Negative participles

[Thomas Hanke]

Dear Yvonne,

the following hints may be somehow relevant, at least to check the 
original source – I'm sorry if you've checked Matti's work already.

Miestamo (2003, etc. [I have only the thesis version at hand]) deals 
with "standard negation" (SN), which excludes relative clauses by 
definition (cf. http://wals.info/feature/114). Still, I found three 
passages which may lead to relevant hints.

Well, I hope my notes are somehow relevant for your task.

Best,

Thomas Hanke
thhanke at gmail.com
= = =
Berlin Utrecht Reciprocals Survey
www.reciprocals.eu
&
Institut für Anglistik/Amerikanistik, FSU Jena
www.uni-jena.de/fsu/anglistik
= = =

1. a close relative: Miestamo (2003:289-290) gives the following 
overview of standard negation in Kemant
(I quote without paradigms and some formatting):

"125. Kemant (Kärkär)
In Kärkär Kemant (Appleyard 1975, 1984), SN is expressed with suffixes. 
The imperfective and perfective paradigms are illustrated in (168).
(168) Kärkär Kemant (Appleyard 1975: 333–334)
[…]
The negative imperfective suffix begins with -äg... and cannot be 
further analysed into separate morphemes. The negative perfective 
endings begin with -g... and cannot be further analysed. The negatives 
are taken from the relative negative paradigm, which has pushed aside 
the earlier main clause negatives. The construction is symmetric neither 
with the main clause nor with the relative clause affirmatives. There is 
A/Cat/TAM & A/Cat/PN asymmetry in the construction. The distinction 
between main clause and relative clause negatives is lost, but this 
neutralization is not taken into account in the investigation of SN. […]"

Of course, Matti compares the negative only to " declarative verbal main 
clauses", so I can't tell what the asymmetry is for relative clauses.

2. Tamazight (Ayt Ndhir) (2003: 353) is probably not relevant. He just 
mentions a similarity between negative and relative clauses.

3. Nadëb (Miestamo 2003: 318-319) may be relevant, once again depending 
on the details of relative clauses. In one type of SN, negative relative 
clauses are used in an equative construction, in which affirmative 
relatives cannot – whatever that means for other features of relative 
clauses…

"Nadëb (Weir 1994) has two alternative SN constructions. […]
The second construction, exemplified in (261) also involves an equative 
clause; this time the predicate is turned into a grammaticalized 
negative relative clause (GNRC) which then functions as the predicate 
complement of the equative structure.
[…]
The GNRC is marked by the prefix na- and the non-finite nominal form of 
the verb. The structure can be given the literal translation “somebody 
is a non-V-er”. Non-negative relative clauses cannot occur in the same 
kind of “grammaticalized” relative clause construction (but inherently 
negative verbs without overt negative marking can)."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20100122/a679c4bc/attachment.htm>