In example (28): This is just a comment but I to me "I like slowly walking" only works if it's followed by another adjunct: "I like slowly walking down the stairs" where I think down the stairs is able to "push" slowly over the verb.
At the end of 4.1 you say "Again, it can be stated that gerunds are neither fully like nouns, nor are they like verbs in spite of their verbal origin, which makes their exact state as regards parts of speech not fully determinate." I find this a little clunky, especially the last clause. I sympathise, I like longwinded sentences like that, too. But I would suggest "The conclusion, then, is that gerunds are neither fully like nouns, nor are they fully like verbs, despite their verbal origin. Which part of speech they belong to is therefore to is indeterminate." But there are many possibilities and you can probably think of something even better. I just wanted to make a suggestion since I was criticising.
And I go on, "Recurring to example 19:" sounds odd and I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I think you must be using "recur" incorrectly. Do you mean "repeating" or "going back to", maybe?
Is there a way of making inherently plural words singular? Numerals, perhaps? Or something else?
How does inherent plurality manifest grammatically, if at all? Is there any kind of plural marking somewhere else than on the noun? I forget.
This is actually not the only place in the text where this occurs but I remembered it now: I get confused by your use of = and – to mark morpheme boundaries. Are IND and DIM proclitics rather than prefixes?
Now you call the case marker enclitic rather than a suffix. Which is it?
"or only for" > "except for"
"Tuyayam is, strictly speaking, a gerund in this case, though." That is already clear. I don't understand what you mean. Should we expect it not to be?
I assumed that AF stood for agent focus, was I right? I think it might be included separately in the list of abbreviations.
I personally would use disposition rather than stance.
What is Prihaytam, what is nanga, veno and tado? What does the phrase mean as a whole?
Here I get confused – how are these prepositional if there is no preposition. I would call them "oblique constituents", "adjunct constituents", "obliques" or "adjuncts". Also, why did you choose the term benefactive over simple dative?
At the end, could you maybe add some kind of explanation of what yam and na mean? I can't remember.
In (72), how is devo a verb?
I'd like to see an example of the borderline cases of compounding.
Finally, I think that not only euphonic changes could result in opposite compound orders, it might also just be remnants from an older stage when the order was different or less strict?
In (76a), you write harbor, then harbour.
I'd love to see an example with light verbs.
I think you should include examples of the genitive of origin.
"spacial" > "spatial"
I'm going to have to call it a night, now. I'll try to get 7 onwards to you soon. Sorry to get to this so late
I have always been a fan of Ayeri and I enjoy it more and more.