=Introduction=
Negation is the process of turning affirmative statements into the opposite form. For example, the negative equivalent of affirmative sentence, ''I am eating'' is ''I am not eating''. In English there are a few processes at work. ''not'' must always come with an auxiliary verb like the verb 'to have' and 'to be'. In Mi'gmaq, with its extremely detailed and expansive verb conjugations in the present, it is not surprising that the negated conjugation of verbs is just as detailed and expansive as they are in the affirmative.

To start off any commentary on negation, it seems fitting to start of with the word "no" which is ''moqwa'' in Mi'gmaq. (The opposite of this is ''e'e'' , meaning "yes".) Negation in Mi'gmaq is similar to that of Obijwe in that there is both an affix that occurs between the verb and the person marker and a word that comes before the verb denoting negation. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojibwe_grammar#Verbs Verb Conjugation in Ojibwe]. The Mi'gmaq negated affix is ''w'' or ''u'' which is very closely related to the Proto-Algonquian form for negation which is is ''*-w'' ( [http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/440/1/ling.wp.v15.n2.paper6.pdf Proulx, 1990] ). ''w'' or ''u'' are very closely related phonetically since ''w'' is the semivowel corresponding to the vowel ''u''. Bear in mind that during the elicitation sessions, sometimes it was unsure whether to use ''w'' or ''u''. Unless otherwise noted all orthographical conventions are those of Listuguj.

Negation in Mi'gmaq consists of adding ''mu'' or ''ma'' then the verb conjugated in the negated verb form. After ''mu'' or ''ma'' the verb must always contain a negative particle. We must think of these two things as inseparable. ''mu'' always comes before the negative conjugated verb in the present or past, and ''ma'' always comes before future or if the prefix ''gis'' ('can', 'to be able to') is attached to the verb. All other prefixes abide by the rules ''mu'' before present or past and ''ma'' before future. There are other particles that take the negated form of the verb, but it is obvious that they particles express a negated idea.

Please note as well that in some of the studies on Mi'gmaq and Algonquian languages the term 'nonaffirmative' is used to describe the negated form. For consistency in this report, I will use the term 'negated' to indicate the form of the verb which is the opposite of affirmative. 'Nonaffirmative' and 'negated' however refer to the same process of negation.

Unless otherwise noted, all data below is my own, elicited from the correspondent, Janine Metallic.

= Conjugation of the Negated Verb =
I have selected the verb ''mijji'' (to eat). Please note that some resources spell this like ''mijji'' where other spell it ''miji'' ([http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED136614.pdf Micmac Teaching Grammar, 1976]). I have selected the spelling from [http://www.mikmaqonline.org/servlet/dictionaryFrameSet.html?arg0=mijjit&method=searchFromMikmaq the Migmaq talking dictionary]. It is also important to note that the Micmac Teaching Grammar uses an orthography that is different of all other orthographies used with Mi'gmaq. I will indicate which terms they are and give the Listuguj equivalent orthographical manner of writing them.

The simplified formula for the conjugation in the negated form: the base form + ''u'' or ''w'' + person ending ([http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED136614.pdf Micmac Teaching Grammar, 1976])
The base form for intransitive verbs is always the verb in the first person singular. For example I eat is ''mijji''. Now to create the second person singular we add the ending -''n'' denoting second person singular and get the form ''mijjin''. For another type of verb (henceforth referred to as the ''a'' verbs) we take the base form ''amalga-'' and add -''n'' to get ''amalgan'' (you dance) and to get the first person singular we add -''i''. Please note that it has been hypothesized that there are at least eleven different conjugations. We will only be dealing with a couple here. Because of reasons of time limitation, I was not able to elicit all eleven types but when there is a difference in conjugation, that will be noted. Note that in the plural the ''u'' or ''w'' comes after ''-ulti-''. This could be due the the fact that ''-ulti-'' is the plural affix that attaches to the base form of the verb and does not convey anything about the tense of the verb, rather it is used to denote that the verb is plural. Thus the ''u'' or ''w'' comes right before the tense marker which is always at the end of the verb. For the first person singular in present there is a null tense marker at the end of some verbs (for example the ''-i'' verbs) thus the negative marker is at the end.

== Present Tense ==
First is a comparison of the affirmative and negated paradigms of the verb ''mijji'' ('eat').

{| class="wikitable"
|+ mijji- 'eat'
|-
! scope="col" colspan="2"| ↓person / number→
! scope="col" | SG
! scope="col" | DU
! scope="col" | PL
|-
! scope="row" rowspan="2"| 1
! scope="row"| 13
| rowspan="2" | mijji
|mijjieg
|mijjultieg
|-
! scope="row" | 12
| mijjiewg
| mijjultiewg
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2" | 2
| mijjin
| mijjioq
| mijjultioq
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2"| 3
| mijjit
| mijjijig
| mijjultijig
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ mu mijji- 'not eat'
|-
! scope="col" colspan="2"| ↓person / number→
! scope="col" | SG
! scope="col" | DU
! scope="col" | PL
|-
! scope="row" rowspan="2"| 1
! scope="row"| 13
| rowspan="2" | mu mijjiu
| mu mijjultieweg
| mu mijjultieweg
|-
! scope="row" | 12
| mu mijjultieweg
| mu mijjultieweg
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2" | 2
| mu mijjiun
| mu mijjiwoq
| mu mijjuwoq
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2"| 3
| mu mijjiug
| mu mijjiewg
| mu mijjiultiewg
|-
|}

The word ''mu'' signifies negation. When ''mu'' is in front of the verb, the verb must also be conjugated in the negative form. In the above table we see the intrusion of the sound ''u'', ''ew'' or ''w''. The following table illustrates the endings for the present negative tense, keeping in mind ''mu'' must ALWAYS come right before the negated verb. When ''mu'' precedes a verb it must ALWAYS be in the negated form.

Below is the table for negated present conjugation. Inanimate conjugation was taken from the Micmac Grammar (1976, pg 155).

{| class="wikitable"
! Negated Present ||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| -u
| -ultieweg
| -ultieweg
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| -ultieweg
| -ultieweg
|-
| 2 Second person
| -un
| -woq
| -uwoq
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| -ug
| -ewg
| -ultiewg
|-
| 3 Third person (inanimate)
| -nug
| -nugel
| -nultinugel
|-
|}

As you may have noticed, the forms for the first person dual and plural in the exclusive and inclusive forms are the same. As shown by other data, the dual form seems to be in the process of disappearing. This is one such example where the dual form does not exist for the plural first person. Some younger speakers do not use the dual form at all so it is not surprising that we find a gap in the dual form here. All this is according to the speaker but if we followed the pattern of the previous forms we would expect the dual form for the inclusive and exclusive first person to be ''-ieweg''. "When the verb is negated, then the -g third person is ALWAYS found" (Micmac Grammar, 1976 pg 93).

Below is a comparison of different verbs to give an idea of how to conjugate different types of verbs in the negated form. All forms are conjugated in the present singular third person animate. The form of -''elie-'' was taken from Micmac Grammar (pg 155).

{| class="wikitable"
! Verb Type || Base Form || Affirmative || Negated || Translation
|-
| -i
| mijji-
| mijjit
| mu mijjiug
| eat
|-
| -a
| amalga-
| amalgat
| mu amalgawg
| dance
|-
| -asi
| alasi-
| alasit
| mu alasiewgw
| go around
|-
| -e
| elie-
| eliet
| mu eliegw
| go
|-
|}

For verb conjugations in the affirmative please see [http://firstnationhelp.com/ali/posters/pdf/verb_conjugation.pdf Mi'kmaq Verb Conjugation]. As you can see, this site uses the verb ''mijisi'' meaning 'to eat'. In Listuguj this is not used as the word for to eat because it sounds too close for the verb ''mejisi'' 'to excrete'.

=== Transitive ===
Below is the conjugation in present of a transitive verb that takes an inanimate object.

