negation in livonian

This is a contribution from Negation in Uralic Languages. Edited by Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm and Beáta Wagner-Nagy.© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

This electronic file may not be altered in any way.The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

John Benjamins Publishing Company

http://www.copyright.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.benjamins.com

http://www.benjamins.com

doi 10.1075/tsl.108.16met© 2015 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Negation in Livonian*

Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu & Tiit-Rein ViitsoUniversity of Tartu

The paper gives an overview of negation in Livonian. The study is based on fieldwork data and previous research. Livonian has negation markers of three types: (1) auxiliaries, äb in the indicative and conditional present, iz in the indicative past, and alā in the imperative and the jussive; (2) particle mittõ is used to reinforce negation and to mark the scope of the constituent negation; (3) particle äp functions as a prosentence. All categories which are expressed in affirmative verb forms occur also in negative forms, although their expression is divided inconsistently between the negation verb and the lexical verb. The negation markers have given rise to negative prefixes, coordinating conjunctions, and a comparative marker.

1. The language

Livonian belongs to the southern group of Finnic languages together with North Estonian, Votic, and South Estonian; Livonian is the southernmost Finnic language that was spoken in the central Baltic region. The historical homeland of the Livonian people is located in Courland and Vidzeme, which are western and central parts of contemporary Latvia.

The Livonian language consists of two main varieties – Salaca (known also by its German name Salis) or Vidzeme Livonian, and Courland Livonian. The language data of Salaca Livonian were collected between 1665 and 1846; the last speaker of the Salaca dialect died in the second half of the 19th century. Written Livonian is based on Courland Livonian. In Courland, speakers of Livonian lived in twelve coastal villages. The eastern dialect of Courland Livonian was spoken in villages around Cape Kolka (Livonian: Kūolka), the western Livonian dialect in the villages of Lūžņa (Lūž) and Miķeļtornis (Pizā); the variety of Lielirbe (Īra) is often regarded as the central dialect

* The study was supported by the Estonian Science Foundation (grants 7464 and 8409) and by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (target-financed research projects SF180084s08, PUT475 and IUT2-37). We are grateful to Bernhard Wälchli, to the anonymous reviewer and to the editors of the volume for helpful advice.

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu & Tiit-Rein Viitso

of Livonian, although it is relatively close to western Livonian (see Viitso 2008, 2011). The number of Livonian speakers decreased dramatically during the 20th century. In June 2013, the last native speaker of the language, Grizelda Kristiņa, passed away at the age of 103 in Canada. According to the latest Latvian census, from 2010, there are 250 Latvian inhabitants who identify themselves as ethnic Livonians. However, the major-ity of them no longer speak their heritage language; only about twenty people know Livonian as a second language (Ernštreits 2012).

Due to its historical location in the central Baltic region, Livonian has had long-time contacts with Baltic languages, especially with the western and central dialects of Latvian. The influence of Baltic languages has been noticeable on all levels of the language system, including inflection (Grünthal 2003). The Livonian negation system is known as typologically exceptional: verbal categories are marked on the negator and on the lexical verb; tense is expressed by the negative auxiliary; the precise distribution of person and number between the two parts of the negative verb form is somewhat arbitrary; nevertheless, the same range of distinctions as in the affirmative is made (see Comrie 1988: 468–469). This complex marking pattern in negation has been men-tioned as an innovation in Livonian inflection (Wälchli 2000: 213).

The paper will give a general overview of Livonian negation, focusing on its spe-cial features. We describe mostly Livonian as it was spoken in Courland, although some data from Salaca Livonian will be used for comparison. Examples are from Courland Livonian unless it is clearly indicated that it is Salaca Livonian. We will present the results of previous research (e.g. Kettunen 1925; Krautmane 2010; Pajusalu 2011; Winkler & Pajusalu 2009; Sjögren & Wiedemann 1861; Mägiste 2006; Setälä 1953; Viitso 2003, 2008, 2011, 2012) and analyses based on our field work data from Courland Livonian. Unfortunately, it is now impossible to use native-speaking informants. The main source of examples is the Livonian-Estonian-Latvian diction-ary by Tiit-Rein Viitso and Valts Ernštreits (2012, LEL); if there is no reference, the examples are taken from the fieldwork data gathered by Tiit-Rein Viitso since 1972.

2. Clausal negation

2.1 Standard negation

Standard negation is expressed by the negative auxiliary äb in the present (1), and iz in the past tense forms (2).

(1) Piņ äb utā. dog neg.3sg bark.cng ‘The dog is not barking.’


Negation in Livonian

(2) Piņ iz utā. dog neg.pst.3sg bark.cng ‘The dog did not bark.’

The negative forms of the present indicative (3) consist of the negative auxiliary verb äb and a lexical verb. The form of both components shows variation. Table 1 shows the affirmative and negative paradigm of the present indicative. The negative auxiliary verb varies according to person: the 1st and the 3rd person form is äb both in the singular and the plural; the 2nd person singular is äd, and the 2nd person plural is ät. The lexical verb has a connegative form in the negative singular forms; however, in the plural it has different forms in different persons, and in the 1st and the 2nd person there is a form that coincides with the affirmative form. In the 3rd person plural the form of the lexical verb coincides with that of the 2nd person plural (ending in -t/-tõ). Thus, the negative forms of the 1st and the 2nd person plural reveal constructional symmetry, which does not occur in the other forms; person marking is consistent in affirmative forms but is undergoing simplification in negative forms.

Table 1. Indicative Present Paradigm (verbs volda ‘be’; kizzõ ‘ask’, andõ ‘give’)

Person Personal pronoun

Affirmative Negative

1sg ma um, kizū-b, ānda-b äb ūo, kiz, ānda2sg sa ūod, kizū-d, ānda-d äd ūo, kiz, ānda3sg ta um, kizū-b, ānda-b äb ūo, kiz, ānda1pl mēg ūo-mõ, kizz-õm, ānda-m äb ūo-mõ, kizz-õm, ānda-m2pl tēg ūo-tõ, kizz-õt, ānda-t ät ūo-tõ, kizz-õt, ānda-t3pl ne at-tõ, kizz-õb-õd, ānda-b-õd äb ūo-tõ, kizz-õt, ānda-t

In the past indicative (Table 2) the negative auxiliary iz expresses negation. Both the 2nd person singular and plural and the 3rd person plural form are marked by -t. The lexical verb has the same form as in the negative present: in the singular the connegative form, in the plural with endings. Unlike the present, in the past the 2nd and the 3rd person plural have the same ending -t/-tõ both in the affirmative (ānd-iz-tõ give-pst-2pl/3pl) and the negative form (iz-t neg-2/3pl ānda-t give-2pl/3pl). However, there are no symmetric forms1 because in the affirmative paradigm the past tense forms are formed by means of a suffixed lexical verb (ma āndiz ‘I gave’,

1. Negation is symmetrical if there is no difference between the negative and affirmative form other than the negative marker(s), and asymmetrical if there are structural differences (Miestamo 2005: 51).



mēg āndizmõ ‘we gave’) and in negative forms the past is expressed by means of the special auxiliary.

