Difference between revisions of "Negation"
| (29 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==Non-verbal phenomena== |
||
| + | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | |||
| + | For antonymic derived modifiers and agentive nouns, see [[Predication Strategies]]. |
||
| + | |||
| + | In the case of the antonymic derivational suffix '''-eer''', the shape is suspiciously similar to that of the verbal negative morph '''-i(r)'''. More research is needed to conclude whether or not these are actually the same morph, which is entirely feasible given the verbal character of most "modifiers" in Sereer. |
||
| + | |||
| + | ===Prohibitive=== |
||
| + | |||
| + | For the semantically related prohibitive mood, see [[Imperatives and Procedurals]]. |
||
| + | |||
| + | The prohibitive is expressed by way of a preverbal, uninflected particle '''ba(r)''', which superficially resembles the negative prefix in its coda ''-r''. It is unclear if the historical origins of the prohibitive particle are actually amenable to this proposed connection, however. |
||
| + | |||
==Verbal negation== |
==Verbal negation== |
||
| + | Verbal negation is expressed by an affix that generally takes the shape '''-i(r)'''. Its allomorphy is complex and will be examined in further detail immediately, while syntactic restrictions on its usage are gathered in the following section. |
||
| − | V negation is (in our data so far) most frequently expressed as part of a polyexponent verbal suffix. Verbal negation does not seem separable syntactically from TAM marking. |
||
| + | |||
| + | ===Morphological exponence=== |
||
| + | |||
| + | ''See [[Negative paradigms|examples of negative paradigms]] for some subject-object agreement paradigms with negation.'' |
||
| + | |||
| + | The negative morph exhibits complex allomorphy and at times coalesces with neighboring vowels. It also irregularly presents a final segment '''-r''' that appears in certain contexts; in final position with the negative morphs of the shape '''-ee''', use of '''-eer''' is seen as a characteristic of older generations' speech, and there is essentially free variation between usage of '''-ee''' and '''-eer''' in these contexts: |
||
| + | |||
| + | {| class="wikitable" cellpadding="4" style="border: 1px solid black;" |
||
| + | |+ Present, negative: |
||
| + | ! Gloss !! Sereer !! Gloss !! Sereer |
||
| + | |- |
||
| + | | 1SG || -iim || 1PL || i [mut]-ee(r) |
||
| + | |- |
||
| + | | 2SG || -iro' || 2PL || nu [mut]-ee(r) |
||
| + | |- |
||
| + | | 3SG || -ee(r) || 3PL || [mut]-ee(r) |
||
| + | |- |
||
| + | |} |
||
| + | |||
| + | The variation between the '''-i''' and '''-ir''' negative allomorphs is not predictable from segmental context. More research is needed on this point. |
||
| + | |||
| + | The negative is also notable for co-occurring with an alternate version of the future tense, expressed by a suffix '''-ik''' rather than by the preverb '''xan'''. See [[Negative paradigms]] for examples. |
||
| + | ===Syntax=== |
||
| − | A negative imperative does exist; see the notes on this under [[Imperatives and Hortatives]]. |
||
| + | A notable restriction on negation is that it cannot occur in the embedded clause of a matrix verb that is a raising verb. For instance: |
||
| − | ==Nominal negation== |
||
| + | : '''bugiim o nafan.'''<br> |
||
| − | N negation is attested (with proclitic '''jege=''') but this is under-researched for the time being. |
||
| + | : 'I don't want you to hit him.' |
||
| + | : '''*bugaam o nafin.'''<br> |
||
| + | : 'I want you not to hit him.' |
||
| + | Our consultant uniformly rejects sentences of the second type and suggests the first as having the same interpretation. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | Antonymic As are formed from Vs by way of the derivational suffix '''-eer''', e.g. ʄiʄ "to be clever"; ʄiʄu "clever"; ʄiʄ'''eer''' "stupid" (067). |
||
Latest revision as of 02:39, 15 December 2012
Non-verbal phenomena
Adjectival and Adverb "negation"
For antonymic derived modifiers and agentive nouns, see Predication Strategies.
In the case of the antonymic derivational suffix -eer, the shape is suspiciously similar to that of the verbal negative morph -i(r). More research is needed to conclude whether or not these are actually the same morph, which is entirely feasible given the verbal character of most "modifiers" in Sereer.
Prohibitive
For the semantically related prohibitive mood, see Imperatives and Procedurals.
The prohibitive is expressed by way of a preverbal, uninflected particle ba(r), which superficially resembles the negative prefix in its coda -r. It is unclear if the historical origins of the prohibitive particle are actually amenable to this proposed connection, however.
Verbal negation
Verbal negation is expressed by an affix that generally takes the shape -i(r). Its allomorphy is complex and will be examined in further detail immediately, while syntactic restrictions on its usage are gathered in the following section.
Morphological exponence
See examples of negative paradigms for some subject-object agreement paradigms with negation.
The negative morph exhibits complex allomorphy and at times coalesces with neighboring vowels. It also irregularly presents a final segment -r that appears in certain contexts; in final position with the negative morphs of the shape -ee, use of -eer is seen as a characteristic of older generations' speech, and there is essentially free variation between usage of -ee and -eer in these contexts:
| Gloss | Sereer | Gloss | Sereer |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1SG | -iim | 1PL | i [mut]-ee(r) |
| 2SG | -iro' | 2PL | nu [mut]-ee(r) |
| 3SG | -ee(r) | 3PL | [mut]-ee(r) |
The variation between the -i and -ir negative allomorphs is not predictable from segmental context. More research is needed on this point.
The negative is also notable for co-occurring with an alternate version of the future tense, expressed by a suffix -ik rather than by the preverb xan. See Negative paradigms for examples.
Syntax
A notable restriction on negation is that it cannot occur in the embedded clause of a matrix verb that is a raising verb. For instance:
- bugiim o nafan.
- 'I don't want you to hit him.'
- *bugaam o nafin.
- 'I want you not to hit him.'
Our consultant uniformly rejects sentences of the second type and suggests the first as having the same interpretation.
