UN PROCEDIMIENTO EJECUTIVO ESPECIAL

The second type comprises languages where the negative meaning in participial relative clauses is conveyed by a separate participial form or a set of forms, the specialized negative participles. The negative participial marker in this case is not diachronically related to any other negative morpheme in the language, or has developed enough idiosyncratic properties to be regarded as a separate unit. The relation between affirmative and negative participial forms in these languages can be of two major types. Firstly, there can be a negative counterpart for each affirmative participle (symmetric system). Secondly, a language can employ a single form for negating all the participles irrespective of their distinctive features, or a limited set of negative participial forms if compared to affirmative (asymmetric system)40_.

Two languages in my sample, Sakha (Turkic; Russia) and Marathi (Indo-European > Indic; India), exhibit symmetric participial systems with several negative participles. The participial system in Sakha, for instance, consists of three affirmative participles with different temporal meanings, and three respective negative forms, as represented in Table 13 below41_:

Table 13. System of participles in Sakha (Ubrjatova (1982: 227–240)

Affirmative Negative

Past -bït -EDWDȤ

Present -ar/-wթr -bat

Future -wDȤ -wPwDȤ

The rest of symmetric participial systems consist of only two participial forms, an affirmative and a negative. The three languages of this type are Kambaata (Afro-Asiatic > Highland East Cushitic; Ethiopia), Malayalam (Southern Dravidian; India), and Yimas (Lower Sepik-Ramu > Lower Sepik; Papua New Guinea). None of these systems, however, is truly symmetric with respect to the morphological properties of participial forms and their syntactic behaviour. For instance, in Yimas, the affirmative non-finite form is only used for subject relativization, cf. (148a), while the negative non-finite form can relativize any core participant, cf. (148b):

40 _{The only case in my sample where negative contexts show more distinctions in the TAM domain if} compared to the affirmative ones is Ma’di (Central Sudanic > Moru-Ma’di; Sudan, Uganda). In this language, non-finite relative forms do not exhibit any overt tense expression in affirmative contexts, and are free with respect to temporal interpretation. These forms, on the other hand, combine with regular negative markers k҂թ and k҂թr҂̖_{, which are employed in non-past and past contexts respectively (Blackings & Fabb}

2003: 473), therefore allowing to differentiate between non-past and past relative clauses. The observed situation, however, reflects the properties of the Ma’di negative markers rather than subordinate forms, and thus will not be discussed in detail here.

41 _{As it is clear from the table, the markers of negative participles in Sakha differ in the level of their} derivational transparency. The future negative marker -wPwDȤ, which is most transparent, is simply a combination of the regular verbal negative marker and the participial suffix. Despite that, the resulting system can be regarded as symmetric, since no single negative marker can be determined, and every affirmative participle has its own negative counterpart.

 <LPDV/RZHU6HSLN5DPX!/RZHU6HSLN3DSXD1HZ*XLQHD)ROH\  

D namarawt   >tamana tѠ-r-awt@  na-mal SHUVRQ&/6* VLFNQHVV&/6* IHHO1)06* 6*6GLH

µ7KHSHUVRQZKRZDVDOZD\VVLFNGLHG¶)ROH\

E wakn na-mpu-ƾa-tkam-t      >namat        VQDNH&/6*&/6*73/$/6*5VKRZ3)9 SHUVRQ&/3/

tu-kakan-Ø@ NLOO1)1(*&/6* µ7KH\VKRZHGPHWKHVQDNHWKDWGRHVQ¶WNLOOSHRSOH¶ µ7KH\VKRZHGPHWKHVQDNHWKDWSHRSOHGRQ¶WNLOO¶  ,Q.DPEDDWDWKHQHJDWLYHSDUWLFLSOHIRUPHGE\WKHPDUNHU-umbVKRZVDJUHHPHQWLQ JHQGHU DQG FDVH ZLWK WKH QRPLQDO KHDG ZKLOH DIILUPDWLYH SDUWLFLSOHV GR QRW DQG GHPRQVWUDWHV WKH QHXWUDOL]DWLRQ RI WKH DVSHFWXDO GLVWLQFWLRQ SHUIHFWLYH YV LPSHUIHFWLYH ZKLFK LV SUHVHQW LQ WKH SDUDGLJP RI LWV DIILUPDWLYH FRXQWHUSDUWV FRPSDUH D DQG EEHORZ_



 .DPEDDWD$IUR$VLDWLF!+LJKODQG(DVW&XVKLWLF(WKLRSLD7UHLV 

D >cíil-at it-tumb-úta@    inchch-áta      EDE\JLUO)120  HDW)37&31(*)$&&IRRG)$&&

    µWKHIRRGWKDWWKHEDE\JLUOGRHVQRWHDW¶

E >bux-íchch-u it-anó@    bar-í móoq-ut      SRRU6*0120 HDW0,3)937&3GD\0$&& VSRRQ)120

ba’-áa’a

GLVDSSHDU),3)9

µ2QWKHGD\RQZKLFKDSRRUPDQKDVVRPHIRRGWRHDWKLVVSRRQFDQQRWEH IRXQG¶



$ VLPLODU QHXWUDOL]DWLRQ RFFXUV LQ 0DOD\DODP 6RXWKHUQ 'UDYLGLDQ ,QGLD ZKHUH WKH IRUPV ZLWK WKH DIILUPDWLYH SDUWLFLSLDO VXIIL[ -a FDQ WDNH WHQVH PDUNHUV ZKLOH WKH IRUPV ZLWKWKHQHJDWLYHSDUWLFLSLDOVXIIL[-aattaFDQQRWFI$VKHU .XPDUL