Table 2. Past indicative paradigm (verbs volda ‘be’; kizzõ ‘ask’, andõ ‘give’)



1sg ma voļ, kiz-īz, ānd-iz iz ūo, kiz, ānda2sg sa voļ-d, kiz-īz-t, ānd-iz-t iz-t ūo, kiz, ānda3sg ta voļ, kiz-īz, ānd-iz iz ūo, kiz, ānda1pl mēg voļ-mõ, kiz-īz-mõ, ānd-iz-mõ iz ūo-mõ, kizz-õm, ānda-m2pl tēg voļ-tõ, kiz-īz-tõ, ānd-iz-tõ iz-t ūo-tõ, kizz-õt, ānda-t3pl ne voļ-tõ, kiz-īz-tõ, ānd-iz-tõ iz-t ūo-tõ, kizz-õt, ānda-t

Thus, in the indicative negative forms, tense is shown by the negation auxiliary. Person is indicated partly by the negation auxiliary and partly by the lexical verb; both components express person in the 2nd person plural.

Both auxiliaries are derived from personal forms of the Finnic negative auxil-iary stem *e-. Äb comes from the 3rd person form and has spread to the present 3rd and 1st person forms; the 2nd person forms have preserved the person distinction and represent direct descendants of the Finnic forms *et and *ette. In the past, the 1st person singular forms lost their ending *n and the 1st and 3rd person singular forms with negative auxiliary iz became identical. The 2nd person singular and plu-ral form and the 3rd person form coincide as iz-t, though being based on different historical forms.

Thus, the existing evidence, which reveals a relatively small number of negative forms, suggests that in the 19th and 20th centuries the negative auxiliary of the pres-ent tense in Courland Livonian was in a state where only the 2nd person was marked both in the singular and the plural; the other forms of the negative auxiliary verb were unmarked for person (cf. Sjögren & Wiedemann 1861: 155–157; Kettunen 1938: LXI, LXIII; Kettunen 1947: 79, 81; Wälchli 2000: 221–222). The historical causes of this are as follows: (1) the inflectional ending of the 3rd person was generalized into the 1st person forms that had lost their inflectional ending -n, and (2) the plural marker of the negative forms of the 1st and the 3rd person plural was lost because neither o nor õ could occur in the second syllable after a short syllable. A further change might have led to the decline of person marking and the emergence of a negative particle on the basis of a negative auxiliary.

In Salaca Livonian (similarly to Estonian) this change was completed. In the pres-ent the particle ab ~ ap expresses negation in all the persons, and is ~ iz is used in the past. The main verb always takes the connegative form in the singular. In the plural it



is similar to the singular or agrees in person, as in ab lī-mi neg come-1pl ‘(we) won’t come’, ab uo-ti neg be-2pl ‘(you) aren’t’.

The marked moods in Livonian are conditional, quotative, imperative and jussive. Negation in imperatives and jussives is described in 2.2.

In the conditional present (Table 3) negation is expressed by the same auxiliary verb äb as in the indicative. The conditional marker -(õ)ks is attached to the lexical verb. Personal endings can be found only in the plural negative forms. In the affirma-tive forms personal endings can be found in the 2nd person singular (ānda-ks-t ‘you would give’) and the plural forms. The only asymmetric form is the 2nd person singu-lar, which has a personal ending in the affirmative form but not in the negative form. All the other forms are symmetric – in the singular only the conditional marker (ma ānda-ks ‘I should give’ − ma äb ānda-ks ‘I should not give’) is attached to the lexical verb; in the plural the personal ending (ne ānda-ks-tõ ‘they would give’ − ne äb ānda-ks-tõ ‘they would not give’) is attached as well.

Table 3. Conditional present paradigm (verbs volda ‘be’; kizzõ ‘ask’, andõ ‘give’)



1sg ma vol-ks, kizz-õks, ānda-ks äb vol-ks, kizz-õks, ānda-ks2sg sa vol-ks-t, kizz-õks-t, ānda-ks-t äd vol-ks, kizz-õks, ānda-ks3sg ta vol-ks, kizz-õks, ānda-ks äb vol-ks, kizz-õks, ānda-ks1pl mēg vol-ks-mõ, kizz-õks-mõ, ānda-ks-mõ äb vol-ks-mõ, kizz-õks-mõ, ānda-ks-mõ2pl tēg vol-ks-tõ, kizz-õks-tõ, ānda-ks-tõ ät vol-ks-tõ, kizz-õks-tõ, ānda-ks-tõ3pl ne vol-ks-tõ, kizz-õks-tõ, ānda-ks-tõ äb vol-ks-tõ, kizz-õks-tõ, ānda-ks-tõ

In the quotative (Table 4), the quotative marker -ji/-ij/-i/-iji is attached to the lexical verb. Number is differentiated in both the affirmative and the negative ( plural marker -d), but the lexical verb has no personal forms (see Kehayov et al. 2012) . Therefore, person is not differentiated in the affirmative. In the negative the lexical verb takes the same singular or plural form as in the affirmative; the persons are to some extent differenti-ated in the negative by means of personal forms of the negative auxiliary verb. Nega-tion is symmetric, since the lexical verb is identical in its affirmative and negative form.

Thus, the previously described moods (see 2.2. for the imperative and the jussive) show that the quotative is consistently symmetric, and the indicative present reveals the lowest degree of symmetry, only in the 1st and 2nd person plural. The negation auxiliary expresses tense and person, although some personal forms coincide. The lexical verb expresses mood, number, and also person in the plural forms of the indic-ative and the conditional. The degree of constructional symmetry and asymmetry var-ies among the Finnic languages. At one end of the scale, there is totally asymmetric



negation in common Estonian and its many dialects and Votic, whereas at the other end, there are some South Estonian dialects that show symmetric negation in all the plural forms. Livonian negation with its two symmetric forms in the indicative (1st and 2nd person plural) is still rather symmetric (see Viitso 2003).

Analysis of the expression of categories in the components of finite negative forms gives the following picture.

Person is expressed in the lexical verb in the negative plural forms of the indica-tive and the conditional, which is different from the affirmative forms where person is also differentiated in the singular. Quotative forms combine with number but not with person marking.2

Table 5 shows personal forms of the negative auxiliary verbs. It does not include the conditional, where the forms of the negation auxiliary are the same as in the indic-ative. The negation auxiliary marks the 2nd person in the present indicative and condi-tional; additionally, it marks the 3rd person plural in the simple past. Distinct personal forms occur only in the imperative.

