Disertación del Académico de Número Ing Agr Alberto de las Carreras
X. LOS SUBSIDIOS AGRICOLAS Y EL MEDIO AMBIENTE XI CONCLUSIONES
We begin our brief survey of negative-TAM interdependencies in the non-North Munda languages of Odisha with the largest of them, Sora. Sora appears to permit a single pre-stem inflectional slot that can be filled by either a plural subject prefix or a negative scope element, but not both.19 In the past the negative scope
operator attaches to the tense-marked verb in a combinatorial manner. In both instances the past marker –l(i)- is used whether under the scope of negation or not (79)-(81).
(79) Sora
a-ɲam-dʒaʔt=lı-n-aj
1PL.SUBJ-catch-snake-PST-ITR/MDL-1.ACT ‘we caught (a/the) snake(s)’
(80) Sora
amən doʔŋ-ɲen a-giɟ-l-iɲ
2SG OBJ-1SG NEG-see-PST-1SG.UND ‘you have not seen me’
(81) Sora
anindʒi rban daʔa-n a-tij=l-əm-dʒi
3PRON:PL yesterday water-N.SFX NEG-give-PST-2SG.UND-3PL.ACT ‘yesterday they didn’t give you water’
Sora shows formal differences in the positive and negative variants of sentences in the non-past that are slightly more complex than the addition of a negative polarity item to the positive form, as in the following examples where the non-past marker –t(i/e)- in (82) is suppressed when the negative prefix ə- is added (83).
(82) a. Sora b. Sora
ɲɛm-dʒaʔt-tı-n-dʒi ɲen giʔj-t-aj
catch-snake-NPST-ITR/MDL-3PL.ACT 1SG see-NPST-1.ACT ‘they (will) catch (a/the) snake(s)’ ‘I (will) see’
c. Sora
ɲen kəmbun-an=adoʔŋ tij-ɟum-t-ai
1SG pig-N.SFX=OBJ give-food-NPST-1.ACT ‘I will feed the pig’ (field notes)
19 This appears to be in flux and subject to individual speaker variation. Some speakers distinguish 1PL positive and negative by using a lengthened vowel in the negative, suggesting a phonetic coalescence of what remain two distinct templatic prefix slots for the first plural marker and the negative marker.
(83) Sora (Anderson & Harrison 2008b:346, 331)
ɲen bazar-ɪn ə-jeːr-ej
1SG market-N.SFX NEG-go-1.ACT ‘I don’t, won’t go to the market’
The closely related Juray attests a somewhat similar pattern: the non-past marker (encoding future and present) is suppressed in the negative but obligatory in the positive. Note also that the non-finite converb form of the lexical verb is identical with the past marker even in present forms (84) and the auxiliary takes the tense and person encoding in Juray in the positive in the syntactic order V AUX, while in the negative the order is reversed, and we find AUX V and polarity and person marking rather on the lexical verb (85). (84) Juray
ɲen əman=adoʔŋ giɟ-le rabti-t-am
1SG 2SG=OBJ see-CV CAP-NPST-2SG.UND ‘I can see you’
(85) Juray
ɲen əman=adoʔŋ rabti a-giɟ-am
1SG 2SG=OBJ CAP NEG-see-2SG.UND ‘I am not able to see you’
Gutob has a default negative prefix and a negative copula.20 One majorly complex feature of Gutob conjugation however is that there are TAM elements in the positive conjugations that have different functions in the negative conjugations despite being formally identical. For example, the tense marker -gu marks past with class-I verbs (mainly intransitive and middle verbs) but when combined with the negative prefix ar-, it encodes prohibitive (Anderson 2007, Voß 2017).
(86) Gutob (87) Gutob
ser-gu ar-ser-gu
sing-PST.ITR/MDL NEG-sing-PHB
‘sang’ ‘don’t sing'
Similarly the TAM suffix -to encodes a habitual present in the positive but when combined with the negative prefix ar-, a negative past tense is rather the result.21
(88) Gutob (89) Gutob
ser-to ar-ser-to
sing-HAB NEG-sing-NEG.PST
‘sings’ ‘didn’t sing’
As alluded to above, not all negative constructions in Gutob use the prefix ar-. The negative copula functions as the negative polarity marker in a range of conjugations. That the element is a negative copula is clear from examples like (90), where it functions in opposition to structures like ɖu- in the positive (91).
20 As well as a vanishingly rare compound anticipatory negative mor- that etymologically includes the default negator, and also likely included the non-finite negator mentioned in Gtaʔ, see below.
21 Originally from Zide’s field notes, and published in Anderson (2007), Griffiths (2008), confirmed in field by authors in 2013.
(90) Gutob (91) Gutob
niŋ-nu dʒoɽek oʔon uraʔ niŋ-nu dʒoɽek oʔon ɖu-tu=nen
1SG-GEN two child NEG.COP 1SG-GENTWO CHILD COP-NPST=3PL
‘I don’t have two daughters’ ‘I have two daughters’
Note there is no agreement if the possessum is inanimate; note also that this agreement system is not the same as the one attested in Kherwarian. With past formations, one finds [ar-]ɖu-gu in Gutob (92)-(93). Thus in copula forms ar-X-gu is concatenative NEG + PST, but with verbs it forms a prohibitive circumfix, i.e., it is constructional semantically.
