Negative participles

[Thomas Hanke]

Dear Yvonne, dear all,

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)."