{| class="wikitable"
! ''malq-'' " not eat, Transitive Inanimate"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| malqutum
| malqutemeg
| malqutemeg
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| malqutemug
| malqutemug
|-
| 2 Second person
| malqutemin
| malqutmoq
| malqutmoq
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| malqut
| malqutmitij
| malqutmitig
|-
|}

Here it is negated:
{| class="wikitable"
! ''mu malq-'' " not eat, Transitive Inanimate"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mu malqutumu
| mu malqutumueg
| mu malqutumueg
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| mu malqutemu'g
| mu malqutemu'g
|-
| 2 Second person
| mu malqutemun
| mu malqutmuoq
| mu malqutmuoq
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mu malqutumug
| mu malqutmiti'ewg
| mu malqutmiti'ewg
|-
|}

Because of the extensive complexity of the verb endings in Mi'gmaq I was only able to elicit a very, very small portion of the forms. Below are the other transitive verb forms I elicited.

{| class="wikitable"
! Affirmative||Negated||Translation (of negated form)
|-
| nimisi
| mu nimisiew
| I do not see myself
|-
| nimilin
| mu nimiliu'n
| you (sg) do not see me
|-
| nimili'oq
| mu nimiliuoq
| you (plural) do not see me
|-
| nimilit
| mu nimiliugw
| he sees me
|-
| nemi'g
| mu nemiaq
| I do not see him
|-
|}

As hypothesized earlier the negated affix comes before the person (i.e. singular or plural) when conjugating. I do not have enough information to create any kind of paradigm here for lack of time. As I myself came to realize along with others trying to come up with a concise grammar of Mi'gmaq, "it seems almost impossible to deal with [the verb] satisfactorily in a brief treatise, as volumes might be written upon it" (Clark, 1902).

== Imperative ==
Here is the formation of the affirmative imperative:
{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijji-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 2 Second person
| mijji
| ?
| mijjultiug
|-
|}

Now we compare it to the negated:
{| class="wikitable"
! ''mutt mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 2 Second person
| mutt mijjiew
| ?
| mutt mijjultineu
|-
|}

I was unable to elicit any other forms.

== Past Tense ==
Again for the past we compare the past and the negated past.

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mijjiap
| mijjieg'p
| mijjultieg'p
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| mijjiewg'p
| mijjultiewg'p
|-
| 2 Second person
| mijjit'p
| mijjiqop
| mijjultioqop
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mijjip
| mijjpni'g
| mijjultpni'g
|}

Now let us look at the negated forms.

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mu mijjiewap
| mu mijjiewg'p
| mu mijjiewg'p
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| mu mijjiewg'p
| mu mijjiewg'p
|-
| 2 Second person
| mu mijjiewt'p
| mu mijjiewwaq'p
| mu mijjiewwaq'p
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mu mijjug'p
| ?
| ?
|}

Thus this would be the conjugation of the negated form:

{| class="wikitable"
! Negated Past||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| -ewap
| -ewg'p
| -ewg'p
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| -ewg'p
| -ewg'p
|-
| 2 Second person
| -ewt'p
| -ewwaq'p
| -ewwaq'p
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| -ug'p
| ?
| ?
|}

For the third person the -''ug'p'' can change to -''ewgp'' for example:

<gl>
\gll Mu alasi-ew-g'p
not go-NEG-SG.PAST
\trans She didn't go
</gl>

== Future Tense ==
First let us compare the affirmative tense for eat:

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mijjias
| ?
| mijjit'snen
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
|
| mijjit'snu
|-
| 2 Second person
| mijjit's(g)
| ?
| mijjitoqs'p
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mijjitew
| ''n/a''
| mijjultitaq
|}
I was not able to elicit dual forms.

We compare the future affirmative with the negated below:

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| ma mijjiew
| ma mijjiug
| ma mijjiug
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| ma mijjiug
| ma mijjiug
|-
| 2 Second person
| ma mijjiwn
| ?
| ?
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| ma mijjiewg
| ''n/a''
| ma mijjultiewoq
|}
NOTE: In the future the ''mu'' changes to ''ma'' !! Like ''mu'', ''ma'' must always come before the verb conjugated in the negative future.
The correspondent was not able to produce a dual form in the future.

Now here is a paradigm of the negated endings in the future.

{| class="wikitable"
! Negated Future||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| -ew
| -ug
| -ug
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| -ug
| -ug
|-
| 2 Second person
| -iwn
| ?
| ?
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| -ewg
| ''n/a''
| -ultiwoq
|}

As you may have noticed the future tense is easy! The verbs take the same endings as the negated present tense but the ''mu'' is replaced with ''ma'' thus indicating future.

== When negation is used ==

When the verb is negated there must always find a negative particle (like ''mu'' or ''ma''). If not the sentence is ungrammatical as shown below:

<gl>
\gll *gis-wissugwatige-w
can-cook-NEG
\trans I cannot cook (intended meaning)
</gl>

The only form of the above sentence must be:

<gl>
\gll ma gis-wissugwatige-w
NEG can-cook.1-NEG
\trans I cannot cook
</gl>

Thus it is seen that ''ma'' comes before the verb, now making the sentence grammatical.

''ma'' always precedes the future tense AND when the ''gis'' prefix is attached to the verb conjugated in the present for example:

<gl>
\gll Ma gis-amalga-w-g
NEG can-dance-NEG-3
\trans S/he cannot dance
</gl>

There are some expressions that always take the negative form of the verb such as ''me menga'' (not yet) and ''mowen'' (nobody) that take the negative form of the verb: (examples from [http://www.mikmaqonline.org/ Mi'gmaq Online Dictionary])

<gl>
\gll Me menag newt ajetten-u-g
Not yet one time-NEG-3
\trans It is not one o’clock yet
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Mo-wen mijie-w-g
No-who eat-NEG-3
\trans No one is eating
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Moqwa' goqwei eign-u-g
Noth ing is-NEG-3
\trans There is nothing there
</gl>

Below is a list of common particles after which the negated form is used. This list is not complete but these are the most common forms.

{| class="wikitable"
! Particle || When used || Translation
|-
| ''mu''
| before negated present and past
| not
|-
| ''mutt''
| before negated imperative
| do not
|-
| ''lpa mu''
| before negated present and past
| not even
|-
| ''mowen''
| before negated present, past and future
| no one/nobdoy
|-
| ''moqw'a goqwei'''
| before negated present, past and future
| nothing
|-
| ''me menag''
| before negated verb
| not yet
|-
| ''ma''
| before negated future verb and preverb ''gis'' (can)
| not
|-
|}

''moqw'a goqwei'' is also spelled ''mu goqwei'' and a variant of this is ''mu'' + negated verb + ''goqwei'' when used in object position. It is inanimate. See below example:

<gl>
\gll Mu malqute-m-u goqwei
not eat-1>0-NEG what
\trans I eat nothing
</gl>

== Negative Concord ==
As exemplified above, Mi'gmaq is a negative concord language. Negative concord is where "double or multiple negative does not express an affirmative but a negative" (van der Wouden & Zwarts, 1992). This is not unlike the process in French where I have seen nobody is 'Je ''n'''ai vue ''personne'' where both the ''ne'' and ''personne'' ' express a negative, but although seemingly illogical, this is in fact expresses a negative sentence rather than an affirmative. There is both a negative particle and the verb is then conjugated in the negated tense. This is a double negation because there is both a negative particle, for example ''mu'', then the verb mus

= Word Order =
Negation is marked in Mi'gmaq with the negative particle (or possibly affix) ''mu'' "not", which is always located before the verb it negates. Although ''mu'' and the verb it negates can be separated (flexible word order), ''mu'' must always precede the verb. Placement of it post-verbally results in ungrammaticality, as illustrated below.

<gl>
\gll mu geiwetetm-u-ap
not remember-NEG-SG
\trans I did not remember
</gl>

<gl id="2">
\gll lpa'tuj mu eimug-u-p
boy NEG is.there.PAST-NEG-SG
\trans The boy was not there.
</gl>

Possible word order:
*mu eimugup lpa'tuj
*mu lpa'tuj eimugup

Impossible word order:
* *eimugup lpa'tuj mu
* *eimugup mu lpa'tuj
* *lpa'tuj eimugup mu

Furthermore, with regards to word order, it appears that negation must come right before the constituent it negates. Here is an example sentence without negation:

<gl>
\gll ula na lpa'tuj tan egitgup wigatign
this DEM boy that read.PAST book
\trans This is the boy that read the book.
</gl>

If we want to negate the first clause, as to say "This is '''not''' the boy that read the book", negation must directly precede 'boy'.