(92) Gutob (93) Gutob
niŋ-nu dʒoɽek ɖieŋ ɖu-gu niŋ-nu dʒoɽek ɖieŋ aɖ-ɖu-gu
1SG-GEN two house COP-PST 1SG-GENTWO HOUSE NEG-COP-PST
‘I had two houses’ ‘I did not have two houses’
Perhaps due to the ‘unnaturalness’ of this system, and perhaps due to the obsolescence of the Gutob language as a whole and/or the long-term Dravidian influence from Dravidian-speaking Gadaba, as well as the increasing dominance of Indo-Aryan Desia–both of which use negative copula forms in finite formations– there appears to be an ongoing generalization of the negative copula form uraʔ into finite structures in our Gutob corpus (94).
(94) Gutob
niŋ minɖig (h)aʈ-boʔ ui=niŋ uraʔ
1SG yesterday market-DIR/LOC go=1SG NEG.COP ‘I did not go to market yesterday’
Thus the system of negation in Gutob appears to be breaking down somewhat in this seriously endangered language, at least for the speakers we have recorded. It is likely of course that this type of obsolescence effect is subject to considerable local and even individual variation. In our data set on Gutob (dozens of texts, thousands of sentences), we find examples of the use of the old system as predicted and described above, but one now also hears a more typologically ‘normal’ and altered structure for the prohibitive, with just the verb stem in a bare form (95) and the default negator, i.e., a formation paralleling the positive imperative structure (96):
(95) Gutob (96) Gutob
o-niŋ ar-su:n o-niŋ su:n
OBJ-1SG NEG-tell OBJ-1SG tell
‘don’t tell me!’ ‘tell me!’
Turning now to Gtaʔ, there is a general default prefix a(r)- in Plains Gtaʔ and Hill Gtaʔ used in both declarative and prohibitive forms. The prohibitive in Gtaʔ, as in pre-decline Gutob, is constructional and thus non-combinatorial semantically, using an evidential/perfect marker =gɛ/=gǝ together with the negator to yield the prohibitive meaning (97).
(97) Hill Gtaʔ
a-næjŋ na-á-basoŋ-gɛ
OBJ-1SG 2SG-NEG-tell-PHB ‘don’t tell me!’
Also similar to pre-obsolescent Gutob is the constructional use of the non-past marker with the negator to create past negative formations. In Hill Gtaʔ this element is =tɛ/=tǝ (98) and in Plains Gtaʔ =ke (99).
(98) Hill Gtaʔ (99) Plains Gtaʔ
gubug a-goiʔ-tǝ n-ár-aʔtʃoŋ-ke
pig NEG-die-NEG.PST 1SG-NEG-FEED-NEG.PST
‘the pig didn’t die’ ‘I didn't feed (s.o.)’
In simplex predicates in Hill Gtaʔ, the negative plus the non-past TAM marker, i.e. a-...-tǝ constructionally encodes negative past tense (98), but conversely encodes negative present tense in complex predicates (100), that is concatenatively or combinatorially, not constructionally.
(100) Hill Gtaʔ
ɖiaŋkoj ɖiaŋkoj ho(ʔ)-barsoŋ a-rɨŋ-tǝ
woman woman RCP-speak NEG-IPFV-PRS ‘the women are not speaking to each other’
As in Gutob, the negative plus the default past tense marker encodes a prohibitive construction. Unlike Gutob, subject marking is usually overt in Hill Gtaʔ and not suppressed in the prohibitive as in (95) above, as it also typically is in all first and second person subject forms in Gtaʔ in all the TAM forms (third person subject is unmarked), as in the perfect (101):
(101) Hill Gtaʔ
a-me kej n-læʔ-tɛ
OBJ-3SG.PRON see 1SG-PRF-PRS ‘I have seen her’
While future and present are not conflated in Gtaʔ, as they are for example in Sora, nevertheless the TAM marker is suppressed in negative future forms in Gtaʔ as well. It is important to mention here that the system in Gutob, Gtaʔ and Sora is similar to what can be reconstructed to Proto-Kherwarian and Proto-North Munda systems,22 which suggests negator alone with no tam marking may have marked negative future in Proto- Munda. Note that this yields a typologically quirky situation where while both forms consist of three morphemes, the negative first singular future has only two syllables (102) and is thus shorter than the positive first singular future form (103), which is rather trisyllabic.
(102) Hill Gtaʔ (103) Hill Gtaʔ
kine hãwe a-na n-a-biʔ gubug=kǝ m-biʔ-wǝ
this bow OBJ–2SG 1SG-NEG-give pig=OBJ 1SG-give-FUT ‘I will not give you this bow’ ‘I will give (it) to the pig’
Remo, although closely related to Gutob, has innovated away from the Gutob system. Thus, the negative present is simplex and combinatorial in Remo with the structure NEG-Verb-PRS-SUBJ (104). This is true of both class I or intransitive/middle verbs and class II or transitive/active verbs in Remo (105)-(106).
