<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Moving away from antonymy to "true" negation, the following two
examples, both marginal in one sense or another, come to mind:</p>
<p>1. Phonetic realizations of English "can" and "can't". In many
varieties the vowel is identical, and impressionistically, in some
of these, the final "t" is replaced by some kind of
glottalization, a final glottal stop and/or some kind of
creakiness over the vowel. I wouldn't be surprised if there are
dialects where the distinction has been completely neutralized. I
know one non-native but fluent speaker of American English who
seems, to my ears at least, to have identical phonetic
realizations for "can" and "can't", and I keep on having to
interrupt and ask her which of the two she means.<br>
<br>
2. In several varieties of colloquial Malay/Indonesian, the
negator "tak" ([taʔ]), although written as a separate word,
actually cliticizes to the word that follows it. In one of the
ludlings described in the reference below, the onset of the final
(disyllabic) foot and everything before it is replaced by the
fixed sequence "war-", e.g. "pergi" (go) > "warergi", "bahasa"
(language) > "warasa". So what happens to negated words?
"tak=pergi" (NEG go) > "warergi"; that is to say, the
distinction between basic forms and their negations is
systematically neutralized. Of course, ludlings violate many
universals of language, so this shouldn't be taken as evidence
against a possible universal proscribing such neutralizations.
But still ...<br>
</p>
<p class="ReferencesT" style="mso-pagination:widow-orphan
lines-together"><span lang="EN-US">Gil, David (2002) "Ludlings in
Malayic Languages: An
Introduction", in Bambang Kaswanti Purwo ed., <i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">PELBBA 15, Pertemuan Linguistik Pusat Kajian Bahasa
dan Budaya Atma
Jaya: Kelima Belas</i>, Unika Atma Jaya, Jakarta, 125-180.</span></p>
What's common to both of these very different examples is that, in
one way or another, it's the phonology that's the culprit.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/05/2018 12:57, Joo Ian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN6PR07MB4557538B9E3C6DDBF188FC3DFE630@SN6PR07MB4557.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cordia New";
panose-1:2 11 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would like to know if the following
universal claim holds:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>There exists no lexeme that can mean X
and the negation of X. (For example, no lexeme can express
“to go” and “to not go”).<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wonder if such “bipolar polysemy” exists
in any lexeme, because I cannot think of any, and whether this
claim is truly universal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would appreciate to know if there is any
counter-evidence.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From Hong Kong,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ian Joo<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ianjoo.academia.edu">http://ianjoo.academia.edu</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
</pre>
</body>
</html>