<gl>
\gll ula na mu lpa'tuj tan egitgup wigatign
this DEM NEG boy that read.PAST book
\trans This is not the boy that read the book.
</gl>

The following word orders for negation in the first clause are impossible:
* *ula na lpa'tuj mu...
* *ula mu na lpa'tuj...
* *mu ula na lpa'tuj...

If we want to negate the second clause, as to say "This is the boy that did '''not''' read the book", the word order may be varied, as long as negation comes before the verb (as discussed previously).

It seems that Mi'gmaq has Negative Concord. Compare examples <glr id="1"/> and <glr id="2"/>.

<gl>
\gll app mu nege eigm-u-g
again NEG now is.there.NEG-SG
ʌp mu nɛge eikmuk
\trans Again, it isn't there now.
</gl>

<gl id="1">
\gll lpa'tuj eigu-p
boy is.there.PAST-SG
\trans The boy was there.
</gl>

<gl id="2">
\gll lpa'tuj mu eimu-g-u-p
boy NEG is.there-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans The boy was not there.
</gl>

== Scope of Negation ==
As stated above, ''mu'' always comes before the verb. There may be particles that intrude between ''mu'' and the negated verb, but as long as ''mu'' comes before the negated verb, the structure is grammatical. [http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED136614.pdf Micmac Grammar, 1976]

<gl>
\gll Mali mu amal-gag-u-p
Mali NEG dance-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans Mali did not dance.
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Mu Mali amal-gag-u-p
NEG Mali dance-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans Mali did not dance.
</gl>

Sometimes the meaning of the sentence can change depending on the position of ''mu''.

<gl>
\gll Egjitm Mali mu amal-gag-u-p
possible Mali NEG dance-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans It is true that Mali did not dance.
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Mu egjitm Mali amal-gag-u-p
NEG possible Mali dance-PAST.NEG.SG
\trans It is not true that Mali danced.
</gl>

See also [http://prosodylab.org/migmaq/index.php/Word_Order_%26_Information_Structure#Interaction_with_negation Word Order and Interaction with Negation]
We would also expect phrases with adverb-like particles translatable as "it is possible" or "it is true" or "it is obvious" would also vary regarding negation.

=Language change and negation=
I have encountered many times not being able to elicit both the dual and plural forms of a verb. There are many times where I can only elicit the dual form, or times when the dual and plural forms are exactly alike. It had been noted before in the class that a lot of younger speakers are not using the plural form and using the dual form to mean both dual and plural. This seems be a language change happening currently in the speech community where the younger generation is leading the change towards the preference of the dual form for denoting both dual and plural. Though as noted above in the [http://prosodylab.org/migmaq/index.php/Negation#Present_Tense paradigm] for the eat in the negated present tense both dual and plural forms are the same. Here it seems to be the plural form presiding over the dual form. This would strongly suggest a change happening in the speech community.

=Notes=
As I am sure everyone else encountered during this course, I was unable to get a full paradigm of all the possible verb conjugations (transitive animate, transitive inanimate, intransitive etc) and all tenses (subjunctive case as well as conditional, among others, is missing though I know Mi'gmaq has these cases, (see Grammaire de la Langue Micmaque, 1864, pg 33-100 for full verb paradigms)). Instead I tried to focus on the data I had and compare it with other sources in order to be able to achieve accuracy as well as accessibility to those wanting to learn the language.

For the future, I would hope to elicit more verb paradigms as well as more about the scope of negation.

=References=
Clark, Jeremiah S. "A Dictionary of the Micmac Language." Rand's Micmac Dictionary. Charlottetown, PEI: The Patriot Publishing Company, 1902. Print.

Delisle, Gill L., and Manny L. Metallic. Micmac Teaching Grammar. Ecowi, QC: Thunderbird Press, 1976. Print.

L'Abbe Maillard, M. Grammaire De La Langue Mikmaque. New York: Presse Cramoisy de Jean-Marie Shea, 1864. Print.

Metallic, Janine. "Mi'gmaq Elicitation Session for Field Methods of Linguistics." Ed. Class, Carol Little and LING415. Montreal, QC: n/a, 2011. Print.

Payne, Thomas Edward. Describing Morphosyntax: a Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.

Paul-Martin, Patsy. "Mi'kmaq Verb Conjugation." Ed. Orthography, Mi'kmaq Talking Posters Smith/Francis. Truto, NS: Eastern Woodland Print Communications, 2011. Print.

Proulx, Paul. "Proto-Algonquian Verb Inflection." Studies in Native American Languages 15.2 (1990): 100-45. Print.

van der Wouden, Ton, and Frans Zwarts. "Negative Concord." D. Gilbers and S. Looyenga (eds), Language and Cognition 2. Yearbook 1992 Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen (1992): 317-31. Print.

Negation

2012-07-28T04:21:24Z

Mike:

=Introduction=
Negation is the process of turning affirmative statements into the opposite form. For example, the negative equivalent of affirmative sentence, ''I am eating'' is ''I am not eating''. In English there are a few processes at work. ''not'' must always come with an auxiliary verb like the verb 'to have' and 'to be'. In Mi'gmaq, with its extremely detailed and expansive verb conjugations in the present, it is not surprising that the negated conjugation of verbs is just as detailed and expansive as they are in the affirmative.

To start off any commentary on negation, it seems fitting to start of with the word "no" which is ''moqwa'' in Mi'gmaq. (The opposite of this is ''e'e'' , meaning "yes".) Negation in Mi'gmaq is similar to that of Obijwe in that there is both an affix that occurs between the verb and the person marker and a word that comes before the verb denoting negation. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojibwe_grammar#Verbs Verb Conjugation in Ojibwe]. The Mi'gmaq negated affix is ''w'' or ''u'' which is very closely related to the Proto-Algonquian form for negation which is is ''*-w'' ( [http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/440/1/ling.wp.v15.n2.paper6.pdf Proulx, 1990] ). ''w'' or ''u'' are very closely related phonetically since ''w'' is the semivowel corresponding to the vowel ''u''. Bear in mind that during the elicitation sessions, sometimes it was unsure whether to use ''w'' or ''u''. Unless otherwise noted all orthographical conventions are those of Listuguj.

Negation in Mi'gmaq consists of adding ''mu'' or ''ma'' then the verb conjugated in the negated verb form. After ''mu'' or ''ma'' the verb must always contain a negative particle. We must think of these two things as inseparable. ''mu'' always comes before the negative conjugated verb in the present or past, and ''ma'' always comes before future or if the prefix ''gis'' ('can', 'to be able to') is attached to the verb. All other prefixes abide by the rules ''mu'' before present or past and ''ma'' before future. There are other particles that take the negated form of the verb, but it is obvious that they particles express a negated idea.

Please note as well that in some of the studies on Mi'gmaq and Algonquian languages the term 'nonaffirmative' is used to describe the negated form. For consistency in this report, I will use the term 'negated' to indicate the form of the verb which is the opposite of affirmative. 'Nonaffirmative' and 'negated' however refer to the same process of negation.

Unless otherwise noted, all data below is my own, elicited from the correspondent, Janine Metallic.

= Conjugation of the Negated Verb =
I have selected the verb ''mijji'' (to eat). Please note that some resources spell this like ''mijji'' where other spell it ''miji'' ([http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED136614.pdf Micmac Teaching Grammar, 1976]). I have selected the spelling from [http://www.mikmaqonline.org/servlet/dictionaryFrameSet.html?arg0=mijjit&method=searchFromMikmaq the Migmaq talking dictionary]. It is also important to note that the Micmac Teaching Grammar uses an orthography that is different of all other orthographies used with Mi'gmaq. I will indicate which terms they are and give the Listuguj equivalent orthographical manner of writing them.

