Inhalt des 41. Bandes Originalia Bíró, Bernadett: From nouns into nominalizers and even further – Grammaticalization processes in northern Mansi .................................... Bíró, Bernadett – Katalin sipöcz: ditransitivity in the Mansi language from typological perspective ........................................................... Budzisch, Josefina: Locative, existential and possessive sentences in selkup dialects ................................................................................ däbritz, Chris lasse: Zur Markierung von numerus an nomina in den samojedischen sprachen – synchronie und mögliche Implikationen für die Rekonstruktion des Protosamojedischen und des Protouralischen ........................................................................................ de smit, Merlijn: Insular etymologies: Indo-european and substrate coastal terminology on Finnic and saami ........................................ Gusev, Valentin: On the etymology of auditive in samoyedic .............. Harder, Anja: Grammaticalization of spatial expressions in Central and southern selkup .............................................................................. Kahrs, Ulrike: historische ereignisse als Konstituente der kollektiven Identität: der Multan-Fall und seine Bedeutung für die udmurtische Identität ........................................................................................... Rozhanskiy, Fedor – elena Markus: negation in soikkola Ingrian ....... Wegener, hannah: On annotating information status in Kamas ............ Berichte, Mitteilungen, nachrichten Kowalik, Richard: InFUse turku 2017: Fünfte Winterschule der Finnougristik ................................................................................... 1 25 45 63 103 131 153 175 189 221 237 negation in soikkola Ingrian Fedor Rozhanskiy (Tartu – Moscow) – Elena Markus (Tartu – Moscow) Abstract this paper gives a detailed overview of negation in the soikkola dialect of Ingrian, which is at present almost extinct. All the data come from field recordings (a corpus of spontaneous speech and elicitations) from the last decade. In Ingrian, the person and number of the negative construction is expressed by the negative auxiliary verb, while the lexical verb expresses tense and mood characteristics. Ingrian prohibitive shows asymmetry in the formation of singular and plural forms: the plural forms take the infinitive of the lexical verb. The article analyses different aspects of negation, including a specific system of negative pronouns, and the use of the abessive suffix only in verbal forms. Keywords: negation, verbal system, Ingrian, negative pronouns, abessive 1. Introduction In 2015, Benjamins published a volume on negation in the Uralic language family (Miestamo et al. 2015). The chapters in the book are based on a unified questionnaire and provide comprehensive, comparable descriptions of negation in 17 Uralic languages. This volume became a successful example of intergenetic typology, but it did not cover all the Uralic languages. In particular, the Ingrian language was not included in the book. this paper aims to add Ingrian data to the description of Uralic negation. the article is based on soikkola Ingrian and is written according to the same scheme as implemented throughout the volume (Miestamo et al. 2015). We tried to follow the structure that we have used in the chapter on negation in Votic (Rozhanskiy, Markus 2015), since both Votic and Ingrian are minor unwritten Finnic languages located in close proximity and share many linguistic features. We used a similar methodology for collecting the language materials, but in the case of Ingrian we relied more on our corpus of collected narratives. 