poronno as the correct output and excludes the regularized *porono Ijäs (2023) ‹consensus›. The quantity meaning of poronno brings it into contact with verbal number: subjects modified by poronno may co-occur with either plural or singular intransitive stems without a mechanical agreement rule Nakagawa (2024: 162); Satō (2008: 101) ‹contested›. That interaction is treated in Chapter 58 (Verbal Number: Suppletive Stems and the Pluractional -pa).

Derived adverbs occupy no argument slot and leave the valence of the modified predicate unchanged. Nakagawa's arity table assigns arity 0 to adverbial prefixes such as ar- 'completely' and ru- 'slightly', which occupy the same valence-neutral zone in the verb word Nakagawa (2024: 137, 140). The suffix -no belongs with that side of the template. The valence-changing morphology that contrasts with this neutral zone is surveyed in Chapter 57 (Transitivity, Valence Classes, and Ambitransitivity).

61.3 Stative and negative-manner linkage

When no follows a saturated predicate phrase, it links that predicate as an adverbial state or manner to the following predicate. Nakagawa places it in the temporal-succession connective group alongside wa and kor, but with a narrower aspectual profile: wa links predicates whose first element delivers a result-state, kor marks concurrent action, and no is conditioned on a stative first predicate or a negated action predicate Nakagawa (2024: 340–341). Refsing's Shizunai data show the same adverbializing value in that dialect, where the particle follows a prohibitive predicate to supply the attendant negative state for the polite imperative Refsing (1986: 241).

The negative construction is the dominant use. The frame somo … ki no — negating a predicate with the standard negative support verb ki 'do' and then adverbializing the result with no — yields the 'without doing' reading and is near-obligatory in that function; substituting wa or kor is unexpected in negated contexts Satō (2008: 45–46) ‹consensus›. The support construction somo … ki itself is treated in Chapter 126 (Standard Clausal Negation with somo).

Ijäs identifies the same two uses of no and presents a further conditioning factor: she describes it as the choice when the linked clauses share a subject, with wa favoured when they do not Ijäs (2023). The primary grammars derive the no/wa alternation from aspectual and polarity properties of the first predicate — stative or negated predicates take no — and Refsing's Shizunai conjunctionalizer treatment is consistent with that account Nakagawa (2024: 340–341); Satō (2008: 45–46); Refsing (1986: 241) ‹contested›. Subject continuity is frequent in negated contexts because a manner condition is naturally predicated of the same participant as the following event; the grammars do not extend this tendency to a grammatical rule.

The connective inventory and the position of no in the wider temporal-succession system are treated in Chapter 131 (Clause Linkage in Ainu: Typology and Inventory); the syntax of manner and degree adverbial subordination is in Chapter 137 (Manner and Degree Adverbial Clauses).