The simplified formula for the conjugation in the negated form: the base form + ''u'' or ''w'' + person ending ([http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED136614.pdf Micmac Teaching Grammar, 1976])
The base form for intransitive verbs is always the verb in the first person singular. For example I eat is ''mijji''. Now to create the second person singular we add the ending -''n'' denoting second person singular and get the form ''mijjin''. For another type of verb (henceforth referred to as the ''a'' verbs) we take the base form ''amalga-'' and add -''n'' to get ''amalgan'' (you dance) and to get the first person singular we add -''i''. Please note that it has been hypothesized that there are at least eleven different conjugations. We will only be dealing with a couple here. Because of reasons of time limitation, I was not able to elicit all eleven types but when there is a difference in conjugation, that will be noted. Note that in the plural the ''u'' or ''w'' comes after ''-ulti-''. This could be due the the fact that ''-ulti-'' is the plural affix that attaches to the base form of the verb and does not convey anything about the tense of the verb, rather it is used to denote that the verb is plural. Thus the ''u'' or ''w'' comes right before the tense marker which is always at the end of the verb. For the first person singular in present there is a null tense marker at the end of some verbs (for example the ''-i'' verbs) thus the negative marker is at the end.

== Present Tense ==
First is a comparison of the affirmative and negated paradigms of the verb ''mijji'' ('eat').

{| class="wikitable"
|+ mijji- 'eat'
|-
! scope="col" colspan="2"| ↓person / number→
! scope="col" | SG
! scope="col" | DU
! scope="col" | PL
|-
! scope="row" rowspan="2"| 1
! scope="row"| 13
| rowspan="2" | mijji
|mijjieg
|mijjultieg
|-
! scope="row" | 12
| mijjiewg
| mijjultiewg
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2" | 2
| mijjin
| mijjioq
| mijjultioq
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2"| 3
| mijjit
| mijjijig
| mijjultijig
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ mu mijji- 'not eat'
|-
! scope="col" colspan="2"| ↓person / number→
! scope="col" | SG
! scope="col" | DU
! scope="col" | PL
|-
! scope="row" rowspan="2"| 1
! scope="row"| 13
| rowspan="2" | mu mijjiu
| mu mijjultieweg
| mu mijjultieweg
|-
! scope="row" | 12
| mu mijjultieweg
| mu mijjultieweg
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2" | 2
| mu mijjiun
| mu mijjiwoq
| mu mijjuwoq
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2"| 3
| mu mijjiug
| mu mijjiewg
| mu mijjiultiewg
|-
|}

The word ''mu'' signifies negation. When ''mu'' is in front of the verb, the verb must also be conjugated in the negative form. In the above table we see the intrusion of the sound ''u'', ''ew'' or ''w''. The following table illustrates the endings for the present negative tense, keeping in mind ''mu'' must ALWAYS come right before the negated verb. When ''mu'' precedes a verb it must ALWAYS be in the negated form. See [http://prosodylab.org/migmaq/index.php/Negation#Scope_of_Negation Scope of Negation] for more information.

Below is the table for negated present conjugation. Inanimate conjugation was taken from the Micmac Grammar (1976, pg 155).

{| class="wikitable"
! Negated Present ||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| -u
| -ultieweg
| -ultieweg
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| -ultieweg
| -ultieweg
|-
| 2 Second person
| -un
| -woq
| -uwoq
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| -ug
| -ewg
| -ultiewg
|-
| 3 Third person (inanimate)
| -nug
| -nugel
| -nultinugel
|-
|}

As you may have noticed, the forms for the first person dual and plural in the exclusive and inclusive forms are the same. As shown by other data, the dual form seems to be in the process of disappearing. This is one such example where the dual form does not exist for the plural first person. Some younger speakers do not use the dual form at all so it is not surprising that we find a gap in the dual form here. All this is according to the speaker but if we followed the pattern of the previous forms we would expect the dual form for the inclusive and exclusive first person to be ''-ieweg''. "When the verb is negated, then the -g third person is ALWAYS found" (Micmac Grammar, 1976 pg 93).

Below is a comparison of different verbs to give an idea of how to conjugate different types of verbs in the negated form. All forms are conjugated in the present singular third person animate. The form of -''elie-'' was taken from Micmac Grammar (pg 155).

{| class="wikitable"
! Verb Type || Base Form || Affirmative || Negated || Translation
|-
| -i
| mijji-
| mijjit
| mu mijjiug
| eat
|-
| -a
| amalga-
| amalgat
| mu amalgawg
| dance
|-
| -asi
| alasi-
| alasit
| mu alasiewgw
| go around
|-
| -e
| elie-
| eliet
| mu eliegw
| go
|-
|}

For verb conjugations in the affirmative please see [http://firstnationhelp.com/ali/posters/pdf/verb_conjugation.pdf Mi'kmaq Verb Conjugation]. As you can see, this site uses the verb ''mijisi'' meaning 'to eat'. In Listuguj this is not used as the word for to eat because it sounds too close for the verb ''mejisi'' 'to excrete'.

=== Transitive ===
Below is the conjugation in present of a transitive verb that takes an inanimate object.

{| class="wikitable"
! ''malq-'' " not eat, Transitive Inanimate"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| malqutum
| malqutemeg
| malqutemeg
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| malqutemug
| malqutemug
|-
| 2 Second person
| malqutemin
| malqutmoq
| malqutmoq
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| malqut
| malqutmitij
| malqutmitig
|-
|}

Here it is negated:
{| class="wikitable"
! ''mu malq-'' " not eat, Transitive Inanimate"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mu malqutumu
| mu malqutumueg
| mu malqutumueg
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| mu malqutemu'g
| mu malqutemu'g
|-
| 2 Second person
| mu malqutemun
| mu malqutmuoq
| mu malqutmuoq
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mu malqutumug
| mu malqutmiti'ewg
| mu malqutmiti'ewg
|-
|}

Because of the extensive complexity of the verb endings in Mi'gmaq I was only able to elicit a very, very small portion of the forms. Below are the other transitive verb forms I elicited.

{| class="wikitable"
! Affirmative||Negated||Translation (of negated form)
|-
| nimisi
| mu nimisiew
| I do not see myself
|-
| nimilin
| mu nimiliu'n
| you (sg) do not see me
|-
| nimili'oq
| mu nimiliuoq
| you (plural) do not see me
|-
| nimilit
| mu nimiliugw
| he sees me
|-
| nemi'g
| mu nemiaq
| I do not see him
|-
|}

As hypothesized earlier the negated affix comes before the person (i.e. singular or plural) when conjugating. I do not have enough information to create any kind of paradigm here for lack of time. As I myself came to realize along with others trying to come up with a concise grammar of Mi'gmaq, "it seems almost impossible to deal with [the verb] satisfactorily in a brief treatise, as volumes might be written upon it" (Clark, 1902).

== Imperative ==
Here is the formation of the affirmative imperative:
{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijji-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 2 Second person
| mijji
| ?
| mijjultiug
|-
|}

Now we compare it to the negated:
{| class="wikitable"
! ''mutt mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 2 Second person
| mutt mijjiew
| ?
| mutt mijjultineu
|-
|}

I was unable to elicit any other forms.

== Past Tense ==
Again for the past we compare the past and the negated past.

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mijjiap
| mijjieg'p
| mijjultieg'p
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| mijjiewg'p
| mijjultiewg'p
|-
| 2 Second person
| mijjit'p
| mijjiqop
| mijjultioqop
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mijjip
| mijjpni'g
| mijjultpni'g
|}

Now let us look at the negated forms.