1.1 The Ingrian language The first official reference to Ingrians comes from the second half of the 12th century in a bull of Pope Alexander III to Uppsala Archbishop Stefan. In the 19th century, there were 17800 Ingrians in the sankt-Petersburg province (Köppen 1867: 41). The census of 1926 did not show a significant change (16137 people Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen Band 41 © helmut Buske Verlag 2017 190 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus according to the census as cited by Musaev (2004: 348)), but after the World War II the number of Ingrians decreased significantly (1062 people according to the 1959 census as cited by Musaev (2004: 348)). this decrease was the result of many factors including forced russification (a detailed analysis is given in (Rozhanskiy, Markus 2013)). nowadays we estimate the number of Ingrian speakers as no more than 50. With rare exception, all of them are very aged people. In the 1930s, Ingrian written standard was developed, and the Ingrian language was taught at school. Unfortunately, by 1938 the teaching of Ingrian was banned, and the teachers were repressed. Traditionally, four Ingrian dialects are distinguished. Oredeži and Hevaha dialects are already extinct; Soikkola and Lower Luga dialects are on the verge of extinction. The last speakers live on the Soikkola peninsula and in the lower course of the Luga river. Lower Luga Ingrian is significantly different from other Ingrian varieties. In fact, it is a convergent language that developed as a language of interethnic communication between Finnic nations living in close proximity: Ingrians and Votes, but also Ingrian Finns and Estonians (Rozhanskiy, Markus 2014). In this chapter we rely on the data collected during our fieldwork with the speakers of Soikkola Ingrian in 2006–2017 (see Appendix 1 for a list of speakers). Our corpus of elicited questionnaires contains more than 500 hours of recordings; the corpus of narratives and other samples of spontaneous speech is about 4 hours. We indicate the source of each example in brackets. For the narratives, we give the text title and the index of the speaker (e.g. [Kala_AI]). For elicited examples, we give the index of the audio file in our database and the index of the speaker (e.g. 967_AG). In this paper, we use the following transcription principles. a. Consonants. Consonants have a ternary length opposition: single consonants vs. short geminates vs. (full) geminates. there is no phonological opposition of voiceless and voiced, but depending on the idiolect and the phonetic context, single consonants can be pronounced as voiceless, half-voiced or voiced. We transcribe them with voiced characters, except word-initially (šuži ‘wolf’), and in consonant clusters containing p, t, k, š, f or h (itkiä ‘cry’). short geminates are transcribed with double characters with a breve (p̆ p, l̆ l, etc.). Full geminates are transcribed as double characters (pp, ll, etc.). b. Vowels. In the first syllable, the original long ee, oo and öö have shifted up and are often pronounced as e̯ e̯ , o̯ o̯ , ö̯ ö̯ , or even as ii, uu, üü (see more details in Kuznetsova 2009), e.g. [hoomeen] ~ [ho̯ o̯ meen] ~ [huumeen] ‘tomorrow’, [töö] ~ [tö̯ ö̯ ] ~ negation in soikkola Ingrian 191 [tüü] ‘work’, [meež] ~ [me̯ e̯ ž] ~ [miiž] ‘man’. In this chapter, we transcribe them as e̯ e̯ , o̯ o̯ and ö̯ ö̯ irrespective of the features of a particular idiolect. 2. Clausal negation 2.1. Standard negation 2.1.1. Ingrian verbal system The conjugation of Ingrian finite verb forms is based on the categories of tense (present, past, perfect and pluperfect), mood (indicative, conditional and imperative), person (1, 2 or 3), number (singular and plural) and polarity (affirmative and negative). In addition to personal, there is a set of impersonal forms. the non-finite forms – the infinitive, supine, and participles (active singular, active plural and passive) – do not have polarity. The system of finite forms is summarized in Table 1. Table 1. The system of finite verbal forms in Soikkola Ingrian 192 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus In addition to the forms listed in table 1, other analytical forms may hypothetically exist. Among the elicited examples, we have a sentence (1) that can be interpreted as containing the impersonal perfect conditional form1. ku ol̆ l-iiž ol-d praažnikka if be-cOnD.3Sg be-Prtact feast ol̆ l-iiž tabe-ttu šiga be-cOnD.3Sg kill-PrtPaSS pig ‘If there had been a feast, a pig would have been slaughtered’. [789_AI] (1) We have no similar examples from the narratives; this is a single elicited example with such a form, and we have no examples of the impersonal in other perfect/pluperfect forms. For these reasons, we consider this example as occasional and do not include the impersonal