Brosig-2015-Negation in Mongolic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 95 Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 95 Copyright © 2015 par la Société Finno-Ougrienne et les auteurs Articles Niina Aasmäe : The observations of Heikki Paasonen concerning word Société Finno-Ougrienne B.P. 320 stress in Erzya and Moksha 9–23 FI-00171 Helsinki Ante Aikio: The Finnic ‘secondary e-stems’ and Proto-Uralic vocalism 25–66 Finlande Benjamin Brosig : Negation in Mongolic 67–136 Jan Henrik Holst : Zur unregelmäßigen Flexion der ungarischen Verben Secrétaire de la Société megy und van 137–144 Ulriikka Puura (depuis 2014) Denis Kuzmin: Vienan Karjalan asutus perimätiedon ja sukunimi- <[email protected] > aineiston valossa 145–199 Miina Norvik : The past participle constructions LEE(NE)- + PTCP Rédaction du Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne and SAA- + PTCP as future time reference devices: the example of Livonian against a Southern Finnic background 201–236 Rigina Ajanki (rédactrice en chef suppléante; rédactrice en chef depuis 2014) Peter Piispanen: Evaluating the Uralic–Yukaghiric word-initial, proto- 'pSDUWHPHQWG·pWXGHVÀQQRLVHV ÀQQRRXJULHQQHVHWVFDQGLQDYHV sibilant correspondence rules 237–273 B.P. 3 $OHNVDQGHU3XVW\DNRYȺɪɟɚɥɶɧɵɟɨɫɨɛɟɧɧɨɫɬɢɦɚɪɢɣɫɤɨɣ ),8QLYHUVLWpGH+HOVLQNL ɬɨɩɨɧɢɦɢɢɬɨɩɨɧɢɦɢɹɜɨɫɬɨɱɧɵɯɦɚɪɢ Ɇɢɲɤɢɧɫɤɢɣɪɚɣɨɧ ± Finlande Pauli Rahkonen: Kargopolin ja Kenozeron alueiden etnohistoria 307–347 Konstantin Zamyatin: Minority political participation under majority <rigina.ajanki #KHOVLQNLÀ > domination: a case study of Russia’s Republic of Mari El 349–389 <http://www.sgr.fi/susa > Chronique Les auteurs sont priés de contacter la Rédaction DYDQWG·HQYR\HUOHXUFRQWULEXWLRQ Activités 3RXUDERQQHPHQWVV·DGUHVVHUj Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran vuosikertomus ja tilinpäätös vuodelta 2013 391–402 Tiedekirja Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran vuosikertomus ja tilinpäätös vuodelta 2014 403–414 Snellmaninkatu 13 FI-00170 Helsinki Finlande <[email protected] > <http://www.tiedekirja.fi > Télécopie +358 9 635 017 Tämän julkaisun artikkelit luetteloidaan ja indeksoidaan ARTO-tietokantaan tunnuksella URBIS. ISSN-L 0355-0214 ISSN 0355-0214 (imprimé) ISSN 1798-2987 (en ligne) ISBN 978-952-5667-76-9 (imprimé) ISBN 978-952-5667-77-6 (en ligne) 9DPPDODQ.LUMDSDLQR2\6DVWDPDOD 66 Aikio SUSA/JSFOu 95, 2015 ĔlHOPlµPRXWKWRQJXH¶__6DD1 QMiOEPL ‘mouth’ | MariE MϷOPH , W MϷOPϷ | KhVVj ĔlOϷP Benjamin B ROSIG (Stockholm ) ;XQJ Q\HOY (UEW: 313–314+_ ۑĔƯOP 30V P _0V7 ĔLĐϷP , So Ĕѓ թ OϷPۑOۓĔ K.3 Sammallahti 1988: 546). P _0V6R Negation in MongolicۑĔƗU 3.K ĔlUPlµJURLQ¶__6DD7 ĔƗUր թ mր e | ? Fi QllUYl | KhNi ĔэUϷP ĔL UPD 6DPPDOODKWL8(: PۑĔƯ U 30V ĔƗUϷP ĔL /oxi- ‘pursue’ || ? SaaN QMiKND ‘sneak; stalk’ | Fi QRXWD ‘fetch’ | KhVVj ĔXћϷO -, ĔэћϷO - (< O _6ON7D] Ĕǀ - ‘pursue’ (< PSam This paper attempts to give a functional overview of negation in the Mongolic languageۑĔƯ Z 30V O _0V3 ĔLZO -, LU ĔƗZO -ۑܵ ࡃ ܧĔ K.3 ĔR 8(:6DPPDOODKWL family. In Early Middle Mongol, standard, prohibitive and perhaps ascriptive negation -pa/i /äni- ‘put’ || Fi SDQH | Komi SH ֑ Q , Udm SRQL֑ | KhVVj SăQ (< PKh *pi n-) | MsP SXQ , were coded by the preverbal negators