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mu mijjiewap
| mu mijjiewg'p
| mu mijjiewg'p
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| mu mijjiewg'p
| mu mijjiewg'p
|-
| 2 Second person
| mu mijjiewt'p
| mu mijjiewwaq'p
| mu mijjiewwaq'p
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mu mijjug'p
| ?
| ?
|}

Thus this would be the conjugation of the negated form:

{| class="wikitable"
! Negated Past||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| -ewap
| -ewg'p
| -ewg'p
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| -ewg'p
| -ewg'p
|-
| 2 Second person
| -ewt'p
| -ewwaq'p
| -ewwaq'p
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| -ug'p
| ?
| ?
|}

For the third person the -''ug'p'' can change to -''ewgp'' for example:

<gl>
\gll Mu alasi-ew-g'p
not go-NEG-SG.PAST
\trans She didn't go
</gl>

== Future Tense ==
First let us compare the affirmative tense for eat:

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mijjias
| ?
| mijjit'snen
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
|
| mijjit'snu
|-
| 2 Second person
| mijjit's(g)
| ?
| mijjitoqs'p
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mijjitew
| ''n/a''
| mijjultitaq
|}
I was not able to elicit dual forms.

We compare the future affirmative with the negated below:

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| ma mijjiew
| ma mijjiug
| ma mijjiug
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| ma mijjiug
| ma mijjiug
|-
| 2 Second person
| ma mijjiwn
| ?
| ?
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| ma mijjiewg
| ''n/a''
| ma mijjultiewoq
|}
NOTE: In the future the ''mu'' changes to ''ma'' !! Like ''mu'', ''ma'' must always come before the verb conjugated in the negative future.
The correspondent was not able to produce a dual form in the future.

Now here is a paradigm of the negated endings in the future.

{| class="wikitable"
! Negated Future||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| -ew
| -ug
| -ug
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| -ug
| -ug
|-
| 2 Second person
| -iwn
| ?
| ?
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| -ewg
| ''n/a''
| -ultiwoq
|}

As you may have noticed the future tense is easy! The verbs take the same endings as the negated present tense but the ''mu'' is replaced with ''ma'' thus indicating future.

== When negation is used ==

When the verb is negated there must always find a negative particle (like ''mu'' or ''ma''). If not the sentence is ungrammatical as shown below:

<gl>
\gll *gis-wissugwatige-w
can-cook-NEG
\trans I cannot cook (intended meaning)
</gl>

The only form of the above sentence must be:

<gl>
\gll ma gis-wissugwatige-w
NEG can-cook.1-NEG
\trans I cannot cook
</gl>

Thus it is seen that ''ma'' comes before the verb, now making the sentence grammatical.

''ma'' always precedes the future tense AND when the ''gis'' prefix is attached to the verb conjugated in the present for example:

<gl>
\gll Ma gis-amalga-w-g
NEG can-dance-NEG-3
\trans S/he cannot dance
</gl>

There are some expressions that always take the negative form of the verb such as ''me menga'' (not yet) and ''mowen'' (nobody) that take the negative form of the verb: (examples from [http://www.mikmaqonline.org/ Mi'gmaq Online Dictionary])

<gl>
\gll Me menag newt ajetten-u-g
Not yet one time-NEG-3
\trans It is not one o’clock yet
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Mo-wen mijie-w-g
No-who eat-NEG-3
\trans No one is eating
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Moqwa' goqwei eign-u-g
Noth ing is-NEG-3
\trans There is nothing there
</gl>

Below is a list of common particles after which the negated form is used. This list is not complete but these are the most common forms.

{| class="wikitable"
! Particle || When used || Translation
|-
| ''mu''
| before negated present and past
| not
|-
| ''mutt''
| before negated imperative
| do not
|-
| ''lpa mu''
| before negated present and past
| not even
|-
| ''mowen''
| before negated present, past and future
| no one/nobdoy
|-
| ''moqw'a goqwei'''
| before negated present, past and future
| nothing
|-
| ''me menag''
| before negated verb
| not yet
|-
| ''ma''
| before negated future verb and preverb ''gis'' (can)
| not
|-
|}

''moqw'a goqwei'' is also spelled ''mu goqwei'' and a variant of this is ''mu'' + negated verb + ''goqwei'' when used in object position. It is inanimate. See below example:

<gl>
\gll Mu malqute-m-u goqwei
not eat-1>0-NEG what
\trans I eat nothing
</gl>

== Negative Concord ==
As exemplified above, Mi'gmaq is a negative concord language. Negative concord is where "double or multiple negative does not express an affirmative but a negative" (van der Wouden & Zwarts, 1992). This is not unlike the process in French where I have seen nobody is 'Je ''n'''ai vue ''personne'' where both the ''ne'' and ''personne'' ' express a negative, but although seemingly illogical, this is in fact expresses a negative sentence rather than an affirmative. There is both a negative particle and the verb is then conjugated in the negated tense. This is a double negation because there is both a negative particle, for example ''mu'', then the verb mus

= Word Order =
Negation is marked in Mi'gmaq with the negative particle (or possibly affix) ''mu'' "not", which is always located before the verb it negates. Although ''mu'' and the verb it negates can be separated (flexible word order), ''mu'' must always precede the verb. Placement of it post-verbally results in ungrammaticality, as illustrated below.

<gl>
\gll mu geiwetetm-u-ap
not remember-NEG-SG
\trans I did not remember
</gl>

<gl id="2">
\gll lpa'tuj mu eimug-u-p
boy NEG is.there.PAST-NEG-SG
\trans The boy was not there.
</gl>

Possible word order:
*mu eimugup lpa'tuj
*mu lpa'tuj eimugup

Impossible word order:
* *eimugup lpa'tuj mu
* *eimugup mu lpa'tuj
* *lpa'tuj eimugup mu

Furthermore, with regards to word order, it appears that negation must come right before the constituent it negates. Here is an example sentence without negation:

<gl>
\gll ula na lpa'tuj tan egitgup wigatign
this DEM boy that read.PAST book
\trans This is the boy that read the book.
</gl>

If we want to negate the first clause, as to say "This is '''not''' the boy that read the book", negation must directly precede 'boy'.

<gl>
\gll ula na mu lpa'tuj tan egitgup wigatign
this DEM NEG boy that read.PAST book
\trans This is not the boy that read the book.
</gl>

The following word orders for negation in the first clause are impossible:
* *ula na lpa'tuj mu...
* *ula mu na lpa'tuj...
* *mu ula na lpa'tuj...

If we want to negate the second clause, as to say "This is the boy that did '''not''' read the book", the word order may be varied, as long as negation comes before the verb (as discussed previously).

It seems that Mi'gmaq has Negative Concord. Compare examples <glr id="1"/> and <glr id="2"/>.

<gl>
\gll app mu nege eigm-u-g
again NEG now is.there.NEG-SG
ʌp mu nɛge eikmuk
\trans Again, it isn't there now.
</gl>

<gl id="1">
\gll lpa'tuj eigu-p
boy is.there.PAST-SG
\trans The boy was there.
</gl>

<gl id="2">
\gll lpa'tuj mu eimu-g-u-p
boy NEG is.there-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans The boy was not there.
</gl>

== Scope of Negation ==
As stated above, ''mu'' always comes before the verb. There may be particles that intrude between ''mu'' and the negated verb, but as long as ''mu'' comes before the negated verb, the structure is grammatical. [http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED136614.pdf Micmac Grammar, 1976]

<gl>
\gll Mali mu amal-gag-u-p
Mali NEG dance-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans Mali did not dance.
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Mu Mali amal-gag-u-p
NEG Mali dance-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans Mali did not dance.
</gl>

Sometimes the meaning of the sentence can change depending on the position of ''mu''.

<gl>
\gll Egjitm Mali mu amal-gag-u-p
possible Mali NEG dance-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans It is true that Mali did not dance.
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Mu egjitm Mali amal-gag-u-p
NEG possible Mali dance-PAST.NEG.SG
\trans It is not true that Mali danced.
</gl>

See also [http://prosodylab.org/migmaq/index.php/Word_Order_%26_Information_Structure#Interaction_with_negation Word Order and Interaction with Negation]
We would also expect phrases with adverb-like particles translatable as "it is possible" or "it is true" or "it is obvious" would also vary regarding negation.

