[Lingtyp] Novel future markers banned from negative contexts

[Matthew Windsor]

Dear Omri,

Oji-Cree (Algonquian) shows a related situation -- a newly developed
negation construction that is banned only from future contexts. An older
negation construction remains for this use.

I have a paper describing it here
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew-Windsor-5/publication/366646176_The_rise_of_unemphatic_negation_Two_standard_negation_constructions_in_Oji-Cree_and_their_patterns_of_use/links/63aca01603aad5368e49a7f2/The-rise-of-unemphatic-negation-Two-standard-negation-constructions-in-Oji-Cree-and-their-patterns-of-use.pdf?origin=publicationDetail&_sg%5B0%5D=bTeTU27n7GxJSZz_lnmPEPvVEns1FcueicrhvzW9bsiupmXtBYGZceATvRZdtLAd039eJiLliUPHO4GXxNlfKg.gZ04aKp9rK6ORde4sMZqiWJBITNPw2LFXINQgXe9nTZrUfDkdlHdYM0qWmER76KObYEdxah49fzgr5tujO2XlA&_sg%5B1%5D=JZSJVl5ExYdY-qboXTFcyXne0yZTYksR0gke-2NxbG_4LqaC3SCs7WtYl308YnvaI4R1wCp-SvwO-O5U5Wd6BmWT0WEiKaZG1yMsX9NxWQje.gZ04aKp9rK6ORde4sMZqiWJBITNPw2LFXINQgXe9nTZrUfDkdlHdYM0qWmER76KObYEdxah49fzgr5tujO2XlA&_iepl=&_rtd=eyJjb250ZW50SW50ZW50IjoibWFpbkl0ZW0ifQ%3D%3D&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoicHVibGljYXRpb24iLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwcm9maWxlIiwicG9zaXRpb24iOiJwYWdlSGVhZGVyIn19>
.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 2:33 AM Omri Amiraz <Omri.Amiraz at mail.huji.ac.il>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>


-- 


*Matt Windsor*

Linguistics & Translation | SIL

phone: 1-807-631-6656

email hours: 9-5 Mon-Fri

ᐃᐦᑭᑐᐃᐧᐣ ᑮᐊᓂᔑᓂᓃᐃᐧ ᒦᓇ ᑭᑮᐃᐧᒋᐊᔮᒥᑯᓈᐣ.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20231122/d76aef80/attachment.htm>