perfect conditional (or other marginal analytic constructions) in the paradigm. As in other Finnic languages, standard negation in Soikkola Ingrian is expressed analytically with a personal form of the negative auxiliary (see 2.1.2) and the connegative or active participle of the main verb (see 2.1.3). (2) miä e-n tiije mi-dä 1Sg neg-1Sg know.cng what-Part tei-le veel pit̆ tää lää-dä 2Pl-all anymore have.to.PrS.3Sg speak-inF ‘I do not know what else I should tell you’. [Kala_AI] (3) a hää ei tiit̆ tää-nd and 3Sg neg.3Sg know-Prtact ‘And she did not know’. [Ätti_püüdämäz_GI] 2.1.2. Negative auxiliary verb The negative auxiliary verb has six indicative and two imperative forms, see table 2. Morphologically, ol̆ liiž tabettu (be.cOnD.3Sg slaughter.PrtPaSS) can also be interpreted as the present conditional of the passive construction šiga on tabettu ‘a pig is slaughtered’. however, the word order with the verbal form preceding the noun (ol̆ liiž tabettu šiga), and the 3Sg perfect conditional form in the first clause (ol̆ liiž old), make the impersonal perfect conditional interpretation more plausible. 1 negation in soikkola Ingrian 193 Table 2. Forms of the negative auxiliary verb Person 1 sg 2 sg 3 sg 1 Pl 2 Pl 3 Pl Indicative en ed ei emmä ~ emä että eväd Imperative elä elk̆ kää The negative auxiliary does not have impersonal forms. In the impersonal constructions, the 3Sg form of the auxiliary is used (4). (4) nüd muu-da ei tehä now other-Part neg.3Sg do.iPS.cng ku joo-vvaa as drink-iPS.PrS ‘Now [people] do not do anything else but drink’. [Elo_AI] The lexicalized 3Sg form of the negative auxiliary can be used as a negative particle (see 4.1). the 3sg negative present form of the verb ‘to be’ (ei oo) has been lexicalized and is used in fact as a single word. In soikkola Ingrian, the articulation of the long vowels oo, öö, ee shifted upwards, and they are either pronounced as o̯ o̯ , ö̯ ö̯ , e̯ e̯ , or merged completely with the high vowels uu, üü, ii (see 1.2). however, in the negative 3sg present form of the verb ‘to be’ this shift does not take place, and the combination is always pronounced as [ei oo] (not [ei o̯ o̯ ] or [ei uu], as it would have been if oo were in the first syllable). Below, we spell this lexicalized form with a hyphen: ei-oo. The specific behaviour of this form is illustrated by example (5). In the second part of the sentence, the negative auxiliary is followed by a clitic particle, and the following connegative of ‘to be’ is pronounced as o̯ o̯ . In the first part of the same sentence, the same connegative is pronounced as oo, because it is a part of the lexicalized form.2 (5) lapš-i-a ei-oo koi-ž ei-g child-Pl-Part neg-be.3Sg house-ine neg.3Sg-Ptcl o̯ o̯ tarhaa-ž be.cng garden-ine ‘The children are neither at home nor in the garden’. [B28_EI] 2 The lexicalization of the 3Sg negative present form of the verb ‘to be’ has also taken place in other Finnic varieties, cf. estonian pole < eb ole (Majtinskaja 1982: 129). 194 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus 2.1.3. System of negative verbal forms table 3 summarizes the ways of constructing negative indicative and conditional forms. Personal forms other than 1Sg differ only in the personal form of the negative auxiliary (see Table 2). In the negative perfect 3Sg form, the composite form ei-oo is used instead of ei o̯ o̯ (see 2.1.2). table 3. Basic negative forms Mood Tense Indicative Conditional 1sg en + indicative connegaPresent tive en + active participle Past (singular or plural) en oo + active participle Perfect (singular or plural) en old + active participPluperfect le (singular or plural) en + conditional conPresent negative en ol̆ liiž + active partiPerfect ciple (singular or plural) Impersonal ei + impersonal connegative ei + passive participle ei + impersonal conditional In negative present indicative, the negative auxiliary is combined with the indicative connegative. the latter is homonymous with the bare stem and identical with the 2Sg imperative form. (6) miä e-n to̯ o̯ 1Sg neg-1Sg carry.cng ‘I do not carry water’. [Dialog_AS_ED] (7) mää poiž šiä e-d anna go.iMP.2Sg away 2Sg neg-2Sg give.cng hei-le=gää mit̆ tää i tehä 3Pl-all=Ptcl what.Part.neg and do.inF ‘Go away! You do not let them do anything!’