Abstract Mugane (1997) identifies two types of individual-denoting nominalizations in Gĩkũyũ (Bantu): the mu… a-type and the mu… i-type. He argues that the mu… i-type nominalizations are phrasal and that the mu… a-type nominalizations exhibit a puzzling nature, displaying both lexical and syntactic properties. This study examines Mugane’s characterization, revisiting the notion of a lexicon-syntax divide. Applying Wood’s (2023) Complex Head analysis, I demonstrate that we can explain the mu… a-type nominalizations within a syntactic framework without resorting to the lexicon. The analysis reveals that the puzzle is resolvable and that syntax can account for both types of nominalizations in Gĩkũyũ.
Soo-Hwan Lee (Fri,) studied this question.