(104) a. Remo b. Remo
niŋ a-lop-t-iŋ pe gulajro a-goiʔ-te-pe
1SG NEG-fall-NPST-1SG 2PL all.ANIM NEG-die-NPST-2PL ‘I do not fall, am not falling’ ‘you all do not die’
(105) Remo (106) Remo
niŋ a-no dʒu-t-iŋ niŋ a-no a-dʒu-t-iŋ
1SG OBJ-2SG see-NPST-1 1SG OBJ-2SG NEG-see-NPST-1SG
‘I see you’ ‘I don’t see you’
(107) Remo
pe gulajro goiʔ a-rĩ:-te-pe
2PL all.ANIM die NEG-AUX-NPST-2PL ‘you all are not dying’
However, in the negative past in Remo, although this system has been restructured with new auxiliary elements, it has preserved some older quirky features as well such as the structure of NEG-AUX-NPST-SUBJ in negative past forms with the positive present tense marker. Thus it maintains the constructional nature of the negative past. With Class I or intransitive/middle verbs (108), the auxiliary used in the negative past is ar-ej
~ ar-oj, presumably historically < ‘go’, with the -r- historically part of the negative prefix. For a subset of
monosyllabic verbs of this type, this construction requires a reduplicated non-finite form of the lexical stem (109).
(108) Remo
niŋ log ar-ej-t-iŋ
1SG fall NEG-AUX.NEG.ITR/MDL-NEG.PST-1SG ‘I did not fall’
(109) Remo
pe gulajro gugoiʔ ar-oj-te-pe
2PL all.ANIM RDPL~die NEG-AUX.NEG.ITR/MDL-NEG.PST-2PL ‘you all did not die’
With Class II or transitive/active verbs, the auxiliary used is rather boŋ (or rather a-boŋ; < ‘put’) and the lexical verb is required to be in the converb form that is identical to the positive past tense marker, but the auxiliary nevertheless takes the negative past marker that is identical with the positive non-past. Compare (110) and (111).
(110) Remo
niŋ a-no dʒul-oʔ-niŋ
1SG OBJ-2SG see-PST.TR/ACT-1SG ‘I saw you’
(111) Remo
niŋ a-no dʒu(l)-oʔ a-boŋ-t-iŋ
1SG OBJ-2SG see-PST.TR/ACT NEG-AUX.NEG.TR/ACT-NEG.PST-1SG ‘I didn’t see you’
In future negative forms, a negative future element is found, probably a semi-univerbated auxiliary in origin.22 This can appear either in a structure following a negative marked lexical verb (112) reflecting a split
negative inflectional paradigm, or it can appear in a formation with negative marked on both the lexical verb and the auxiliary verb (113) in a split/doubled configuration (Anderson 2006).
(112) a. Remo b. Remo
niŋ a-log-a-niŋ pe gulajro a-goiʔ-a-pe
I NEG-fall-NEG.FUT-1 you.PL all.ANIM NEG-die-NEG.FUT-2PL
‘I will not fall’ ‘you all will not die’
22 That forms like (113) exist suggest that the negative future element in Remo -/=a- is synchronically still an auxiliary or at least optionally remains so for some speakers. For others it appears to be moving into the function of a (restricted negative future) TAM suffix. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.
(113) Remo
niŋ a-log=ar-a-niŋ
I NEG-fall=NEG-NEG.FUT-1 ‘I will not fall’
In Juang, forms typically are combinatorial semantically with the TAM forms also maintaining their meanings in positive conjugations under negation such as present (114)-(115) or past active/transitive (116).
(114) a. Juang b. Juang
ne dʒandare a-lara-ke arokia baronoŋ a-goiʔ-ki-kia
DEM woman.TOP NEG-laugh-PRS 3PRON.DL TWO.HUM NEG-DIE-PRS-3DL ‘the woman is not laughing’ ‘those two do not die, are not dying’ (115) Juang
ne dʒandare lara-ke
dem woman.TOP laugh-PRS
‘the woman is laughing’ (116) Juang
arokia baronoŋ a-goiʔ-jo(ʔ)-kia
3PRON.DL two.HUM NEG-die-PST.TR/ACT-3DL ‘two of them did not die’
Like Gutob, the negative copula dʒena has also been drawn into the finite verb system in Juang, with reduplicated forms of monosyllabic verb stems. That dʒena is etymologically a negative copula can be seen comparing (117) and (118).
(117) Juang (118) Juang
ini butare guba=ro ne butare guba=dʒena
DEM pig.TOP big=COP DEM PIG.TOP BIG=NEG.COP
‘the pig is big’ ‘the pig is not big’
When used as a negator in finite forms in Juang, monosyllabic verb stems are obligatorily reduplicated (119) with the negative copula dʒena. Indo-Aryan influence is likely here as the use of the negative copula in finite verb forms is relatively common in the local variety of Oḍia.
(119) Juang
arokia baronoŋ gogoiʔ=dʒena
3PRON.DL two.HUM RDPL~die=NEG.COP ‘those two have not died’