Table 5. Forms of the Livonian negative auxiliary (based on Viitso 2012: 19)

Person

Indicative, conditional Imperative Jussive

Present Past

sg pl sg pl sg pl sg pl

1 ä-b ä-b iz iz – al-gõ-m – –2 ä-d ä-t iz-t iz-t alā al-gi-d al-gõ al-gõ-d3 ä-b ä-b iz iz-t – – – –

2. Wälchli (2000: 222) mentions a similar case of number marking of the lexical verb in Komi and Veps (there are still some differences between the languages).

Table 4. Quotative present paradigm (verbs volda ‘be’; kizzõ ‘ask’, andõ ‘give’)



1sg ma voļļ-i, kizz-iji, ānda-ji äb voļļ-i, kizz-iji, ānda-ji2sg sa voļļ-i, kizz-iji, ānda-ji äd voļļ-i, kizz-iji, ānda-ji3sg ta voļļ-i, kizz-iji, ānda-ji äb voļļ-i, kizz-iji, ānda-ji1pl mēg voļļ-i-d, kizz-iji-d, ānda-ji-d äb voļļ-i-d, kizz-iji-d, ānda-ji-d2pl tēg voļļ-i-d, kizz-iji-d, ānda-ji-d ät voļļ-i-d, kizz-iji-d, ānda-ji-d3pl ne voļļ-i-d, kizz-iji-d, ānda-ji-d äb voļļ-i-d, kizz-iji-d, ānda-ji-d



Marked moods are expressed in the lexical verb both in the negative and affirma-tive forms (äb utā-ks ‘would not bark’, äb utā-ji ‘is said not to bark’).

The passive is formed by using the past passive participle of transitive lexical verbs. In a passive clause the subject is always in the nominative case (3), (4).

(3) Ažād at tīedõd. thing.pl.nom are do.ptcp.pass.pl.nom ‘Things are done.’

(4) Ažād äb ūo-tõ tīedõd. thing.pl.nom neg be-cng.pl do.ptcp.pass.pl.nom ‘Things are not done.’

Tense is not differentiated in the simple tense forms of the lexical verb; the present and the past have different negative auxiliaries to which personal endings are attached. Special negative simple tense forms occur only in the indicative, for example, the pres-ent äb lōla ‘does not sing’, äb kiz ‘does not ask’ and the past iz lōla ‘did not sing’, iz kiz ‘did not ask’.

Among compound tense forms the past participle of the lexical verb expresses relative past in the perfect: äb ūo andõn [neg.3sg be.cng give.ptcp] ‘has not given’, äb volks andõn [neg.3sg be.cond give.ptcp] ‘would not have given’, äb voļļi andõn [neg.3sg be.quot give.ptcp] ‘is not said to have given’. In the plu-perfect the temporal meaning is expressed in the indicative both by the nega-tive auxiliary and the past participle of the lexical verb: iz ūo andõn [neg.pst.sg be.cng give.ptcp] ‘had not given’. In the conditional and in the quotative, the past is expressed by past participles of both the auxiliary verb and the lexical verb: äb volks vond andõn [neg.3sg be.cond be.ptcp give.ptcp] ‘would not have given’, äb voļļi vond andõn [neg.3sg be.quot be.ptcp give.ptcp] ‘is said not to have given’. The pluperfect forms reflect a theoretical possibility rather than attested forms in recorded materials.

Finite forms reveal paradigmatic symmetry; all the grammatical categories can be expressed in the negative. The negative auxiliaries äb and iz are placed immediately before the lexical verb (5). The prohibitive auxiliary alā/al- (see 2.2) can be separated from the lexical verb (6).

(5) Äb lī mitīdtõ līvlizt, kis neg be.cng no.single.par Livonian.par who äb mõtlõks īdtõ mõtkõzt: algõ līnd jemīņ suoddõ. neg think.cond single thought.par neg.juss be.ptcp more war.par ‘There is not a single Livonian who wouldn’t think a single thought: may

there never be another war.’ (LEL: 167)



2.2 Negation in non-declaratives

Negative commands differ from standard negation – the prohibitive auxiliary alā/al- (the front-vowel historical equivalent of the Livonian and Veps back-vowel stem ala may have been elä) inflects in the imperative for person and number; in the jussive al- inflects for number but not person (6).

(6) Alā tanõ tul! neg.imp.2sg here come.cng ‘Don’t come here!’

The stem of the negative auxiliary expresses prohibition; the formatives expressing mood and person are attached to it, as illustrated in Table 6.

Table 6. Imperative paradigm (verbs volda ‘be’; kizzõ ‘ask’, andõ ‘give’)



2sg sa vol, kiz, ānda alā vol, kiz, and-õ1pl mēg vol-g-õm, kizz-õg-õm, ānda-g-õm algõm vol-g-õm, kizz-õg-õm, ānda-

g-õm3sg tēg vol-g-id, kizz-õg-id, ānda-g-id algid vol-g-id, kizz-õg-id, ānda-g-id

The imperative (Table 6) has no regular tense forms. Both the prohibitive auxiliary and the lexical verb differentiate between all three persons belonging to the paradigm (the 2nd person singular and plural, the 1st person): alā andõ ‘you (sg) don’t give’, algõm āndagõm ‘don’t let us give’, algid āndagid ‘you (pl) don’t give’. As in Finnish, the Livonian 2nd person prohibitive belongs to the typologically most common type, consisting of a special negative and a normal imperative (cf. Vilkuna, this volume; van der Auwera & Lejeune 2005). The 2nd person imperative form coincides with the connegative form. The lexical verb in prohibitive generally has the imperative form: kiz [ask.imp.2sg] − alā [neg.imp.2sg] kiz [ask.imp.2sg]. As an exception, an a-/ā-stem lexical verb, which occurs in combination with the prohibitive auxiliary in the 2nd person singular, has always a special strong-stem õ-ending prohibitive form, cf. ānda [imp.2sg] and alā [neg.imp.2sg] andõ [give.cng]. As in Estonian, the main verb in the indicative form is common in the 1st person plural instead of a special imperative form. The 1st person plural form of the prohibitive verb may co-occur with the 1st per-son plural form of the indicative, cf. Al-gõ-m iml-õm! [neg-imp-1pl wonder-1pl] ‘may we not wonder!’ (LEL: 74), or the imperative 1st person construction can be replaced by the corresponding jussive construction.

In Salaca Livonian, too, the negative auxiliary verb has developed into a particle, which is alā for all the persons. The negation marker is followed by the 2nd person


Negation in Livonian 1

imperative of the lexical verb, e.g. alā le [neg.imp go.imp.2sg] ‘don’t go’, alā le-gid [neg.imp go-imp.2pl] ‘don’t go’; the indicative form is used for the 1st person plural: alā pagatu-m [neg.imp speak-1pl] ‘let’s not speak’, alā šüö-mi [neg.imp eat-1pl] ‘let’s not eat’.

