[Lexicog] Korafe negative markers

[Jim and Cindi Farr]

Korafe has switch reference medial verbs, and there are several speech formulas that incorporate at least two verbs with a switch of subject reference between the two verbs (hit.DS-die). An initial negative adverbial marker jo and a deverbal marker ae on the verb in the terminal clause together define the scope of negation.  Since the two verbs are acting together as a unit, the scope of negation covers the whole unit. The structure  (I) NOT hit-I.will.do.DS  (2) die-not.do-COPULA where the subject of the second clause is understood to be 3S when not overtly present.  The initial verb 'I will hit.DS' itself is not marked as negative by its affixation but is negated by the adverb jo. The 2nd verb 'die' is marked as being negated 'die-NEG.DEVERBAL'. However, the fact of the matter is that the person did die (even though the second verb morphologically means 'not.die'). The negated part of this expression is 'I didn't hit', even though hit-I.will.do.DS is a positive form of the verb.  So literally, it says I not will hit (him) and (he) not.dying. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lexicography List Facilitator" <lexicography2004 at yahoo.com>
To: <lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 11:33 AM
Subject: [Lexicog] Fw: Your reply


> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "George Aubin" <gaubin at eve.assumption.edu>
> To: <wayne_leman at sil.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 5:38 PM
> Subject: Your reply
> 
> 
> Wayne:
> 
> Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, after doing a bit more research
> and sending a slightly changed message along to the address you
> suggested, it was rejected. If you want to post it, here it is:
> =
> I've been following the recent discussion of negatives, and I would
> like to point out that the French examples given, while accurate, do
> not quite tell the whole story.
> 
> It is certainly true, as some have pointed out, that negative words
> used in sentences without verbs generally retain their negative
> meaning regardless of their historical origins. And it is equally
> true that one can accumulate multiple negatives in French without any
> change in the individual negative words or in their negative meaning
> (two, four, six, ... negatives do _not_ equal a positive). Thus, a
> sentence such as: "Je ne vais plus jamais nulle part avec personne"
> is perfectly grammatical with the negatives "ne...plus, ne...jamais,
> ne...nulle part, ne... personne" and has the approximate English
> meaning: "I no longer ever go anywhere with anyone."
> 
> But, as a minor comment on this discussion, there are some cases in
> which two negatives in French _are_ equal to a positive, with 'pas'
> apparently required as the first negative in these somewhat unusual
> combinations. Two examples:
> 
> 1) "Ce n'est pas rien" means literally "It is not nothing", i.e. "it
> is something of some importance";
> 
> 2) "Il n'est pas personne" means literally "He is not nobody", i.e.
> "he is someone of some importance."
> 
> In spite of Molière's implied criticism of structures of this type
> --- one of his characters (Bélise to Martine, Les femmes savantes,
> act 2, scene 6) says: "De pas mis avec rien tu fais la récidive, Et
> c'est, comme on t'a dit, trop d'une négative" (roughly, "by putting
> 'pas' with 'rien', you are falling into your bad habits again, and
> that's because, as you've been told, there is one negative too many")
> --- they are perfectly grammatical in modern French.
> 
> George Aubin
> =
> 
> For some reason, I receive many if not all of the Lexicography
> postings, but I'm apparently not a full member of the group S Curious.
> 
> George
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20050201/1ff17c53/attachment.htm>