ese for perfective/past, O for imperfective/non* So SLQ (< PMs *pi n-) | NenT SHQ , Ngan hXDQ (< PSam *pe n-) (UEW: 353–354; Sam- past and E for most moods including imperatives. It contrasted with the locative- mallahti 1988: 539). existential-possessive negator ügei , which could also negate results and constituents. *pa/uwi ‘tree, wood’ || Fi SXX | MariE, W SX | Komi, Udm SX | MsP WƯSSD ’willow’ (< PMs In most modern Mongolic languages, ügei made inroads into standard and ascriptive D , Ngan hXaa (< PSam *pa) (UEW: 410; Sammallahti 1988: negation, competing with EXVL ‘other’ for ascriptive negation starting from Late Middleۺ SƗ" _+XQJ fa | NenT 539). Mongol. Possessive constructions, while always based on ügei , are expressed through a VDRƾLµHQWHU¶__6DD6N VXlƾƾDG µJRLQVWHSLQ¶ 36DD VRDƾǀ 6DD/ VXRJƾDW ‘crawl in’ (< range of different syntactic patterns, and a new locative-existential negator DOJD devel- 36DD VXRƾH -) | E sovams , VXYDPV , M VXYDPV , VϷYDPV ‘enter, come in, go in’ | MariE oped in one area. Newly developed verbal negators include the broadly used former ãRƾDODP , W ãϷ յ ƾJDODP ‘put on (e.g., a shirt)’ | Komi VXQ , Udm ]XPL֑ , ]L֑ mi֑ ‘dive’ | resultative verbal negator - üüdei , and - sh DPRUHUHVWULFWHGUHÀH[RI EXVL . The change ,Wnj _+XQJ av ‘pen- of negator position had consequences for its scope and interaction with other categories 30V ݱL ƾƗ _0V7 Wǀ , P Wnj µHQWHU¶ 3.K KhVVj OăƾD , MăƾD etrate, overgrow’ (UEW: 446–447; Sammallahti 1988: 548). — The Samoyed forms which are discussed in some detail for Khalkha. While prohibitives always remained PHQWLRQHGLQ8(:UHÀHFW36DP WMµHQWHU¶DQGGXHWRWKHFRQVRQDQW MDQGIURQW preverbal, preventives emerged from declaratives, acquiring modal characteristics. vocalism, this verb cannot belong in the cognate set. VDSĞDL µVWLFNOLNH REMHFW¶ __ 6DD6 VXHSWMLH ‘forked stick’ | MariE ãRSã , W ãDSã ‘bobbin’ | In this paper, I intend to present a sketch of the development of negation in Mongolic. - In contrast to previous research, I will not structure the investigation around cog8(: WƗV 30V V _0V7 WƗV , LL WцV µQHWQHHGOH¶ۑVDS 3.K KhSur VăSϷV Sammallahti 1988: 548). nates, but rather explore how different functions are expressed in the individual lan- *so/a/i ja ‘sleeve’ || SaaN VRDGM á, VRDGML ‘wing, sleeve’ | MariE, W ãRNã ‘sleeve’ | Komi VRM , guages. Following the line of (then-ongoing) research by Ljuba Veselinova (2013), the Udm ‘arm’ | KhVVj , t) | MsKU , So jt -) | ? -functional categories to be investigated include verbal declarative negation, existen ۑ WƯ WƯ W 30V ݱƯ WƝ ֑ W WƗMW 3.K VXM OL֑ W ML֑ W Hung XMM ‘sleeve’ (UEW: 445; Sammallahti 1988: 548). — The front-vocalic Samoyed tial, locative and possessive negation, the ascriptive negation of adjectives and nouns M FDQKDUGO\EHORQJKHUHۑW 36DPforms (NenT Ģnj , Ngan þLLćϷ µVOHHYH¶ ĞlHNlLµFDW¿VKEXUERW¶__)L VlNl | MdE ĞLMH | MariE ãLNRO µ:HOVFDW¿VK¶_.K99M VƟћ (< and, additionally, verbal preventives and prohibitives. 