. [Munad_AI] vet-tä water-Part In negative present conditional, the negative auxiliary is combined with the conditional connegative, which is identical with the 3sg conditional form. negation in soikkola Ingrian (8) 195 konž miä taho-n midä-ik̆ kee šal̆ laistaa when 1Sg want.PrS-1Sg what.Part-inDeF secretly lää-dä štob kenk̆ kää ei speak-inF in.order.to who.neg neg.3Sg arva-jaiš̆ šiiž šiž miä läk̆ kää-n understand-cOnD.cng then 1Sg speak.PrS-1Sg häne-le meie-n keelee-l 3Sg-all 1Pl-gen language-aDe ‘When I want to say something in secret, so that no one would understand, then I talk to him in our language’. [Elimä_köühest_MB] In negative past indicative (9–11), negative perfect indicative (12), negative pluperfect indicative (13), and negative perfect conditional (14), the negative auxiliary is combined with the active participle of the main verb. The participle agrees in number with the negative auxiliary. The perfect and pluperfect forms also contain the auxiliary olla ‘be’ in the indicative connegative (for perfect indicative), conditional connegative (for perfect conditional), or active participle (for pluperfect indicative) form. (9) a kar̆ ru-a miä e-n and bear-Part 1Sg neg-1Sg näh-t konškaa see-Prtact when.neg ‘And the bear, I have never seen it’. [Hirvi_GI] (10) kenk̆kää ei uškoo-nd što who.neg neg.3Sg believe-Prtact that mok̆kooma kodi palo-i such house burn-iMPF.3Sg ‘Nobody believed that such a house had burnt down’. [Elo-1_AI] (11) hö̯ ö̯ d e-väd rutta-neeht tö̯ ö̯ -dä 3Pl neg-3Pl hurry-Prtact.Pl work-Part ‘They did not hurry to work’. [Soomez_OM] tehä do.inF 196 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus (12) vot i ši-dä vard niin on here and this-Part for so be.PrS.3Sg šaali jo nüd metsää-št mei-l pity already now forest-ela 1Pl-aDe mit̆ tää ei-oo jää-nd what.Part.neg neg-be.3Sg leave-Prtact ‘That is why it is such a pity [that] now nothing is left of our forest’. [Kala_ja_metsä_EN] (13) per̆ rää miä ain šao-i-n pid-i later 1Sg always say-iMPF-1Sg have.to-iMPF.3Sg ši-he paikkaa kodi tehä this-ill place.ill house do.inF mahtaa täž ei ol-d be.able.PrS.3Sg here neg.3Sg be-Prtact pal̆ laa-nt=kaa kodi burn-Prtact=Ptcl house ‘later I used to say that we had to build a house on that place; may be [on that place] the house would not have burnt down’. [Elo-1_AI] (14) ku mei-l ei if 1Pl-aDe neg.3Sg ol-d mer-dä be-Prtact sea-Part ̆ ol l-iiži-mma elä-need be-cOnD-1Pl live-Prtact.Pl ‘If we did not have the sea here, [Elo-1_AI] ol̆ l-iiž be-cOnD.cng täž mö̯ ö̯ here 1Pl kovašt pahaižeešt very badly we would have lived very badly’. In negative impersonal forms, the 3Sg of the negative auxiliary is combined with the impersonal connegative of the main verb in the present indicative (15), the passive participle in the past indicative (16), and the impersonal conditional in the present conditional (17). (15) ovi pannaa kiin ei lašša door put.iPS.PrS close neg.3Sg let.iPS.cng ‘[They] close the door, do not let [anybody] in’. [Druznoi_vägi_VV] negation in soikkola Ingrian (16) a kolhožii-ž mit̆ tää ei and collective.farm-ine what.Part.neg neg.3Sg makša-ttu pay-PrtPaSS ‘And in the kolkhoz they paid nothing’. [Ätti_püüdämäz_GI] (17) iššu da katso ku ei sit.iMP.2Sg and look.iMP.2Sg how neg.3Sg anne-ttaiž šiu-le give-cOnD.iPS 2Sg-all ‘Sit and watch not to get [hurt]’. [Elo_Dunja_foto_MM] 197 the impersonal connegative (like in 15) is a special form, differing from the present impersonal form in final vowel length, cf. laššaa let.iPS.PrS – lašša let. iPS.cng, maadaa sleep.iPS.PrS – maada sleep.iPS.cng. the impersonal connegative is the only connegative that does not have an identical/homonymous counterpart among the affirmative forms3. the negative imperative 2Sg is formed with the 2Sg imperative of the negative auxiliary in combination with the 2Sg imperative of the main verb (18). (18) tüdär äkkištää šao-i što daughter immediately say-iMPF.3Sg that elä oda ühtää=gää neg.iMP.2Sg take.iMP.2Sg at.all=Ptcl ‘The daughter said right away: “Do not take at all!”’