In the jussive (Table 7) in the active voice, both the prohibitive auxiliary and the lexical verb have the jussive marker, which is usually -gõ for singular persons, -kõ for the verb volda (cf. volkõ ‘be’), and -kkõ for the verb lodõ (cf. läkkõ ‘may he go’). In the plural, the jussive marker is followed by the plural marker -d. In an affirmative sen-tence, the jussive is usually accompanied by the particle laz ‘let’ (7), (8).

(7) Laz jumāl äbţõg! juss.ptcl God help.juss ‘Let God help!’ (LEL: 95)

(8) Siz ta minnõn opātiz, kui ma laz tīegõ. then s/he I.dat teach.pst how I juss.ptcl do.juss ‘Then he taught me how I should act.’ (LEL: 217)

In the passive, the prohibitive auxiliary and the auxiliary verb sōdõ ‘get, become’ have the jussive marker and, if necessary, also the plural marker, and the lexical verb occurs in the past participle, cf. al-gõ sō-gõ jettõd [neg-juss get-juss leave.impf.ptcp] ‘may I/you/s/he not be left’ and al-gõ-d sō-gõ-d jettõd [neg-juss-pl get-juss-pl leave.impf.pptc] ‘may we/you/they not be left’. To express person, a personal pronoun before or after the prohibitive verb is used in the 1st and 2nd person. In the 3rd person, a noun can also be used, although a pronoun or noun can be entirely absent. In sentences expressing an order or an appeal in the 1st person plural, the main verb can be in the plural form of the jussive while the prohibitive verb functioning as an auxiliary can be in the singular: Algõ mēg sōgõd uidõl! ‘Lets not bring shame on ourselves!’ (LEL: 341).

Table 7. Jussive paradigm (verbs volda ‘be’; kizzõ ‘ask’, andõ ‘give’)



1sg ma volkõ, kizz-õg, āndag algõ volkõ, kizz-õg, āndag2sg sa volkõ, kizz-õg, āndag algõ volkõ, kizz-õg, āndag3sg ta volkõ, kizz-õg, āndag algõ volkõ, kizz-õg, āndag1pl mēg volkõd, kizz-õg-õd, ānda-gõ-d algõd volkõd, kizz-õg-õd, ānda-gõ-d2pl tēg volkõd, kizz-õg-õd, ānda-gõ-d algõd volkõd, kizz-õg-õd, ānda-gõ-d3pl ne volkõd, kizz-õg-õd, ānda-gõ-d algõd volkõd, kizz-õg-õd, ānda-gõ-d

A jussive prohibitive auxiliary can be used in combination with the active past participle of the verb līdõ ‘(will) be’ with a future reference: algõ līnd ‘may not be’ (5) repeated here as (9).


2 Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu & Tiit-Rein Viitso

(9) Äb lī mitīdtõ līvlizt, neg be.cng no_single.par Livonian.par kis äb mõtlõks īdtõ mõtkõzt: algõ who neg think.cond single thought.par neg.juss līnd jemīņ suoddõ. be.ptcp more war.par ‘There is not a single Livonian who wouldn’t think a single thought; may

there never be another war.’ (LEL: 196)

In Salaca Livonian the jussive is formed by means of combining the particle las and a negative indicative or prohibitive form. Sjögren has suggested the following paradigm (see Sjögren & Wiedemann 1861: 157; Winkler & Pajusalu 2009: 132): las ma ab nuol [juss.ptcl I neg lick.cng] ‘may I not lick’, las täma ab nuol [juss.ptcl s/he neg lick.cng] ‘may s/he not lick’, las mē ala nuol [juss.ptcl we neg.imp lick.cng] or las mē ala nuolu-m [juss.ptcl we neg.imp lick-1pl] ‘may we not lick’, las nämad ab nuol [juss.ptcl they neg lick.cng] ‘may they not lick’. A similar jussive with the particle laz ~ las can also be found in Courland Livonian.

2. Negation in non-verbal clauses

Negation in sentences of equation, proper inclusion, attribution (10), locative predica-tion, existential predication (11b), cf. (11a), and possessive predication (12b), cf. (12a) does not differ from standard negation. These sentences usually have the verb volda ‘be’ as their predicate, which is negated as described previously. See Section 4.3 on the alternation of the case forms on the subject noun.

(10) Se mit midāgõst äb ūo, mis sa tīed. this neg nothing neg.3sg be.cng what you.2sg do.2sg ‘This is nothing (worth) that you are doing.’ (LEL: 296)

(11) a. Täsā um skūol. here be.3sg school.nom ‘Here is a school.’ b. Täsā äb ūo skūolõ. here neg.3sg be.cng school.par ‘There is no school here.’

(12) a. Jōņõn um ko r. John.dat be.3sg bicycle.nom ‘John has a bicycle.’ b. Jōņõn äb ūo korõ. John.dat neg.3sg be bicycle.par ‘John does not have a bicycle.’



2. Negation in dependent/subordinate clauses

Generally, in subordinate clauses, the forms of the lexical or auxiliary verbs that occur with the negative auxiliary have to be the same as in the main clause, that is, the predi-cate is negated by means of the same forms as in the main clause (standard negation 2.1 and other forms of negation 2.2), see (13)–(15).

(13) Ma kūlõb, ku piņ äb utā. I hear that dog neg.3sg bark.cng ‘I hear that the dog is not barking.’

(14) Ma mõtlõb, ku piņ äb utāks. I think that dog neg.3sg bark.cond ‘I think that the dog might not be barking.’

(15) Ma tōb, algõ piņ utāg. I wish neg.juss.sg dog bark.juss ‘I wish that the dog should not bark.’

If a subordinate clause expresses reported speech or a reported command, the verb of the subordinate clause is usually in the quotative or the jussive, respectively (Kehayov et al. 2012: 49), see (16)–(17).

(16) Ta kītiz, ku piņ äb utāji. s/he said that dog neg.3sg bark.quot ‘S/he said that the dog would not bark.’

(17) Ta tōb, algõ piņ utāg. s/he wishes neg.juss dog bark.juss ‘S/he wishes that the dog should not bark.’

Among the non-finite constructions, the abessive supine construction (18) and the negated converb (19) express negation of a situation that is encoded as an adverbial of manner. The abessive (see 3.3) could be reinforced by means of the preposition ilmõ.

(18) Ta kūldiz ilmõ midēgõst kītõ-mõt. s/he listen.pst without anything.par say-sup.abe ‘He was listening without saying a word.’

(19) laz ne sieda võikst tīedõ juss.ptcl they this.par could do.inf rīemkõks ja äb voikõs pleasure.ins and neg groan.cvb ‘that they would do this work with pleasure and not groaning’

(Krautmane 2010: 62)



. Non-clausal negation

.1 Negative replies

The following structural types of answers to polar questions, as in (20a), are found in the material: (1) affirmative or negative particle alone, functioning as prosentence3 (the autonomous negative particle is äp; the negative auxiliary äb or some other marker of verbal negation cannot occur alone as an answer; 20b); (2) affirmative or negative verb form (the confirmative particle kil can be added to the affirmative form; 20c); (3) combination of types 1 and 2: an affirmative or negative particle and the respective affirmative or negative verb form (20d).