=Language change and negation=
I have encountered many times not being able to elicit both the dual and plural forms of a verb. There are many times where I can only elicit the dual form, or times when the dual and plural forms are exactly alike. It had been noted before in the class that a lot of younger speakers are not using the plural form and using the dual form to mean both dual and plural. This seems be a language change happening currently in the speech community where the younger generation is leading the change towards the preference of the dual form for denoting both dual and plural. Though as noted above in the [http://prosodylab.org/migmaq/index.php/Negation#Present_Tense paradigm] for the eat in the negated present tense both dual and plural forms are the same. Here it seems to be the plural form presiding over the dual form. This would strongly suggest a change happening in the speech community.

=Notes=
As I am sure everyone else encountered during this course, I was unable to get a full paradigm of all the possible verb conjugations (transitive animate, transitive inanimate, intransitive etc) and all tenses (subjunctive case as well as conditional, among others, is missing though I know Mi'gmaq has these cases, (see Grammaire de la Langue Micmaque, 1864, pg 33-100 for full verb paradigms)). Instead I tried to focus on the data I had and compare it with other sources in order to be able to achieve accuracy as well as accessibility to those wanting to learn the language.

For the future, I would hope to elicit more verb paradigms as well as more about the scope of negation.

=References=
Clark, Jeremiah S. "A Dictionary of the Micmac Language." Rand's Micmac Dictionary. Charlottetown, PEI: The Patriot Publishing Company, 1902. Print.

Delisle, Gill L., and Manny L. Metallic. Micmac Teaching Grammar. Ecowi, QC: Thunderbird Press, 1976. Print.

L'Abbe Maillard, M. Grammaire De La Langue Mikmaque. New York: Presse Cramoisy de Jean-Marie Shea, 1864. Print.

Metallic, Janine. "Mi'gmaq Elicitation Session for Field Methods of Linguistics." Ed. Class, Carol Little and LING415. Montreal, QC: n/a, 2011. Print.

Payne, Thomas Edward. Describing Morphosyntax: a Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.

Paul-Martin, Patsy. "Mi'kmaq Verb Conjugation." Ed. Orthography, Mi'kmaq Talking Posters Smith/Francis. Truto, NS: Eastern Woodland Print Communications, 2011. Print.

Proulx, Paul. "Proto-Algonquian Verb Inflection." Studies in Native American Languages 15.2 (1990): 100-45. Print.

van der Wouden, Ton, and Frans Zwarts. "Negative Concord." D. Gilbers and S. Looyenga (eds), Language and Cognition 2. Yearbook 1992 Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen (1992): 317-31. Print.

Negation

2012-07-28T04:20:56Z

Mike: /* Present Tense */

=Introduction=
Negation is the process of turning affirmative statements into the opposite form. For example, the negative equivalent of affirmative sentence, ''I am eating'' is ''I am not eating''. In English there are a few processes at work. ''not'' must always come with an auxiliary verb like the verb 'to have' and 'to be'. In Mi'gmaq, with its extremely detailed and expansive verb conjugations in the present, it is not surprising that the negated conjugation of verbs is just as detailed and expansive as they are in the affirmative.

To start off any commentary on negation, it seems fitting to start of with the word "no" which is ''moqwa'' in Mi'gmaq. (The opposite of this is ''e'e'' , meaning "yes".) Negation in Mi'gmaq is similar to that of Obijwe in that there is both an affix that occurs between the verb and the person marker and a word that comes before the verb denoting negation. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojibwe_grammar#Verbs Verb Conjugation in Ojibwe]. The Mi'gmaq negated affix is ''w'' or ''u'' which is very closely related to the Proto-Algonquian form for negation which is is ''*-w'' ( [http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/440/1/ling.wp.v15.n2.paper6.pdf Proulx, 1990] ). ''w'' or ''u'' are very closely related phonetically since ''w'' is the semivowel corresponding to the vowel ''u''. Bear in mind that during the elicitation sessions, sometimes it was unsure whether to use ''w'' or ''u''. Unless otherwise noted all orthographical conventions are those of Listuguj.

Negation in Mi'gmaq consists of adding ''mu'' or ''ma'' then the verb conjugated in the negated verb form. After ''mu'' or ''ma'' the verb must always contain a negative particle. We must think of these two things as inseparable. ''mu'' always comes before the negative conjugated verb in the present or past, and ''ma'' always comes before future or if the prefix ''gis'' ('can', 'to be able to') is attached to the verb. All other prefixes abide by the rules ''mu'' before present or past and ''ma'' before future. There are other particles that take the negated form of the verb, but it is obvious that they particles express a negated idea.

Please note as well that in some of the studies on Mi'gmaq and Algonquian languages the term 'nonaffirmative' is used to describe the negated form. For consistency in this report, I will use the term 'negated' to indicate the form of the verb which is the opposite of affirmative. 'Nonaffirmative' and 'negated' however refer to the same process of negation.

Unless otherwise noted, all data below is my own, elicited from the correspondent, Janine Metallic.

=Abbreviations=

{| class="wikitable"
! Abbreviation || Word
|-
| SG
| singular
|-
| NEG
| negative particle
|}

= Conjugation of the Negated Verb =
I have selected the verb ''mijji'' (to eat). Please note that some resources spell this like ''mijji'' where other spell it ''miji'' ([http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED136614.pdf Micmac Teaching Grammar, 1976]). I have selected the spelling from [http://www.mikmaqonline.org/servlet/dictionaryFrameSet.html?arg0=mijjit&method=searchFromMikmaq the Migmaq talking dictionary]. It is also important to note that the Micmac Teaching Grammar uses an orthography that is different of all other orthographies used with Mi'gmaq. I will indicate which terms they are and give the Listuguj equivalent orthographical manner of writing them.

The simplified formula for the conjugation in the negated form: the base form + ''u'' or ''w'' + person ending ([http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED136614.pdf Micmac Teaching Grammar, 1976])
The base form for intransitive verbs is always the verb in the first person singular. For example I eat is ''mijji''. Now to create the second person singular we add the ending -''n'' denoting second person singular and get the form ''mijjin''. For another type of verb (henceforth referred to as the ''a'' verbs) we take the base form ''amalga-'' and add -''n'' to get ''amalgan'' (you dance) and to get the first person singular we add -''i''. Please note that it has been hypothesized that there are at least eleven different conjugations. We will only be dealing with a couple here. Because of reasons of time limitation, I was not able to elicit all eleven types but when there is a difference in conjugation, that will be noted. Note that in the plural the ''u'' or ''w'' comes after ''-ulti-''. This could be due the the fact that ''-ulti-'' is the plural affix that attaches to the base form of the verb and does not convey anything about the tense of the verb, rather it is used to denote that the verb is plural. Thus the ''u'' or ''w'' comes right before the tense marker which is always at the end of the verb. For the first person singular in present there is a null tense marker at the end of some verbs (for example the ''-i'' verbs) thus the negative marker is at the end.

== Present Tense ==
First is a comparison of the affirmative and negated paradigms of the verb ''mijji'' ('eat').

{| class="wikitable"
|+ mijji- 'eat'
|-
! scope="col" colspan="2"| ↓person / number→
! scope="col" | SG
! scope="col" | DU
! scope="col" | PL
|-
! scope="row" rowspan="2"| 1
! scope="row"| 13
| rowspan="2" | mijji
|mijjieg
|mijjultieg
|-
! scope="row" | 12
| mijjiewg
| mijjultiewg
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2" | 2
| mijjin
| mijjioq
| mijjultioq
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2"| 3
| mijjit
| mijjijig
| mijjultijig
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ mu mijji- 'not eat'
|-
! scope="col" colspan="2"| ↓person / number→
! scope="col" | SG
! scope="col" | DU
! scope="col" | PL
|-
! scope="row" rowspan="2"| 1
! scope="row"| 13
| rowspan="2" | mu mijjiu
| mu mijjultieweg
| mu mijjultieweg
|-
! scope="row" | 12
| mu mijjultieweg
| mu mijjultieweg
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2" | 2
| mu mijjiun
| mu mijjiwoq
| mu mijjuwoq
|-
! scope="row" colspan="2"| 3
| mu mijjiug
| mu mijjiewg
| mu mijjiultiewg
|-
|}

The word ''mu'' signifies negation. When ''mu'' is in front of the verb, the verb must also be conjugated in the negative form. In the above table we see the intrusion of the sound ''u'', ''ew'' or ''w''. The following table illustrates the endings for the present negative tense, keeping in mind ''mu'' must ALWAYS come right before the negated verb. When ''mu'' precedes a verb it must ALWAYS be in the negated form. See [http://prosodylab.org/migmaq/index.php/Negation#Scope_of_Negation Scope of Negation] for more information.

