Negation

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 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 ( 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 (Micmac Teaching Grammar, 1976). I have selected the spelling from 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 (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').

mijji- 'eat'

↓person / number→		SG	DU	PL
1	13	mijji	mijjieg	mijjultieg
	12		mijjiewg	mijjultiewg
2		mijjin	mijjioq	mijjultioq
3		mijjit	mijjijig	mijjultijig

mu mijji- 'not eat'

↓person / number→		SG	DU	PL
1	13	mu mijjiu	mu mijjultieweg	mu mijjultieweg
	12		mu mijjultieweg	mu mijjultieweg
2		mu mijjiun	mu mijjiwoq	mu mijjuwoq
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 a table that summarizes the VAI -i stem negative person endings in present conjugation. Inanimate [IN] conjugation was taken from the Micmac Grammar (1976, pg 155).

VAI -i stem negative present person endings

↓person / number→		SG	DU	PL
1	13	-u	-ultieweg	-ultieweg
	12		-ultieweg	-ultieweg
2		-un	-woq	-uwoq
3.AN		-ug	-ewg	-ultiewg
3.IN		-nug	-nugel	-nultinugel

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).

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 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.

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:

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.

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:

mijji- "eat"	Singular	Dual	Plural
2 Second person	mijji	?	mijjultiug

Now we compare it to the negated:

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.

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.

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:

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:

1. Mu   alasi-ew-g'p    
   not  go-NEG-SG.PAST  
   'She didn't go'

Future Tense

First let us compare the affirmative tense for eat:

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:

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.

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:

1. *gis-wissugwatige-w  
   can-cook.1-NEG       
   'I cannot cook (intended meaning)'

The only form of the above sentence must be:

1. ma   gis-wissugwatige-w  
   NEG  can-cook.1-NEG      
   'I cannot cook'

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:

1. ma   gis-amalga-w-g   
   NEG  can-dance-NEG-3  
   's/he cannot dance'

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 Mi'gmaq Online Dictionary)

1. me   menag  newt  ajetten-u-g  
   NEG  yet    one   time-NEG-3   
   'it is not one o’clock yet'

1. mo-wen   mijie-w-g  
   NEG-who  eat-NEG-3  
   'no one is eating'

1. moqwa'  goqwei  eign-u-g  
   no      thing   be-NEG-3  
   'there is nothing there'

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.

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/nobody
moqwa' 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

moqwa' goqwei is also spelled mu goqwei and a variant of this is mu + negated verb + goqwei when used in object position. It is inanimate. As in the following example:

1. mu   malqutem-u   goqwei  
   NEG  eat.1>0-NEG  what    
   'I eat nothing'

Negative Concord

As can be seen above, Mi'gmaq is a negative concord language. Negative concord is where "double or multiple negative[s] [do] not express an affirmative but a negative" (van der Wouden & Zwarts, 1992). This is similar to French Je n'ai vue personne 'I have seen nobody' where both the ne and personne are both negative but the resulting sentence is negative, rather than each cancelling the other out resulting in a affirmative sentence, i.e. 'I have seen someone'. Mi'gmaq has negation marked in two places with both negative particles, i.e. mu & ma, and a negative conjugation of the verb, i.e. with -u or -w added. Compare examples (9) and (10).

1. lpa'tuj  eigu-p           
   boy      be.there.PST-SG  
   'the boy was there'

1. lpa'tuj  mu   eimu-g-u-p           
   boy      NEG  be.there-PST-NEG-SG  
   'the boy was not there'

Word Order

The negative particle (or possibly affix) mu always appears before the verb it negates. Although words can intervene between mu and the verb it negates, mu must always precede the verb.

1. Mali  mu   amal-gag-u-p       
   Mali  NEG  dance-PAST-NEG-SG  
   'Mali did not dance'

1. mu   Mali  amal-gag-u-p       
   NEG  Mali  dance-PAST-NEG-SG  
   'Mali did not dance'

Placement of mu post-verbally results in ungrammaticality, as illustrated below.

1. lpa'tuj  mu   eimug-u-p            
   boy      NEG  be.there.PST-NEG-SG  
   'the boy was not there'

Acceptable word orders:

• mu eimugup lpa'tuj
• mu lpa'tuj eimugup

Unacceptable word orders:

• *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:

1. ula   na   lpa'tuj  ta'n  egitgup   wigatign  
   this  DEM  boy      that  read.PST  book      
   'this is the boy that read the book'

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'.

1. ula   na   mu   lpa'tuj  ta'n  egitgup   wigatign  
   this  DEM  NEG  boy      that  read.PST  book      
   'this is not the boy that read the book'

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).

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. Micmac Grammar, 1976 Sometimes the meaning of the sentence can change depending on the position of mu.

1. egjitm    Mali  mu   amal-gag-u-p      
   possible  Mali  NEG  dance-PST-NEG-SG  
   'it is true that Mali did not dance'

1. mu   egjitm    Mali  amal-gag-u-p      
   NEG  possible  Mali  dance-PST.NEG.SG  
   'it is not true that Mali danced'

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 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.