(20) a. Või sa magīzt? q you sleep.pst.2sg ‘Did you sleep?’ b. – Na. / Äp. aff neg ‘Yes./No.’ c. – Magīz kil. / Iz mag. sleep.pst.1sg ptcl neg.pst.1sg sleep.cng ‘I did./I did not.’ d. – Na, magīz kil. / Äp, iz mag. aff sleep.pst.1sg ptcl neg neg.pst.1sg sleep.cng ‘Yes, I did./No, I did not.’

The autonomous negative particle äp alone can be understood as disagreement with the affirmative form of the question or a reply with the negative proposition.

In negative answers to affirmative questions (20b) both interpretations are pos-sible; in negative answers to negative questions (21b) the negative particle äp expresses a reply containing the negative proposition (the dog does not bark).

(21) a. Või piņ äb utā? q dog neg.3sg bark ‘Does the dog not bark?’ b. − Äp. neg ‘No.’

. The term prosentence was introduced by Giuliano Bernini and Paolo Ramat (1996: 89) for the expressions ‘yes’ and ‘no’ “in that they represent an entire sentence with the same proposi-tional content as the utterance of the preceding context”.



c. − Äb utā. neg.3sg bark.cng ‘It does not.’ d. − Äp, äb utā. neg neg.3sg bark.cng ‘No, it does not.’

In answers to negative questions where the negative proposition is rejected and the positive one is accepted (22a)–(22c), the bare particle reply is not used; the negative particle äp in the combined answer type (22c) expresses disagreement with the nega-tive form of the question.

(22) a. Või piņ äb utā? q dog neg.3sg bark.cng ‘Does the dog not bark?’ b. − Utāb kil. bark.3sg ptcl ‘It does.’ c. − Äp, utāb kil. neg bark.3sg ptcl ‘No, it does.’

The autonomous negation particle äp can be used both for the present (23) and the past (24).

(23) Äp, ma äb tō. neg I neg.1sg want.cng ‘No, I don’t want.’

(24) Äp, ma iz tō. neg I neg.pst.1sg want.cng ‘No, I didn’t want.’

To sum up, one could claim that although the autonomous negation particle äp fulfils both the function of representing the negative proposition and the function of reject-ing the proposition expressed by the question, in the case of conflict between these two functions it can express only the former.

.2 Negative indefinites and quantifiers

Negative pronouns and adverbs are represented by the indefinite pronouns midāgõst ~ midēgõst (‘something/anything/nothing’) and adverbs, e.g. kunāid ~ kunāgid ‘some-times’ (25) or ‘never’ (26), kuskõs ‘somewhere/anywhere/nowhere’.



(25) Kunāgid ma tanda voļ nand. sometime I s/he.par be.pst.1sg see.ptcp ‘I had seen him/her once.’ (LEL: 146)

(26) Seļļizt knaššõmt ta iz ūo kunāid nand. such.par beauty.par s/he neg.pst.3sg be.cng never see.ptcp ‘He had never seen such a beauty.’ (LEL: 128)

As in Estonian and Votic, negative pronouns and adverbs are based on interrogative pronouns and pro-adverbs, such as mis ‘what’ or kus ‘where’, to which a focus clitic is attached. A negative indefinite pronoun may coincide with an interrogative-relative pronoun, as in mingi ‘which’ (27) and ‘any/no one’ (28).

(27) Āndiz āiga, mingiz um vajāg. give.pst measure.gen which.gen is needed ‘The measure was given, which is needed.’ (LEL: 23)

(28) Mingizt lemdi ta sal äb sō. any.par warmth.par s/he there neg.3sg get.cng ‘He won’t get any warmth there.’ (LEL: 165)

A negative pronoun or adverb can be preceded by the negation particle mittõ ~ mit (29)–(31). The function of mittõ ~ mit is to mark the scope of constituent negation and to reinforce negation; see 4.1 and 4.4 below.

(29) Mit kuskiz äb sō ladõ. neg anywhere neg.3sg can.cng go.inf ‘It is impossible to go anywhere.’ (LEL: 299)

(30) Eggiļ voļ nei vagā, iz kūl mit īdtõ. yesterday was so silent neg.pst.3sg hear.cng neg anyone ‘Yesterday it was so silent; one couldn’t hear anyone.’ (LEL: 148)

(31) Tämmõn iz ūo mit sugīd s/he.dat neg.pst.3sg be.cng neg bit.par tapāmõst tūoizta. kill.actn.par other.par ‘S/he did not have any need to kill another person.’ (LEL: 195)

Negative indefinites occur only with a negative verb form and, thus, belong to the same group with Eastern European languages, which differ from the SAE feature nega-tive indefinite + affirmative verb form (cf. Haspelmath 2001: 1498; Haspelmath 2005; Miestamo 2009: 218; Van Alsenoy and van der Auwera, this volume). The indefinites receive a negative interpretation in a sentence with a negative verb form.

Expressions with the particle mittõ, which negate a minimum amount of some elements, are interpreted as a negation of the entire amount (see Metslang 1997),



e.g. mittõ groššõ [neg penny.par] ‘not a penny’ and mittõ kopīkt [neg kopeck.par] ‘not a kopeck’ express a lack of money, mittõ rozõ [neg crumb.par] ‘not a crumb’ is a more general phrase that expresses the lack of something. The expression äb pan mit kūlõmõks [neg.3sg put.cng neg hear.sup.ins] ‘does not turn to hear’ (32) expresses the lack of attention.

(32) Tuoi äb pan mit kūlõmõks. other neg.3sg put.cng neg hear.sup.ins ‘Another person takes no notice at all.’ (cf. LEL: 190)

The negation particle mittõ~mit focuses negation and is optional in the sentence; at the same time it can merge with the following word and develop into a prefix, for example, the word for ‘nothing’ shows variation in different forms: midāgõst ~ midēgõst ‘some-thing’ – mittõ midāgõst ~ mitmidāgõst, mitmidēgõst ~ mitmidēd.

(33) Tuoi äb pan mitmikšmõks. other neg.3sg regard.cng neg.nothing.ins ‘Another person regards it as nothing.’ (cf. LEL: 189)

The final stages of this development chain are accompanied by lexicalization, as in mit-tõsug ‘not at all’ (mittõ-sug neg-bit), mitikš ‘nobody; nothing’ (mit-ikš neg-one). These words originated from negative expressions with the meaning ‘not a bit’ and ‘no one’.

. Abessives

There are three types of devices for the expression of ‘being without something’: adpo-sitional constructions, morphological forms and word-formation.

The negation of an item, creature, or a circumstance as a co-factor of a process or state is expressed in a sentence by an abessive prepositional phrase, where bäs or ilmõ function as abessive prepositions and the noun is either in the abessive or the partitive. The abessive form of the noun in (34), (35), and (36) is extremely rare and is therefore usually not listed as a case.