. [Elo_AI] since both the 2sg imperative and the indicative connegative are pure stems without markers (cf. (19) with (20) and with the 1sg present indicative form in (21)), there are two possible interpretations of the form of the main verb in the 2sg imperative constructions. It can be either the 2sg imperative or a connegative. We prefer the first interpretation. (19) oda pluuga kätt̆ ee i künnä take.iMP.2Sg plough hand.ill and plough.iMP.2Sg ‘Take the plough in your hands and plough’. [Aida_ZD] 3 this is true for most but not for all verbs. In several paradigmatic types, the impersonal connegative is homonymous with the infinitive form, cf. tö̯ ö̯ -ž ei maa-da (work-ine neg.3Sg sleep-iPS.cng) ‘no one sleeps at work’, tö̯ ö̯ -ž ei šaa maa-da (work-ine neg.3Sg can.cng sleepinF) ‘It is not allowed to sleep at work’. 198 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus (20) miä e-n oda 1Sg neg-1Sg take.cng ‘I do not take’. [Elo_AI] (21) miä häne-n kado-le 1Sg 3Sg-gen roof-all ‘I will take it to the roof’. [Porraz_EN] oda-n take.PrS-1Sg the negative imperative 2Pl is formed with the 2Pl imperative of the negative auxiliary in combination with the infinitive of the main verb (22). See more details in 2.2. (22) elk̆ kää tulla mööhää neg.iMP.2Pl come.inF late ‘do not (you.Pl) come late’. [967_AG] table 4 lists the negative forms of the verb ant̆ taa ‘give’. Affirmative forms are given for comparison. In past, perfect and pluperfect forms, the following participles are used: ant̆ taand ‘give.Prtact’, andaneed ‘give.Prtact.Pl’, annettu ‘give.PrtPaSS’. Table 4. Affirmative and negative forms of the verb ant̆ taa ‘to give’ 1Sg Mood and tense Present indicative Past indicative Perfect indicative Pluperfect indica- 3Pl Affirmative negative Affirmative negative annan en anna ant̆ taad eväd anna annedaa ei anneda annoin en ant̆ taand ant̆ toid eväd andaneed ei annettu oon ant̆ ta- en oo and ant̆ taand ovad andaneed eväd oo andaneed olin ant̆ ta- en old and ant̆ taand ol̆ liid andaneed eväd olleed andaneed andajaiš̆ šiin andajaiš̆ šivad eväd andaannettaiž jaiš̆ šiiž tive Present conditional Impersonal en andajaiš̆ šiiž Affirmative annettii negative ei annettaiž negation in soikkola Ingrian 1Sg Mood and tense Perfect conditional Affirmative negative Affirmative negative ol̆ liižin ant̆ taand en ol̆ liiž ant̆ taand oliživad andaneed eväd ol̆ liiž andaneed 2Sg Imperative 3Pl anna 2Pl elä anna andagaa 199 Impersonal Affirmative negative elk̆ kää ant̆ taa as can be seen from table 4, the person and number of the negative form are expressed by the negative auxiliary verb. Additionally, the number of the active participle of the main verb indicates the number of the whole construction in past, perfect, and pluperfect indicative, and perfect conditional. The negative auxiliary verb does not distinguish tense. The tense is expressed in the form of the main verb and the auxiliary olla ‘to be’. The mood is expressed in the main verb and in the auxiliary olla ‘to be’ in the conditional, and in the negative auxiliary verb in the imperative. 2.1.4. Word order in negative clauses The basic word order is SVO both in affirmative and in negative constructions. the word order can be changed for information-structural reasons. 2.2. Negation in non-declaratives the formation of the negative imperative was discussed in 2.1.3. In the chapter by van der auwera and lejeune (2013) in the World atlas of language structures, two binary features are used to classify the prohibitive constructions: “the prohibitive uses a verbal construction of / other than the second singular imperative” and “a sentential negative strategy found / non found in (indicative) declaratives”. As for the first feature, the verbal form in the singular prohibitive is the same as that in the 2Sg imperative, cf. (18) and (19) above. however, the 2Pl form is radically different, and this is where the Ingrian language is crucially different from most other Finnic languages. Finnic languages demonstrate various strategies of the plural prohibitive formation. In Votic and estonian, there is a symmetry between the singular and plural prohibitive, cf. Votic pajatə ‘speak!’ and elä pajatə ‘do not speak!’, pajatte̮ ga ‘(you.Pl) speak!’ and elka pajatte̮ga ‘(you.Pl) do not speak!’, estonian räägi ‘speak!’ and ära räägi ‘do not speak!’, rääkige ‘(you.Pl) speak!’ and ärge rääkige ‘(you.Pl) do not speak!’