Below is the table for negated present conjugation. Inanimate conjugation was taken from the Micmac Grammar (1976, pg 155).

{| class="wikitable"
! Negated Present ||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| -u
| -ultieweg
| -ultieweg
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| -ultieweg
| -ultieweg
|-
| 2 Second person
| -un
| -woq
| -uwoq
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| -ug
| -ewg
| -ultiewg
|-
| 3 Third person (inanimate)
| -nug
| -nugel
| -nultinugel
|-
|}

As you may have noticed, the forms for the first person dual and plural in the exclusive and inclusive forms are the same. As shown by other data, the dual form seems to be in the process of disappearing. This is one such example where the dual form does not exist for the plural first person. Some younger speakers do not use the dual form at all so it is not surprising that we find a gap in the dual form here. All this is according to the speaker but if we followed the pattern of the previous forms we would expect the dual form for the inclusive and exclusive first person to be ''-ieweg''. "When the verb is negated, then the -g third person is ALWAYS found" (Micmac Grammar, 1976 pg 93).

Below is a comparison of different verbs to give an idea of how to conjugate different types of verbs in the negated form. All forms are conjugated in the present singular third person animate. The form of -''elie-'' was taken from Micmac Grammar (pg 155).

{| class="wikitable"
! Verb Type || Base Form || Affirmative || Negated || Translation
|-
| -i
| mijji-
| mijjit
| mu mijjiug
| eat
|-
| -a
| amalga-
| amalgat
| mu amalgawg
| dance
|-
| -asi
| alasi-
| alasit
| mu alasiewgw
| go around
|-
| -e
| elie-
| eliet
| mu eliegw
| go
|-
|}

For verb conjugations in the affirmative please see [http://firstnationhelp.com/ali/posters/pdf/verb_conjugation.pdf Mi'kmaq Verb Conjugation]. As you can see, this site uses the verb ''mijisi'' meaning 'to eat'. In Listuguj this is not used as the word for to eat because it sounds too close for the verb ''mejisi'' 'to excrete'.

=== Transitive ===
Below is the conjugation in present of a transitive verb that takes an inanimate object.

{| class="wikitable"
! ''malq-'' " not eat, Transitive Inanimate"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| malqutum
| malqutemeg
| malqutemeg
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| malqutemug
| malqutemug
|-
| 2 Second person
| malqutemin
| malqutmoq
| malqutmoq
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| malqut
| malqutmitij
| malqutmitig
|-
|}

Here it is negated:
{| class="wikitable"
! ''mu malq-'' " not eat, Transitive Inanimate"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mu malqutumu
| mu malqutumueg
| mu malqutumueg
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| mu malqutemu'g
| mu malqutemu'g
|-
| 2 Second person
| mu malqutemun
| mu malqutmuoq
| mu malqutmuoq
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mu malqutumug
| mu malqutmiti'ewg
| mu malqutmiti'ewg
|-
|}

Because of the extensive complexity of the verb endings in Mi'gmaq I was only able to elicit a very, very small portion of the forms. Below are the other transitive verb forms I elicited.

{| class="wikitable"
! Affirmative||Negated||Translation (of negated form)
|-
| nimisi
| mu nimisiew
| I do not see myself
|-
| nimilin
| mu nimiliu'n
| you (sg) do not see me
|-
| nimili'oq
| mu nimiliuoq
| you (plural) do not see me
|-
| nimilit
| mu nimiliugw
| he sees me
|-
| nemi'g
| mu nemiaq
| I do not see him
|-
|}

As hypothesized earlier the negated affix comes before the person (i.e. singular or plural) when conjugating. I do not have enough information to create any kind of paradigm here for lack of time. As I myself came to realize along with others trying to come up with a concise grammar of Mi'gmaq, "it seems almost impossible to deal with [the verb] satisfactorily in a brief treatise, as volumes might be written upon it" (Clark, 1902).

== Imperative ==
Here is the formation of the affirmative imperative:
{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijji-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 2 Second person
| mijji
| ?
| mijjultiug
|-
|}

Now we compare it to the negated:
{| class="wikitable"
! ''mutt mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 2 Second person
| mutt mijjiew
| ?
| mutt mijjultineu
|-
|}

I was unable to elicit any other forms.

== Past Tense ==
Again for the past we compare the past and the negated past.

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mijjiap
| mijjieg'p
| mijjultieg'p
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| mijjiewg'p
| mijjultiewg'p
|-
| 2 Second person
| mijjit'p
| mijjiqop
| mijjultioqop
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mijjip
| mijjpni'g
| mijjultpni'g
|}

Now let us look at the negated forms.

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mu mijjiewap
| mu mijjiewg'p
| mu mijjiewg'p
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| mu mijjiewg'p
| mu mijjiewg'p
|-
| 2 Second person
| mu mijjiewt'p
| mu mijjiewwaq'p
| mu mijjiewwaq'p
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mu mijjug'p
| ?
| ?
|}

Thus this would be the conjugation of the negated form:

{| class="wikitable"
! Negated Past||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| -ewap
| -ewg'p
| -ewg'p
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| -ewg'p
| -ewg'p
|-
| 2 Second person
| -ewt'p
| -ewwaq'p
| -ewwaq'p
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| -ug'p
| ?
| ?
|}

For the third person the -''ug'p'' can change to -''ewgp'' for example:

<gl>
\gll Mu alasi-ew-g'p
not go-NEG-SG.PAST
\trans She didn't go
</gl>

== Future Tense ==
First let us compare the affirmative tense for eat:

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| mijjias
| ?
| mijjit'snen
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
|
| mijjit'snu
|-
| 2 Second person
| mijjit's(g)
| ?
| mijjitoqs'p
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| mijjitew
| ''n/a''
| mijjultitaq
|}
I was not able to elicit dual forms.

We compare the future affirmative with the negated below:

{| class="wikitable"
! ''mijj-'' "eat"||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| ma mijjiew
| ma mijjiug
| ma mijjiug
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| ma mijjiug
| ma mijjiug
|-
| 2 Second person
| ma mijjiwn
| ?
| ?
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| ma mijjiewg
| ''n/a''
| ma mijjultiewoq
|}
NOTE: In the future the ''mu'' changes to ''ma'' !! Like ''mu'', ''ma'' must always come before the verb conjugated in the negative future.
The correspondent was not able to produce a dual form in the future.

Now here is a paradigm of the negated endings in the future.

{| class="wikitable"
! Negated Future||Singular||Dual||Plural
|-
| 1 First person (exclusive)
| -ew
| -ug
| -ug
|-
| 12 First person (inclusive)
| ''n/a''
| -ug
| -ug
|-
| 2 Second person
| -iwn
| ?
| ?
|-
| 3 Third person (animate)
| -ewg
| ''n/a''
| -ultiwoq
|}

As you may have noticed the future tense is easy! The verbs take the same endings as the negated present tense but the ''mu'' is replaced with ''ma'' thus indicating future.

== When negation is used ==

When the verb is negated there must always find a negative particle (like ''mu'' or ''ma''). If not the sentence is ungrammatical as shown below:

<gl>
\gll *gis-wissugwatige-w
can-cook-NEG
\trans I cannot cook (intended meaning)
</gl>

The only form of the above sentence must be:

<gl>
\gll ma gis-wissugwatige-w
NEG can-cook.1-NEG
\trans I cannot cook
</gl>

Thus it is seen that ''ma'' comes before the verb, now making the sentence grammatical.