(34) Jōņ īeb bäs rō-tõ. John remain.3sg without money-abe ‘John will be without money.’ (LEL: 272)

(35) Ta vazīņtõb immõr, bäs tīe-tõ vazīņtõb. s/he hang.3sg around without job-abe hang.3sg ‘He’s hanging around, hanging around without a job.’

(36) Kež um ilmõ joud-tõ. arm is without power-abe ‘The arm has no power.’ (LEL: 72)

The abessive can also be replaced by the partitive (37).



(37) ilmõ tīedõ ilmõ mīnda without work.par without I.par ‘without work, unemployed’ ‘without me’ (LEL: 72)

The abessive form of the supine is a morphological form that expresses occasional or general lack of an action. The form functions (a) as an adjective (loptā-mõ-t [end-sup-abe] ‘endless’, pästāmõt ‘without saving’; lāitamõt ‘impeccable’, luggõmõt ‘countless’, piezzõmõt ‘unwashed’) or (b) as an adverb (ānda-mõ-t [give-sup-abe] ‘without giv-ing’, mõtlõmõt ‘without thinking’, piezzõmõt ‘without washing’, alāstõmõt ‘mercilessly’; including in combination with the preposition ilmõ ‘without’ (ilmõ ta tõmõt ‘without marking’).

In word formation, negation is expressed by prefixes äb- and mit ~ mittõ, developed from the grammatical negation markers. From the prefix mittõ ~ mit are formed, for example, the adverb mittõsug ‘not at all’, the pronoun mitikš ‘nobody’ (see 3.2). The prefix äb forms nouns, adjectives and adverbs as in the following examples:

a. nouns: äb-õigiz [neg-truth] ‘untruth’, äbkūolimi ‘immortality’, äbõigõm ‘injustice’;b. adjectives: äb-joudzi [neg-powerful] ‘powerless’, äbīdlimi ‘uneven; special-sized’,

äbõigi ‘untrue, false’; mingizt-äbmingizt [some.pl-neg.some.pl] ‘several’ (mingizt-äbmingizt bõuvmateriālõd ‘various construction materials’);

c. adjectives derived from participles: äb-aŗštõ-b [neg-heal-ptcp.prs] ‘incurable’, äbliktõb ‘unshakable’, äblugdõb ‘illegible’, äbmīeldõb ‘unpleasant’;

d. adverbs: äbkunāgid [neg.sometime] ‘never’; including adverbs derived from the converb: äb-likkõ-s [neg-move-conv] ‘motionlessly’.

There are also some lexicalized abessive combinations, such as ilmõsītõ rištīng ‘totally innocent person’.

. Other aspects of negation

.1 The scope of negation

The negation particle mittõ functions as the marker of constituent negation (38).

(38) mittõ amūstiz tāgižpēdõn neg long.ago backward ‘not long ago’ (LEL: 30)

The scope of negation can also be marked by sentence stress, cf. (39a)–(39c), a longer form of a personal pronoun (39d), and the particle ka (40).



(39) a. SIEDĀ ma iz na. this.par I neg.pst.1sg see.cng ‘I didn’t see it.’ b. Siedā ma IZ na. this.par I neg.pst.1sg see.cng ‘I did not see it.’ c. Siedā ma iz NA. this.par I neg.pst.1sg see.cng ‘I didn’t see it.’ d. Siedā MINĀ iz na. this.par I neg.pst.1sg see.cng ‘I didn’t see it.’

(40) Ta äb ūo mittõ mõtlõn ka s/he neg.3sg be.cng neg think.ptcp ptcl ajjõ siedā nīemõ kuodāj. drive.inf this.par cow.par home ‘He has no intention of driving this cow home.’

.2 Negative polarity

A negative sentence context is preferred by negative indefinites, such as midēgõst, midēgõd (meaning ‘nothing’, 41), kunāid ~ kunāgid ~ kunāgõst (meaning ‘never’, 26), expressions denoting a minimum amount, such as mittõ groššõ ‘not a penny’, mittõ rozõ ‘not a bit’ (see 3.2). Such usage of negative indefinites is similar to what is found in many other languages (Miestamo 2009: 219). Words that prefer negative polar envi-ronments include the adverbs jemīņ ‘more’ (42), kūod õn ‘just, namely’ (43), vel (44) (in the temporal meaning ‘yet’; cf. Estonian veel, Sang 1983: 132−133, and also Latvian vēl); the verbs kāndatõ ‘suffer, bear’, sõitõ ‘be able to’, tarmõ ‘be willing to; wish’, võrkõ ‘take the trouble’.

(41) nei nemē midēgõd äb volks suggõn as if nothing neg.3sg be.cond happen.ptcp ‘as if nothing had happened’

(42) Ta äb soita jemīņ ailõ. s/he neg.3sg be.able.cng more run.inf ‘S/he is not able to run any more.’ (LEL: 301)

(43) Kūodõn tämpõ ta iz tul. namely today s/he neg.pst.3sg come.cng ‘In fact, today s/he didn’t come.’ (LEL: 148)



(44) Ma äb ūo tanda vel nand. I neg be.cng s/he.par yet see.ptcp ‘I haven’t seen her as yet.’

. Case marking under negation

As in other Finnic and Circum-Baltic languages, in Livonian, too, negation has an impact on the alternation of totality-partiality (see Rozhanskij & Markus, Tamm, Vilkuna, this volume; Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Wälchli 2001: 663−674, Miestamo 2014). Generally, the partitive is used in the case of negation the object (45b), cf. (45a) and the subject of existential and possessive clauses (46b), cf. (46a), (47). See also Examples (11b) and (12b) above, illustrating partitive singular subjects in negative sentences.

(45) a. Ma vostīz sīe rōntõ. I buy.pst.1sg this.gen book.gen ‘I bought this book.’ b. Ma iz vostā siedā rōntõzt. I neg.pst.1sg buy.cng this.par book.par ‘I didn’t buy this book.’

(46) a. Mõtsās at lūomõd. forest.ine be.3pl animal.pl.nom ‘In the forest there are animals.’ b. Mõtsās äb ūo lūomidi. forest.ine neg.3sg be.cng animal.pl.par ‘In the forest there are no animals.’

(47) Izān attõ abbõnd, pūogan äb ūo abbiņi. father.dat be.3pl beard.pl.nom son.dat neg.3sg be.cng beard.pl.par ‘The father has a beard, the son has no beard.’ (LEL: 207)

Usually, object-case adverbials (adverbials that occur in grammatical cases and have case alternation similar to the case alternation of the object) in negative clauses have the interpretation of a small amount, which is emphasized with the particle ka ‘also, even’, cf. (48a) and (48b).

