The equative construction is built on the function word so ‘so’ or on the function word gliek(e) ‘so, as’. Both words are native to Saterland Frisian, but German only has so ‘so’ and this may have promoted the use of so ‘so’, advancing its frequency and causing it to encroach upon the domain of gliek. Below an example with gliek ‘equally’ is given:

However, in this specific example, gliek ‘equally’ cannot be replaced by so ‘so’. Gliek ‘equally’ functions as a hidden reciprocal, in which the members of the set denoted by the subject NP (do bee) are compared to each other, and it is concluded that all members meet the degree limit. Furthermore, gliek ‘equally’ seems to differ from so ‘so’ in that gliek ‘equally’ does not imply a high degree. So, normally an equative compares two things, one expressed as a regular argument, the other expressed in a comparative phrase introduced by as ‘as’. In (3), however, both elements are joined in one argument, expressed as the subject above. It is similar to the hidden reciprocal reading of a sentence like: ‘the two boys agreed’ or ‘they were fighting (each other)’.

In (3), the degree limit is implied in the plural subject. It could me made explicit in an adverbial phrase in a different sentence as follows: ‘one is as old as the other.’ Note that English uses the adverb equally, in case the degree limit is not expressed in an adverbial phrase introduced by as ‘as’. Use of the word so ‘so’ leads to a change in meaning.

The degree limit is now set to a high degree, without involving any specific comparison anymore. This is not the case in a negated clause with so ‘so’, as in (1), which does involve a comparison, though not internal. We speak of an equative in case a comparison is involved and otherwise, as in (4), it is just a high degree construction.

The degree limit may remain implicit or it may be specified in a clause. The degree limit may also be specified in a following clause, describing the degree in terms of a constraint or a consequence. An example of a precondition is given below:

Here the high degree is made out to be equal to the maximum given the constraint of Gerd’s physical restrictions. The equative can shade off further into a pure high degree construction in case the high degree limit is purely metaphorical, as in the following examples:

In this example, the degree limit is not literally related to the hind end of an old cow. Basically, the comparison in the as ‘as’ phrase is a rethorical device. Whatever is filled in, will be interpreted as a high degree reading of the AP preceding the comparison. This is clear from the fact that even the word wät ‘what’ itself can be used as a filler in the comparison:

This makes it clear that the high degree reading is due to the construction, and that the phrase following as ‘as’ (put in bold) is voided of its lexical content. It is not clear whether man ‘but’ is obligatorily in such examples. This explains the large amount of nonsensical variation in the phrase vacuously expressing a high degree. Similar remarks apply to the example below:

In this example, the comparison only makes sense in so far as the two things compared share a high degree of probability. The degree word so ‘so’ can also be used more abstractly without a following AP, but receiving further specification from a clause. An example is given below:

The interpretation is adverbial. An empty AP could be posited following the function word, from a generative perspective. Different function words can be combined in a coordination, as below, where the two members of the coordination have been bracketed:

Here the excessive degree and the equative high degree are both specified by the same degree limit, which is set by the clause ‘as happens much more often’.