. In these languages, the forms of both the auxiliary and the lexical verb can be considered as having the same grammatical characteristics. In Finnish, all negative imperative forms except for 200 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus 2Sg involve a special connegative form of the lexical verb ending in -ko/-kö: Finnish puhu ‘speak!’ and älä puhu ‘do not speak!’, puhukaa ‘(you.Pl) speak!’ and älkää puhuko ‘(you.Pl) do not speak!’. thus, in Finnish it is possible to interpret the 2Sg form also as containing a connegative of the lexical verb (the same as the connegative in present indicative negative forms). However, in Soikkola Ingrian the plural prohibitive contains the infinitive of the main verb4 instead of the typical 2Pl imperative form or a connegative, cf. (22, 23). (23) elk̆ kää tehä neg.iMP.2Pl do.inF ‘do not (you.Pl) do!’ [032_LM] As for the second feature, the Ingrian negative auxiliary does not differentiate between the indicative and conditional in declaratives, but it does have a special form for the imperative. also, it is questionable to consider the imperative forms of the negative auxiliary as being derived in the same way as the imperative of the regular verbs. Regular verbs always have the same stem in the present indicative and in the 2sg imperative (cf. tee-n ‘do.PrS-1Sg’ and tee ‘do. iMP.2Sg’), but the negative auxiliary has two different stems (e- in the present and elä- in the imperative). these features speak for the interpretation of the sentential negative strategy in the prohibitive as different from the strategy in declarative constructions. therefore, if we consider only the singular form (as proposed in (van der auwera and lejeune (2013)), Ingrian belongs to the second type: “the prohibitive uses the verbal construction of the second singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy not found in (indicative) declaratives”. however, if the plural prohibitive is taken into account, the first feature changes its value and Ingrian belongs to the forth type: “the prohibitive uses a verbal construction other than the second singular imperative and a sentential negative strategy not found in (indicative) declaratives”. In our material, there are no examples of negation in the interrogatives. 2.3. Negation in non-verbal clauses negative non-verbal clauses apply the standard negation strategy. In proper inclusion, attribution, and locative predication clauses the negative form of the verb olla ‘to be’ is the only difference between affirmative and negative variants. This is a specific characteristic of Soikkola Ingrian. According to Laanest (1978: 295), it was also true for the extinct Hevaha Ingrian. In Lower Luga Ingrian, the main verb is in the 2Pl imperative form, similarly to the neighbouring Votic and Finnish varieties. 4 negation in soikkola Ingrian 201 Proper inclusion. (24) a. mö̯ ö̯ o̯ o̯ -mma ri̮ baga-d 1Pl be.PrS-1Pl fisherman-Pl.nOM ‘We are fishermen’. [903_EN] (25) b. mö̯ ö̯ e-mmä o̯ o̯ 1Pl neg-1Pl be.cng ‘We are not fishermen’. [903_EN] a. hää ol-i hüvä ilmihin 3Sg be-iMPF.3Sg good man ‘He was a good man’. [903_EN] b. hää ei ol-d 3Sg neg.3Sg be-Prtact ilmihin man ‘He was not a good man’. [903_EN] attribution. (26) a. (27) ri̮ baga-d fisherman-Pl.nOM hüvä good nämäd tüdöi-d on these girl-Pl.nOM be.PrS.3Sg käp̆ piä-d beautiful-Pl.nOM ‘These girls are beautiful’. [903_EN] b. nämäd tüdöi-d e-väd these girl-Pl.nOM neg-3Pl käp̆ piä-d beautiful-Pl.nOM ‘These girls are not beautiful’. [903_EN] a. tämä uhlu on this bucket be.PrS.3Sg ‘This bucket is full’. [903_EN] b. tämä uhlu ei-oo täün this bucket neg-be.3Sg full ‘This bucket is not full’. [903_EN] täün full o̯ o̯ be.cng 202 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus locative predication. (28) a. ro̯ o̯ ga on kannee-l food be.PrS.3Sg table-aDall ‘The food is on the table’. [903_EN] (29) b. ro̯ o̯ ga ei-oo kannee-l5 food neg-be.3Sg table-aDall ‘The food is not on the table’. [903_EN] a. uuž obettaja ol-i obi-ž new teacher be-iMPF.3Sg school-ine tänäbää today ‘A new teacher was at school today’. [903_EN] b. uuž obettaja tänäbää obi-ž new teacher today school-ine ei ol-d neg.3Sg be-Prtact ‘A new teacher was not at school today’. [903_EN] In existential predication and possessive predication clauses, the existential or possessive object is marked with the nominative in the affirmative, but with the partitive in the negative clause (see also section 4.3). Existential