(48) a. Ma vodliz vīž minūtõ I wait.pst five.nom minute.par ‘I waited for five minutes.’ b. Ma iz vodlõ vīdtõ minūtõ ka. I neg.pst.1sg wait.ptcp five.par minute.par ptcl ‘I didn’t wait even for five minutes.’


Negation in Livonian 1

. Reinforcing negation

The particle mittõ ~ mit occurs in negative clauses with two functions: to express con-stituent negation (cf. 4.1) and to reinforce negation expressed by other means. Before a negative predicate it emphasizes clausal negation expressed by a verb form: mit äb vaņțõl ‘does not even look’ (49)¸ mittõ äb na ‘don’t see’ (50); elsewhere in a clause it emphasizes constituent negation (51). The particle may be located before or after the focussed part of the sentence, e.g. in (51) kuijõ kūožõ ‘dry place’ is focussed. Before negative quantifiers (see 3.2) it emphasizes negation in their lexical meaning (52).

(49) Nei lab piddõz, ku mit äb vaņțõl sin palõ. so goes by that neg neg.3sg look.cng you.gen at ‘He passes by so that he does not even look at you.’ (LEL: 237)

(50) Ma mittõ äb na sīnda. I neg neg.1sg see.cng you.par ‘I don’t see you.’

(51) Minnõn äb ūo kuijõ kūožõ mit ambõ al. I.dat neg.3sg be.cng dry.par place.par neg tooth.gen under ‘I am soaking wet’, lit. ‘I don’t even have a dry place under my tooth.’

(LEL: 144)

(52) Se mit midāgõst äb ūo, mis sa tīed. this neg anything neg.3sg be.cng what you do.2sg ‘It’s worthless what you do.’

Predicate negation can be reinforced by general intensifying particles such as jõ ‘in fact’ (53), or the fronting of the negation word in constructions where the negation word can be separated from the lexical verb as in (54).

(53) Sa jõ äd kūld mīnda. you.2sg ptcl neg.2sg listen.2sg I.par ‘In fact, you don’t listen to me.’

(54) Äd sa kūl, äd sa na. neg.2sg you.2sg hear.cng neg.2sg you.2sg see.cng ‘Neither you hear, nor you see.’

The scope markers discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.6 (mittõ, ka, sentence stress) also reinforce negation.

. Negation and complex clauses

The coordination of negative clauses does not differ from that of affirmative clauses; there is no special coordinating conjunction (as opposed to ega ‘nor’ in Estonian, which would be used instead of the conjunction ja ‘and’ in Example 55).


2 Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu & Tiit-Rein Viitso

(55) Kāibõb iļ eņtš lapst, vaist complain.3sg about own child.pl.nom sometimes at slikţõd lapst, agā kāibõb, ku be.3pl bad.pl child.pl.nom but complain.3sg that pūoga u’m kougõn kuondõ ja äb tu’l vaņțlõm. son is far home.exc and neg.3sg come.cng see.sup ‘They complain about their children; sometimes the children are bad, but

they complain that the son is far away and does not visit them.’ (LEL: 100)

. Some further aspects of negation

In clause-internal negative coordination the particle äb before the coordinated com-ponents acts as a recurrent conjunctive ‘neither… nor’ (56)–(58). The post-member of coordination can be foregrounded by means of the particle ka (58).

(56) Äb lind pūsõ, äb kalā mie’rsõ – tijā pasouļ. neg bird tree.ill neg fish sea.ill empty world ‘Neither a bird in the tree nor fish in the sea – an empty world.’ (LEL: 37)

(57) äb minā, äb tämā; äb nei, äb nei; äb vozā, äb kalā neg I neg s/he neg so neg so neg flesh neg fish ‘neither me nor him/her; ‘neither this way nor that way’; ‘neither

flesh nor fish.’ (LEL: 37)

(58) Vanbõn rištīng äb mūošta äb jõvīst inept person neg.3sg know neg well tīedõ tīedõ äb ka rovztkõks rõkāndõ. work.par do.inf neg also people.ins speak.inf ‘An inept person is not capable to work properly or talk with people.’

(LEL: 353)

The negation word äb gave rise to the emergence of the comparative marker, the com-parative conjunction äbku ‘than’ < äb ku ‘not if ’, cf. the Latvian nekā ‘like’. This kind of comparative particle is rare in the Indo-European languages. It could well be that similar particles in Leivu and Krevin may have emerged following the Latvian example (Wälchli 2000: 223). On the other hand, the particle comparative is characteristic of both the European and the Circum-Baltic languages.

(59) Mäd kilās sigži kalāmīed vejīzt our village.ine in.autumn fishermen catch.pst.3pl



jemīņ brēţliži äbku sīļkidi. more Baltic.sprat.pl.par than Baltic.herring.pl.par ‘In our village in the autumn the fishermen caught more Baltic sprats than

Baltic herrings.’

(60) Ta pakāndimi kūolõb äbku alā āndab. s/he rather die.3sg than down give.3sg ‘S/he would die rather than surrender.’ (LEL: 225)

. Conclusions

Livonian has negation markers of three morphosyntactic types: (a) negative auxilia-ries, äb in the indicative and conditional present, iz in the indicative simple past, and alā in the imperative and the jussive; (b) a negation particle with the main form mittõ, the function of which is to reinforce negation, as well as to mark the scope of the constituent negation; (c) the autonomous negation particle äp, which functions as a prosentence. In the paradigm of the negative auxiliaries the number of different per-son forms is from one to three: äb, äd, ät; iz, izt; alā, algõm, algid; algõ. The form of the lexical verb with a negative auxiliary reveals suffixes of marked moods; person and number markers occur only in plural lexical verb forms. As such, the general typologi-cal picture matches Comrie’s description: all categories which are expressed in affirma-tive verb forms are also expressed in negative verb forms, although their expression is divided inconsistently between the negation verb and the lexical verb. However, person is not differentiated in some parts of the verb paradigm.

This state has been stable since the days of Sjögren and Wiedemann. It has been influenced by two trends: (a) the spread of the 3rd person form to the 1st person after the loss of the 1st person marker -n, and (b) the merging of singular and plural forms as a result of reductive sound changes. In Salaca Livonian, which had closer contacts with Estonian, the negative auxiliary developed into a negation particle as in Estonian.

The primary function of the particle äp is to express negation of the proposition in a prosentence. Indefinite pronouns and pro-adverbs are used as negative quantifiers, to which one can add the negation particle mittõ. In the case of negative indefinites, the verb takes the negative form. The negation markers have given rise to negative prefixes and coordinating conjunctions, as well as to a special comparative marker. The abes-sive meaning is expressed by means of a construction with the prepositions bäs and ilmõ, the non-finite supine abessive verb form, or derivation.

The main aspects of negation in Livonian are summarized in Table 8.