''ma'' always precedes the future tense AND when the ''gis'' prefix is attached to the verb conjugated in the present for example:

<gl>
\gll Ma gis-amalga-w-g
NEG can-dance-NEG-3
\trans S/he cannot dance
</gl>

There are some expressions that always take the negative form of the verb such as ''me menga'' (not yet) and ''mowen'' (nobody) that take the negative form of the verb: (examples from [http://www.mikmaqonline.org/ Mi'gmaq Online Dictionary])

<gl>
\gll Me menag newt ajetten-u-g
Not yet one time-NEG-3
\trans It is not one o’clock yet
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Mo-wen mijie-w-g
No-who eat-NEG-3
\trans No one is eating
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Moqwa' goqwei eign-u-g
Noth ing is-NEG-3
\trans There is nothing there
</gl>

Below is a list of common particles after which the negated form is used. This list is not complete but these are the most common forms.

{| class="wikitable"
! Particle || When used || Translation
|-
| ''mu''
| before negated present and past
| not
|-
| ''mutt''
| before negated imperative
| do not
|-
| ''lpa mu''
| before negated present and past
| not even
|-
| ''mowen''
| before negated present, past and future
| no one/nobdoy
|-
| ''moqw'a goqwei'''
| before negated present, past and future
| nothing
|-
| ''me menag''
| before negated verb
| not yet
|-
| ''ma''
| before negated future verb and preverb ''gis'' (can)
| not
|-
|}

''moqw'a goqwei'' is also spelled ''mu goqwei'' and a variant of this is ''mu'' + negated verb + ''goqwei'' when used in object position. It is inanimate. See below example:

<gl>
\gll Mu malqute-m-u goqwei
not eat-1>0-NEG what
\trans I eat nothing
</gl>

== Negative Concord ==
As exemplified above, Mi'gmaq is a negative concord language. Negative concord is where "double or multiple negative does not express an affirmative but a negative" (van der Wouden & Zwarts, 1992). This is not unlike the process in French where I have seen nobody is 'Je ''n'''ai vue ''personne'' where both the ''ne'' and ''personne'' ' express a negative, but although seemingly illogical, this is in fact expresses a negative sentence rather than an affirmative. There is both a negative particle and the verb is then conjugated in the negated tense. This is a double negation because there is both a negative particle, for example ''mu'', then the verb mus

= Word Order =
Negation is marked in Mi'gmaq with the negative particle (or possibly affix) ''mu'' "not", which is always located before the verb it negates. Although ''mu'' and the verb it negates can be separated (flexible word order), ''mu'' must always precede the verb. Placement of it post-verbally results in ungrammaticality, as illustrated below.

<gl>
\gll mu geiwetetm-u-ap
not remember-NEG-SG
\trans I did not remember
</gl>

<gl id="2">
\gll lpa'tuj mu eimug-u-p
boy NEG is.there.PAST-NEG-SG
\trans The boy was not there.
</gl>

Possible word order:
*mu eimugup lpa'tuj
*mu lpa'tuj eimugup

Impossible word order:
* *eimugup lpa'tuj mu
* *eimugup mu lpa'tuj
* *lpa'tuj eimugup mu

Furthermore, with regards to word order, it appears that negation must come right before the constituent it negates. Here is an example sentence without negation:

<gl>
\gll ula na lpa'tuj tan egitgup wigatign
this DEM boy that read.PAST book
\trans This is the boy that read the book.
</gl>

If we want to negate the first clause, as to say "This is '''not''' the boy that read the book", negation must directly precede 'boy'.

<gl>
\gll ula na mu lpa'tuj tan egitgup wigatign
this DEM NEG boy that read.PAST book
\trans This is not the boy that read the book.
</gl>

The following word orders for negation in the first clause are impossible:
* *ula na lpa'tuj mu...
* *ula mu na lpa'tuj...
* *mu ula na lpa'tuj...

If we want to negate the second clause, as to say "This is the boy that did '''not''' read the book", the word order may be varied, as long as negation comes before the verb (as discussed previously).

It seems that Mi'gmaq has Negative Concord. Compare examples <glr id="1"/> and <glr id="2"/>.

<gl>
\gll app mu nege eigm-u-g
again NEG now is.there.NEG-SG
ʌp mu nɛge eikmuk
\trans Again, it isn't there now.
</gl>

<gl id="1">
\gll lpa'tuj eigu-p
boy is.there.PAST-SG
\trans The boy was there.
</gl>

<gl id="2">
\gll lpa'tuj mu eimu-g-u-p
boy NEG is.there-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans The boy was not there.
</gl>

== Scope of Negation ==
As stated above, ''mu'' always comes before the verb. There may be particles that intrude between ''mu'' and the negated verb, but as long as ''mu'' comes before the negated verb, the structure is grammatical. [http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED136614.pdf Micmac Grammar, 1976]

<gl>
\gll Mali mu amal-gag-u-p
Mali NEG dance-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans Mali did not dance.
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Mu Mali amal-gag-u-p
NEG Mali dance-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans Mali did not dance.
</gl>

Sometimes the meaning of the sentence can change depending on the position of ''mu''.

<gl>
\gll Egjitm Mali mu amal-gag-u-p
possible Mali NEG dance-PAST-NEG-SG
\trans It is true that Mali did not dance.
</gl>

<gl>
\gll Mu egjitm Mali amal-gag-u-p
NEG possible Mali dance-PAST.NEG.SG
\trans It is not true that Mali danced.
</gl>

See also [http://prosodylab.org/migmaq/index.php/Word_Order_%26_Information_Structure#Interaction_with_negation Word Order and Interaction with Negation]
We would also expect phrases with adverb-like particles translatable as "it is possible" or "it is true" or "it is obvious" would also vary regarding negation.

=Language change and negation=
I have encountered many times not being able to elicit both the dual and plural forms of a verb. There are many times where I can only elicit the dual form, or times when the dual and plural forms are exactly alike. It had been noted before in the class that a lot of younger speakers are not using the plural form and using the dual form to mean both dual and plural. This seems be a language change happening currently in the speech community where the younger generation is leading the change towards the preference of the dual form for denoting both dual and plural. Though as noted above in the [http://prosodylab.org/migmaq/index.php/Negation#Present_Tense paradigm] for the eat in the negated present tense both dual and plural forms are the same. Here it seems to be the plural form presiding over the dual form. This would strongly suggest a change happening in the speech community.

=Notes=
As I am sure everyone else encountered during this course, I was unable to get a full paradigm of all the possible verb conjugations (transitive animate, transitive inanimate, intransitive etc) and all tenses (subjunctive case as well as conditional, among others, is missing though I know Mi'gmaq has these cases, (see Grammaire de la Langue Micmaque, 1864, pg 33-100 for full verb paradigms)). Instead I tried to focus on the data I had and compare it with other sources in order to be able to achieve accuracy as well as accessibility to those wanting to learn the language.

For the future, I would hope to elicit more verb paradigms as well as more about the scope of negation.

=References=
Clark, Jeremiah S. "A Dictionary of the Micmac Language." Rand's Micmac Dictionary. Charlottetown, PEI: The Patriot Publishing Company, 1902. Print.

Delisle, Gill L., and Manny L. Metallic. Micmac Teaching Grammar. Ecowi, QC: Thunderbird Press, 1976. Print.

L'Abbe Maillard, M. Grammaire De La Langue Mikmaque. New York: Presse Cramoisy de Jean-Marie Shea, 1864. Print.

Metallic, Janine. "Mi'gmaq Elicitation Session for Field Methods of Linguistics." Ed. Class, Carol Little and LING415. Montreal, QC: n/a, 2011. Print.

Payne, Thomas Edward. Describing Morphosyntax: a Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.

Paul-Martin, Patsy. "Mi'kmaq Verb Conjugation." Ed. Orthography, Mi'kmaq Talking Posters Smith/Francis. Truto, NS: Eastern Woodland Print Communications, 2011. Print.

Proulx, Paul. "Proto-Algonquian Verb Inflection." Studies in Native American Languages 15.2 (1990): 100-45. Print.

van der Wouden, Ton, and Frans Zwarts. "Negative Concord." D. Gilbers and S. Looyenga (eds), Language and Cognition 2. Yearbook 1992 Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen (1992): 317-31. Print.