predication. (30) a. metsää-ž on karhu forest-ine be.PrS.3Sg bear[nOM] ‘In the forest, there is a bear’. [903_EN] b. metsää-ž ei-oo karhu-a forest-ine neg-be.3Sg bear-Part ‘In the forest, there is (are) no bear(s)’. [903_EN] 5 Note the difference from the existential predication ro̯ o̯ k̆ kaa kanneel ei-oo ‘there is no food (Part) on the table’, where the object is marked with the partitive. negation in soikkola Ingrian (31) a. ho̯ o̯ meen le̯ e̯ nöö6 hüvä tomorrow be.Fut.3Sg good[nOM] praažnikka feast[nOM] ‘There will be a good feast tomorrow’. [B36_AL] b. hüv̆ vää praažnikkaa ei good.Part feast.Part neg.3Sg le̯ e̯ ne ho̯ o̯ meen be.Fut.cng tomorrow ‘There will be no good feast tomorrow’. [B36_AL] Possessive predication. (32) a. miu-l on 1Sg-aDe be.PrS.3Sg ‘I have a new cow’. [903_EN] (33) 203 uuž new[nOM] lehmä cow[nOM] b. miu-l ei-oo uut-ta 1Sg-aDe neg-be.3Sg new-Part ‘I do not have a new cow’. [903_EN] lehmää cow.Part a. šiu-l le̯ e̯ nöö-d käp̆ piä-d 2Sg-aDe be.Fut-3Pl beautiful-Pl.nOM tüdöi-d daughter-Pl.nOM ‘You will have beautiful daughters’. [903_EN] b. šiu-l ei le̯ e̯ 2Sg-aDe neg.3Sg be.Fut.cng käbjö-j-ä tüttö-löj-ä beautiful-Pl-Part daughter-Pl-Part ‘You will not have beautiful daughters’. [903_EN] 2.4. Negation in dependent/subordinate clauses negative constructions in dependent clauses apply the standard negation strategy. In finite dependent clauses, negative forms are the same as in main clauses. 6 ‘to be’ is the only verb in Ingrian that has a suppletive future form. 204 (34) (35) (36) Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus miä ved tiije-n što miä kot̆ tii 1Sg Ptcl know.PrS-1Sg what 1Sg house.ill e-n pääže ilma hän-d neg-1Sg get.cng without 3Sg-Part ‘I know that I will not get home without her’. [Tüü_lapsena_EN] midä-ik̆ kee ant̆ taa mok̆ kooma-d what.Part-inDeF give.PrS.3Sg such-Pl.nOM kumpp-i-a ei piä which-Pl-Part neg.3Sg have.to.cng ‘[Or the doctor] gives some [drugs] that are of no use’. [Elo_AI] polttaa-d kaig nigu štob mit̆ tää burn.PrS-3Pl all as in.order.to what.Part.neg ei näh-täiž mi-dä še̯ e̯ l neg.3Sg see-cOnD.iPS what-Part there ol-i teh-tü be-iMPF.3Sg do.PrtPaSS ‘they burn everything down not to let anyone see what has been done there’. [Kala_ja_metsä_EN] Non-finite clauses with participles (either affirmative or negative) were not attested in our data. Negative non-finite clauses with the infinitive or supine are mostly avoided. The Russian stimuli containing a negative infinitive clause are usually rephrased by the speakers into finite negative sentences. For instance, the stimulus “Peter wanted not to buy, but to build a house” was rephrased into the sentence “Peter did not want to buy a house, but [he] wanted to build a house” (37). (37) pet̆ ʼtʼaa ei tahtoo-nd oštaa Peter neg.3Sg want-Prtact buy.inF kot̆ ti-a a tahto-i tehä koi-n house-Part but want-iMPF.3Sg do.inF house-gen ‘Peter did not want to buy a house, but [he] wanted to build a house’. [B36_AL] However, non-finite forms are observed in a similar example in our corpus. It uses the 3Sg negative auxiliary as a negative particle in order to narrow the negation in soikkola Ingrian 205 scope of negation (38). Most probably, this kind of construction is a calque from Russian.7 (38) hää tahtoo ei oštaa a tehä 3Sg want.PrS.3Sg not buy.inF and do.inF koi-n house-gen ‘He wants not to buy but to build a house’. [903_EN] The combination of the supine form with the abessive suffix expresses the meaning ‘without doing something’ (see examples in 3.3). 2.5. Asymmetry of forms the only paradigmatic asymmetry8 between Ingrian affirmative and negative constructions is the lack of negative counterparts for non-finite forms. Constructional asymmetry is very high in Ingrian, as in other Finnic languages, since in negative constructions the expression of grammatical characteristics is divided between the negative auxiliary and lexical verb (see 2.1.3). As discussed in 2.2., a specific Ingrian type of constructional asymmetry is the use of the infinitive of the main verb in negative 2Pl imperative constructions. asymmetry is also found on the verb phrase level. First, there is no opposition between total and partial objects in negative phrases (see 4.3). second, in existential and possessive clauses (see 2.3), the object is marked with the nominative in affirmative constructions, but with the partitive in negative constructions. 