Table 8. Negative Strategies in Livonian

Clausal negation

Standard negation auxiliary äb (in the indicative and conditional present) + main verb; iz (in the indicative simple past) + main verb

Imperative/prohibitive sentences auxiliary alā + main verbNegation of non-verbal predicates auxiliary äb (in the indicative and conditional present) +

the verb volda ‘be’; iz (in the indicative simple past) + the verb volda ‘be’

Negation in dependent clauses auxiliary äb (in the indicative and conditional present) + main verb; iz (in the indicative simple past) + main verb

Non-clausal negation

Negative replies 1) the negative particle äp, (2) the negative verb form, (3) äp + the negative verb form

Negative indefinites and quantifiers

(the negative particle mittõ +) indefinite pronoun/proadverb

Abessive/caritive negation 1) preposition bäs or ilmõ + noun in partitive or abessive, (2) abessive form of the supine, (3) derivatives with negative prefixes äb-, mit(tõ)

Other aspects of negation

The scope of negation The scope of negation is marked by the negative particle mittõ; the sentence stress, focusing particles

Negative polarity Negative polarity items are negative indefinites and quantifiers; expressions denoting a minimum account; some verbs and adverbs

Case marking under negation The case of the object and the subject of existential and possessive clauses under negation is the partitive

Reinforcing negation Negative particle mittõ ~ mit; intensifying particles

Sources

LEL = Viitso, Tiit-Rein & Ernštreits, Valts. 2012. Līvõkīel-ēstikīel-lețkīel sõnārōntõz [Livonian-Estonian-Latvian Dictionary]. Tartu/Rīga: Tartu Ülikool/Latviešu valodas aģentūra.

References

van der Auwera, Johan & Lejeune, Ludo (with Valentin Goussev). 2005. The prohibitive. In The Word Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 290–293. Oxford: OUP. Also WALS Online 2011 edition at ⟨http://wals.info/chapter/71⟩ (21 March 2012).



Bernini, Giuliano & Ramat, Paolo. 1996. Negative Sentences in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110819748

Comrie, Bernard. 1988. General features of Uralic languages. In The Uralic Languages: Descrip-tion, History and Foreign Influences [Handbuch Der Orientalistik, Achte Abteilung. Hand-book of Uralic Studies 1], Denis Sinor (ed.), 451–477. Leiden: Brill.

Ernštreits, Valts. 2012. Development, research, and sources of written Livonian. Linguistica Uralica XLVIII (1): 55–67. DOI: 10.3176/lu.2012.1.05

Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Lan-guage Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 2 [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20.2], Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1492–1510. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

DOI: 10.1515/9783110171549.2Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation. In The Word

Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), 466–469. Oxford: OUP. Also online in the WALS Online 2011 edition at ⟨http://wals.info/chapter/115⟩ (21 March 2012).

Grünthal, Riho. 2003. Finnic Adpositions and Cases in Change. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Kehayov, Petar, Metslang, Helle & Pajusalu, Karl. 2012. Evidentiality in Livonian. Linguistica Uralica XLVIII(1): 41–54. DOI: 10.3176/lu.2012.1.04

Kettunen, Lauri. 1925. Untersuchung über die Livische Sprache, I: Phonetische Einführung. Sprachproben [Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Dorpatensis B VIII. 3]. Tartu.

Kettunen, Lauri. 1938. Livisches Wörterbuch mit grammatischer Einleitung [Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae V]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

DOI: 10.1017/s0041977x00149134Kettunen, Lauri. 1947. Hauptzüge der livischen Laut- und Formengeschichte. Vervollständigter

Sonderabdruck aus der grammatischen Einleitung des Livischen Wörterbuches. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Wälchli, Bernhard. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. In The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact, Vol. 2: Grammar and Typology [Studies in Language Companion Series 55], Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 615–750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DOI: 10.1075/slcs.55.15kopKrautmane, Erika. 2010. Kuramaa liivi keele kõneviiside süsteem eesti ja läti keele taustal [The

Livonian mood system in relation to Estonian and Latvian]. MA thesis, University of Tartu.Mägiste, Julius. 2006. Muistoja Liivinrannasta. Liivin kieltä Ruotsista. (Memories from the

Livonian coast: Samples of the Livonian language from Sweden), translated and published by Anneli Honko [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 250]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Metslang, Helle. 1997. Maksimaalsuse ja minimaalsuse väljendamine eesti püsiühendites (Expression of maximality and minimality in Estonian fixed expressions). In Pühendusteos Huno Rätsepale [Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele õppetooli toimetised 7], Mati Erelt, Meeli Sedrik & Ellen Uuspõld (eds), 139–154. Tartu: University of Tartu.

Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard Negation: The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main Clauses in a Typological Perspective [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.



Miestamo, Matti. 2009. Negation. In Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics [Handbook of Prag-matics Highlights 5], Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman, Jef Verschueren (eds), 208–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hoph.5

Miestamo, Matti. 2014. Partitives and negation: A cross-linguistic survey. In Partitive Cases and Related Categories [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 54], Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110346060.63

Pajusalu, Karl. 2011. Salatsi liivi keel (Salaca Livonian). In Liivlased. Ajalugu, keel ja kultuur. Renāte Blumberga, Tapio Mäkeläinen & Karl Pajusalu (eds), 219–230. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.

Sjögren & Wiedemann 1861 = Joh. Andreas Sjögren’s Livische Grammatik nebst Sprachpro-ben/im Auftrage der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften bearbeitet und mit einer historisch-ethnographischen Einleitung versehen von Ferdinand Joh. Wiedemann, St. Petersburg.

Sang, Joel. 1983. Eitus eesti keeles (Negation in Estonian). Tallinn: Valgus.Setälä, Emil Nestor. 1953. Näytteitä liivin kielestä (Samples of Livonian), Translated into Finnish

and published by Väinö Kyrölä [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 106]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2003. Põhiverbi muutumine eitussõna järel, lingua franca ja algkeel (Inflec-tion of the main verb after a negation word, the protolanguage and lingua franca). Keel ja Kirjandus XLVI(1): 24–31.

Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2008. Possible prehistoric contacts of Livonian. In Liivi keel ja läänemeresoome keelemaastikud, 238–249. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.

Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2011. Liivi keele põhijooned (Basic features of Livonian). In Liivlased. Ajalugu, keel ja kultuur. Renata Blumberga, Tapio Mäkeläinen & Karl Pajusalu (eds), 203–218. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.

Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2012. Concerning inflection classes in Livonian. Linguistica Uralica 48 (1): 12–26. DOI: 10.3176/lu.2012.1.02

Wälchli, Bernhard. 2000. Livonian in a genetic, areal and typological perspective, or is Finnish better Finnic than Livonian? In Facing Finnic. Some Challenges to Historical and Contact Linguistics [Castrenianumin toimitteita 59], Johanna Laakso (ed.), 210–226. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.

Winkler, Eberhard & Pajusalu, Karl. 2009. Salis-Livisches Wörterbuch [Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series 3]. Tallinn: Estonian Academy of Sciences.

negation in livonian

Documents