,I ZH GR QRW WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ ODQJXDJHV WKDW H[SUHVV 7$0 PHDQLQJV ZLWKLQ SDUWLFLSLDO PDUNHUV DQG VHSDUDWHO\ VHH 6HFWLRQ  RQ WKHVH WZR RSWLRQVWKHVLWXDWLRQLQ0DOD\DODPLVLQIDFWYHU\FORVHWRWKHVLWXDWLRQREVHUYHGLQWKH ODQJXDJHV ZLWK DV\PPHWULF SDUWLFLSLDO V\VWHPV )RU H[DPSOH LQ 7HOXJX 6RXWK&HQWUDO 'UDYLGLDQ ,QGLD D ODQJXDJH IDLUO\ FORVHO\ UHODWHG WR 0DOD\DODP WKH DIILUPDWLYH SDUDGLJPRISDUWLFLSOHVLQFOXGHVWKHSDVWSDUWLFLSOHLQ-inaWKHIXWXUHKDELWXDOSDUWLFLSOHLQ -eeDQGWKHGXUDWLYHSDUWLFLSOHLQ-tunna7KHVLQJOHQHJDWLYHSDUWLFLSOHLQ-aniFDQEHXVHG WRQHJDWHDQ\RIWKHDIILUPDWLYHIRUPVDQGLWVH[DFWWHPSRUDOPHDQLQJLVXQGHUVWRRGIURP WKH FRQWH[W FI.ULVKQDPXUWL  *Z\QQ   $ V\VWHP ZLWK WKUHH DIILUPDWLYH 



_{ ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ WKH DV\PPHWU\ LQ .DPEDDWD LV RQO\ DWWHVWHG LQ WKH SDUWLFLSLDO V\VWHP 1HJDWLRQ LQ PDLQ} FODXVHVGRHVQRWWULJJHUDQ\DVSHFWXDOQHXWUDOL]DWLRQ

participles and one negative participle is attested in Georgian as well, cf. Hewitt (1995). All the Uralic languages possessing a specialized negative participle also fall into this category, namely Finnish, Meadow Mari, Komi-Zyrian, North Saami, Tundra Nenets, and Northern Khanty.

Matsés (Pano-Tacanan > Panoan; Brazil, Peru) is the only language in my sample that exhibits an asymmetric participial system with more than one negative form. As shown in Section 5.2.5, the participial system in Matsés is extremely elaborate, featuring, apart from three inherently oriented participles, also a number of contextually oriented forms differing in their temporal and evidential characteristics. The significantly restricted set of negative relative clause predicates consists of only three forms, namely the negative habitual S/A nominalizer in -esa, the negative habitual P/INS nominalizer in -temaid, and the negative perfect P/INS nominalizer in -acmaid, cf. Fleck (2003: 307).

As can be seen from the examples above, in case participial relative clauses are subject to certain restrictions in negative contexts (that is, if negative participles are not employed as a universal tool for negating any affirmative participles depending on the context), the meanings that can be conveyed by these forms and their syntactic properties are not random. If the range of possible temporal and aspectual characteristics is reduced, the habitual interpretation is more common than others. For Kambaata, Treis (2008: 172) even states explicitly that the negative participle is used to express “constant, habitual, or repeated not V-ing”. In both languages where the range of participants that can be relativized by affirmative participles is wider than the range of participants relativizable by the negative form, the orientation of the latter is absolutive, cf. privative participle in u-…- el/-il in Georgian and negative participle in -li in Northern Khanty. In the more complex negative participial system attested in Matsés, both factors come into play. As shown above, both S/A and P/INS participial orientation is available for habitual contexts, but in addition there is also a perfect participle specializing in non-subject relativization. The observed distribution can be regarded as another instance of the general interconnection between TAM and participial orientation that will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

Finally, a situation which is in a way intermediate between the symmetric and the asymmetric system is attested in Aguaruna (Jivaroan; Peru). This language possesses two affirmative participial forms, the subject relative form in -u and the non-subject relative form in -mau, and one negative, formed by the marker -tѻau. Even though, according to Overall (2007), synchronically the three participial markers should be regarded as separate affixes, diachronically both the non-subject relative form and the negative relative form are clearly derived from the subject relative form in -u. As a result, the negative participle in -tѻau is in the symmetric relation with the subject relative form, while the non-subject relative form does not have a negative counterpart whatsoever. Other languages where participial relative clauses cannot be negated are discussed in the following section.