[Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation

[ROBERT Stephane]

I fully agree with Bastian which perhaps expresses more clearly what I meant by “high degree”: subjective evaluation pointing to an extreme degree (indescribable, inexpressible), positive or negative depending on the notion involved.
To take on this meaning, lexical negation must be combined with a gradable (or scalar) notion. In the case of nouns, this typically involves mass nouns, such as Menge (crowd), Tiefe (depth) vs. Freiheit (freedom).


Stéphane


________________________________
De : Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> de la part de Zingler, Tim via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Envoyé : vendredi 16 août 2024 14:15
À : Bastian Persohn
Cc : lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Objet : Re: [Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation


Well, the point is that these words contain what synchronically looks like a negator affix even though that affix does not negate the stem. So, they seem to qualify for the phenomenon the original post was about.


But I like the idea that the function has shifted as part of a subjectification (?) process. Does that happen with negators cross-linguistically?

Best,

Tim
________________________________
Von: Bastian Persohn <persohn.linguistics at gmail.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. August 2024 13:55
An: Zingler, Tim
Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Betreff: Re: [Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation

I’m not sure that Untiefe is synonymous with Tiefe, or Unmenge with Menge. In my intuition Un-menge has an evaluative ring to it (‚an undesirably large or over-the-top amount‘), and DWDS translates it as ’sehr große, übergroße Menge’ [very big, unnecessary big amount]’. Similarly, Un-tiefe usually refers to an extreme depth (cf. DWDS: ‚abgrundartige, sehr große Tiefe in einem Gewässer [abysm-like, very large depth in a body of water]‘.

Their closest relatives are probably found in instances like Un-fall ‚accident‘ < Fall ‚case‘, i.e. ‚the undesirable case‘ or Un-tier ‚monster‘, lit ‚un-animal‘. What all these have in common is a negative element, albeit in the subjective rather than the material domain.

Best,
Bastian




Am 16.08.2024 um 13:10 schrieb Zingler, Tim via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>:

German has Un-tiefe, which essentially means the same as Tiefe 'depth'. Or Un-menge, largely synonymous with Menge 'mass, crowd, great amount.' These seem perfectly analogous to valuable-invaluable.

I'm sure there's more, but I don't know if that prefix is cognate with the negator found in, for instance, Un-freiheit 'unfreedom.' So, there are probably complications involved if one were to analyze that more seriously.

Best,

Tim
________________________________
Von: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> im Auftrag von ROBERT Stephane via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. August 2024 11:48
An: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Betreff: Re: [Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation

Dear Joe,


Personally, I do not regard these uses of lexical negation as expletive but rather as contributing a construction with a high-degree value that can be paraphrased as follows: 'this object is (valuable) to a degree that I (speaker) cannot (even) express', or 'no matter how hard I try to estimate how much X is P, I can't express it'(P for predicate).

Note that in the examples I can analyse (Germanic, English and also French 'in-estim-able'), this lexical negation is combined with a suffix (cf. Germ. -bar, Eng. < Fr. -able) which contributes to the meaning of the construction because it expresses evaluation about capacity ‘which can be P’ .

Best

Stéphane ROBERT

https://llacan.cnrs.fr<https://llacan.cnrs.fr/>

________________________________
De : Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> de la part de Hannu Tommola via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Envoyé : vendredi 16 août 2024 11:03
À : <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>; Pun Ho Lui
Objet : Re: [Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation

Hi,

there seems to be a tendency to lexicalize 'invaluable' in an intensifying non-negative meaning (cf. Russian bes-cennyj 'invaluable, priceless', which has an obsolete meaning 'valueless' = ne-cennyj). This tendency goes back to the verb 'value' that has, in various languages, both the meanings 1) 'estimate', 2) 'regard/estimate highly'. Cf. also German un-schätzbar 'invaluable' < schätzen 1. 'to regard highly, respect', 2. 'value, estimate'; the same applies to  Swedisho-skattbar < (upp)skatta.

Best wishes,
Hannu Tommola
________________________________
Lähettäjä: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> käyttäjän Pun Ho Lui via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> puolesta
Lähetetty: perjantai 16. elokuuta 2024 3.22
Vastaanottaja: <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Aihe: [Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation

Dear linguists,

I am recently interested in lexical items that consist of a derivational negative affix which may not contribute a negative meaning (i.e. being expletive).

For instance, in-valuable ~ valuable. Other possible examples would be 無價 ‘invaluable [lit. NEG value’ in Mandarin, and sewashi-nai ‘restless’ ~ sewashii ‘busy’ in Japanese.

I have looked into a number of (decent) grammar descriptions but have no luck.

I am wondering if you know of any language with similar items.

Thank you.

Warmest,
Pun Ho Lui Joe
_______________________________________________
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/20240816/a5d8a4e0/attachment.htm>