@inbook {10380,
	title = {Converbs in Welsh and Irish: A Note},
	booktitle = {Kelten am Rhein: Akten des dreizehnten Internationalen Keltologiekongressesvon LVR Landesmuseum Bonn (Autor), Verein von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande Mainz},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {270{\textendash}277},
	publisher = {Verlag Philipp von Zabern},
	organization = {Verlag Philipp von Zabern},
	abstract = {The converb, in its least specific and sharp resolution, is used to mean {\textquoteleft}adverbial verb form{\textquoteright}, or {\textquoteleft}verbal adverb{\textquoteright} (see the subtitle of Haspelmath and K{\"o}nig 1995). Mostly and for long it has been known, in the description of various languages, as {\textquoteleft}gerund{\textquoteright}. Definition of the converb reveal an underlying blurredness: Haspelmath (1995: 3ff.): {\textquoteleft}Non-finite verb-form whose main function is to mark adverbial subordination{\textquoteright}; Nedjalkov{\textquoteright}s (1995) is more sophisticated: {\textquoteleft}a verb-form which depends syntactically on another verb-form but is not its syntactic actant, that is does not realize its semantic valences{\textquoteright}. (This is surely unsatisfactory, for the converb is arguably actantial in cases like {\textquoteleft}start walking{\textquoteright}). Probably the worst is the definition in Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt (2005: 60): {\textquoteleft}we use the term converb for {\textquoteleft}participles{\textquoteright} which are used primarily as adjuncts{\textquoteright}. As Gr{\o}nbech (1979: 35) says of Turkic postpositions and gerundial forms, the converbs are {\textquoteleft}fluid and hard to hold on to{\textquoteright}, which for a {\textquoteleft}cross-linguistic valid category{\textquoteright} (Haspelmath and K{\"o}nig 1995, in which see Haspelmaths{\textquoteright}s and K{\"o}nig{\textquoteright}s own contributions), is not an ideal condition. [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