3.K VLܵ _0V7 ãZ , So VLZ µEXUERW¶ 30V ãLܵ 8(: Previous research on the various Mongolic varieties is not abundant, and most ĞlHQlLµEUDFNHWIXQJXV¶__6DD1 þiWQi ‘bracket fungus’ | Fi sieni ‘mushroom’ | MariE ãHQ , resources used in this study are reference grammars. All specialized studies on 0V T individual languages that I am aware of focus on standard Mongolian, either in the_ ܵۑۓV 3.K W ãLQ ‘tinder, bracket fungus’ | Udm ĞHĔNL , ĞHĔN i֑ | KhVVj Vl۬Ϸћ 0RQJROLDQVWDWHRULQ,QQHU0RQJROLD*HQHUDORYHUYLHZVLQWKLV¿HOGDUH)XIXEƗWRUX 6DPPDOODKWL ± :)8 ܵۑãƯQ 30V ãƯQ , So VƝQL֑ ћ µEUDFNHW IXQJXV¶ 548). (1992), Üjüme (2006) and Byambasan (2001), the latter with an excellent coverage of -wa/i ra/i- ‘crow’ || SaaN YXRUDåDV , YXRUþþLV | Fi varis | MdE varaka | KhVVj XUƾL֑ , Irt ZăUƾлM derivation. Bat-Ireedüi (2009) gives particular consideration to pragmatically con* 3.K ZnjL UƾƗM _0V6R njULQѓ թ kZa 30V njUƯ n) | Hung YDUM~ (UEW: 559). ventionalized collocations. Mönh-Amgalan (1999) and Umetani (2004) focus on the *wasa/i- ‘left’ || Fi vasen , Est vasak | EnF EDįL , SlkKet NZϷ թ di (< PSam *wåti) (Sammallahti locational negator DOJD , while Hashimoto (2007)’s study concerns formal symmetry 1988: 541). between positive and negative paradigms. Comparative studies that focus on all of 0V6R njM_ ܵۑZƗM 3.K woja/i ‘wild (animal)’ || MariW ZRMϷU | Komi ve ֑ M | KhVVj ZDMϷћ* 0RQJROLFDUH<X 6DUDQJȖXXD 6HQJJH DQG8UDQFLPHJ 30V njM 8(: ²7KH0DULZRUGKDVQRWEHHQSUHYLRXVO\EHHQLQFOXGHGLQ this cognate set. 7KH¿UVWWZRLQYHVWLJDWHWKHUHÀH[HVRISDUWLFXODUQHJDWRUVDFURVV0RQJROLFZKLOH the latter two restrict themselves to declarative verbal negation. Bese (1974) and Hsiao (2007) are more properly diachronic studies: the former tries to reconstruct the negators of Pre-Proto-Mongolic, whereas the latter attempts to explain the develop- ment from preverbal negation in Middle Mongol to post-verbal negation in standard Mongolian from a typological perspective. 68 Brosig Negation in Mongolic 69 This paper is structured as follows: In Section 1, I will give a short overview of been in contact with other Mongols since the early 17th century. Janhunen (2006: 232) Mongolic as a language family, which situates all varieties discussed in this paper. considers Ordos to be a separate branch, perhaps due to its conservative phonology, Section 2 starts out with verbal standard negation. Section 3 deals with locational/ EXWZKLOHLQÀXHQFHVIURP&KDNKDU2LUDWDQGSHUKDSV:HVWHUQ7PHWUHQGHULWVRPH - existential and Section 4 with the closely related possessive negation. Section 5 takes what heterogeneous, there don’t seem to be many distinctive innovations. Buryat and a look at ascriptive negation of nominals, and Section 6 addresses prohibitives and Khorchin are in contact mutually and with Dagur. Moghol in Afghanistan has been preventives. The development of negation in Mongolic is discussed in Section 7. isolated from the rest of Mongolic since the MM period. Southern Mongolic consists Section 8 provides a conclusion. of the Shirongolic group and Shira Yugur. The latter is perhaps an Oirat or southern &HQWUDO0RQJROLDQGLDOHFWWKDWFDPHXQGHUVWURQJLQÀXHQFHRIODQJXDJHVVSRNHQLQ the Amdo (North-Eastern Tibetan) area. Shirongolic itself is fully part of this area. It 1. The Mongolic language family consists of Huzhu Mongghul and Minhe Mangghuer (together making up Monguor) and Santa (=Dongxiang), Kangjia and Bonan (=Baoan). It is possible that these varie- 0RQJROLFLVWREHXQGHUVWRRGDVDQXQDI¿OLDWHGODQJXDJHIDPLO\$FRPPRQRULJLQ