[Lingtyp] Novel future markers banned from negative contexts

[Timur Maisak]

Dear Omri,
it seems that one can distinguish between two situations,
- the presence of a functional equivalent of the future in the negative,
which is however not derived from the affirmative future
vs.
- the lack of any negative counterpart of the future, be it a form derived
from the future or any other functional equivalent.

Also, I wonder whether it is possible to have an asymmetry of another kind,
namely the lack of a (morphologically parallel) negative future for an
"old" form?
E.g., in the Kvanada variety of *Bagvalal *(< Andic < Nakh-Daghestanian) as
described by Kibrik et al. 2001
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/108H9BjrZ5wPoMmjwUtK2ZVk3JEdEatCn/view?usp=sharing>,
there are two main future tenses, a synthetic one in -s: and a periphrastic
one "future participle + copula". The future participle is morphologically
unrelated to the synthetic future.
The periphrastic form has a structurally parallel negative equivalent,
"future participle + negative copula", and probably also a second one,
"negative future participle + copula".
The synthetic future in -s: does not have a morphologically parallel
negative equivalent. However, there is a negative future in -a:č'e which is
a form derived from the imperfective stem and seems to be an "old present"
(negative). In particular, some verbs ('know', 'need' etc.) describe a
current state in this form ('knows', 'needs'), and not future time
reference. Thus, it seems that the synthetic future and the synthetic
negative future are two "old" and morphologically unrelated forms,
originally from two different subparadigms.

Best,
Timur Maisak

ср, 22 нояб. 2023 г. в 16:35, Eleanor Coghill <eleanor.coghill at lingfil.uu.se
>:

> Dear Omri and List,
>
>
> The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic future with *bəd-, b-* cannot be combined
> with a negator - although it's not particulary new, being found already in
> the earliest texts from 400 years ago. It is most likely grammaticalized
> from the verb *bʔy **I* to want.
>
>
> all the best
>
>
> Eleanor
>
>
> Prof. Eleanor Coghill
> Dept. of Linguistics and Philology
> Uppsala University, Sweden.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il>
> *Sent:* 22 November 2023 09:32:44
> *To:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Subject:* [Lingtyp] Novel future markers banned from negative contexts
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Eitan Grossman and I are writing a paper about newly-grammaticalized
> future markers that are banned from negative contexts, which results in
> paradigmatic asymmetry where certain grammatical distinctions (e.g.,
> remoteness) are absent in the negative.
>
> We are currently aware of a handful of such cases (Tigre, Coptic,
> Palestinian Arabic, Quebec French, Tok Pisin), and we’d be happy to know if
> anyone knows of other relevant cases.
>
> Also, Bybee et al. (1994: 271) make the tentative claim that novel future
> constructions are often immediate futures: “[…] we interpreted primary
> future grams with immediate future as a use as younger than grams whose
> future use was simple future; that is, we were in effect suggesting that,
> for primary futures, the use immediate future is diagnostic of a simple
> future at an earlier stage of its development. Although we are not aware of
> strong historical evidence attesting the generalization of an immediate
> future to a general future gram (but see Fleischman 1983 for a claim that
> this occurs), there are both formal and semantic indications of the youth
> of immediate futures.”
>
> Does anyone know of a more recent study that tried to test this hypothesis?
>
> Omri Amiraz
>
>
> VARNING: Klicka inte på länkar och öppna inte bilagor om du inte känner
> igen avsändaren och vet att innehållet är säkert.
> CAUTION: Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognise
> the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> När du har kontakt med oss på Uppsala universitet med e-post så innebär
> det att vi behandlar dina personuppgifter. För att läsa mer om hur vi gör
> det kan du läsa här: http://www.uu.se/om-uu/dataskydd-personuppgifter/
>
> E-mailing Uppsala University means that we will process your personal
> data. For more information on how this is performed, please read here:
> http://www.uu.se/en/about-uu/data-protection-policy
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20231122/6305c4a1/attachment.htm>