3. Nonclausal negation 3.1. Negative replies Ingrian does not have a special adverb or interjection used as a negative reply. Usually, a whole verbal form is given. (39) taho-d tšaaju-a ? want.PrS-2Sg tea-Part ‘Would you like some tea?’ e-n taho want.cng ‘no’. (lit. “do not want”) [B36AL] neg-1Sg In Russian, the main way to express negation is to use the negative particle nʼe ‘not’, which can be combined with almost any member of the sentence. 8 see Miestamo (2005) for a detailed discussion on asymmetry types. 7 206 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus Negative replies without a lexical verb are common if the negative auxiliary is followed by a negative pronoun (40) or adverb (41, 42), see more about such forms in 3.2. In this case, the negative auxiliary agrees with the omitted predicate. (40) mi-dä tö̯ ö̯ lägä-iži-ttä what-Part 2Pl talk-iMPF-2Pl ‘What did you(Pl) talk (about)?’ e-mmä mit̆ tää what.Part.neg ‘About nothing’. [187_EA] neg-1Pl (41) kuž šiä ol-i-d ? where 2Sg be-iMPF-2Sg ‘Where have you been?’ kuš̆ šaa neg-1Sg where.neg ‘Nowhere’. [B36AL] e-n (42) kuin paljo šiä ša-i-d how many 2Sg get-iMPF-2Sg ‘how much money did you get?’ rah̆ haa ? money.Part e-n ühtää at.all ‘None at all’. [B36AL] neg-1Sg The 3Sg form of the negative auxiliary may sometimes function as a negative particle used as a reply. Usually, it precedes a full negative clause (43). Possibly such constructions appeared due to the Russian influence. (43) šiä nä-i-d 2Sg see-iMPF-2Sg ‘did you see John?’ van̆ ʼnʼaa ? John.Part ei tänäbää e-n no today neg-1Sg ‘No, I did not see him today’. [903EN] näh-t see-Prtact negation in soikkola Ingrian 207 3.2. Negative indefinites and quantifiers negative forms of Ingrian interrogative pronouns have not been analyzed in detail in previous publications. laanest (1978: 253) does not distinguish them as a separate class of pronouns, and gives only one example of a Soikkola negative pronoun among the interrogative pronouns: kellǟ ‘who.aDe.neg’. In fact, Ingrian has a developed system of negative polarity forms that are derived from different case forms of interrogative pronouns (migä ‘what’, ken ‘who’, millain ‘which’) or from pronominal adverbs (konž ‘when’, kuž ‘where’, kuhu ‘where to’, kušt ‘where from’). Some examples of the negative polarity forms are: mik̆ kää ‘what.neg’ from migä ‘what’, kenk̆ kää ‘who.neg’ from ken ‘who’, kuh̆ huu ~ kuhugaa ~ kuhuk̆ kaa ‘where.to.neg’ from kuhu ‘where to’, kuššaa ~ kuškaa ‘where.neg’ from kuž ‘where’, kuštaa ~ kuštkaa ‘where.from. neg’ from kušt ‘where from’, konš̆ šaa ~ konškaa ‘when.neg’ from konž ‘when’, kuingaa ‘no way’ from kuin ‘how’. These forms are lexicalized combinations “interrogative pronoun/adverb + the particle kaa/kää”, cf. with Finnish (hakulinen 1961: 153–154). as seen from examples, many negative forms have more than one variant (usually, the preference is speaker dependent). Table 5 lists the affirmative and negative polarity forms of the pronouns ‘who’ and ‘what’ found in our Ingrian corpus.9 hypothetically, more variants can exist. table 5. Positive and negative polarity forms of migä ‘what’ and ken ‘who’ Case and What Who marker Affirmative negative Affirmative negative ̆ nOM migä mik kää ken kenk̆ kää kenengää ~ gen minen minengää kenen kenenk̆ kää Part midä mit̆ tää kedä ket̆ tää mihegää ~ kehegää ~ ill mihe kehe mih̆ hee keh̆ hee miškää ~ keškää ~ ine miž kež miššää keššää mištkää ~ keštkää ~ ela mišt kešt mištää keštää all mille millegää kelle kellegää We have no sure examples of the translative, essive, excessive, or plural negative polarity forms, so they are not listed in the table. We did not manage to elicit the negative ablative from migä ‘what’, possibly because there are no realistic contexts for this form. 9 208 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus aDe mil milgää ~ milk̆ kää ~ millää aBl mild ? kel keld kelgää ~ kelk̆ kää ~ kellää keltkää ~ kelt̆ tää the negative polarity forms can only be used in negative constructions and are always accompanied by a verb (the negative auxiliary plus the main verb or just the auxiliary). (44) (45) (46) miä mit̆ tää e-n 1Sg what.Part.neg neg-1Sg ‘I do not see anything’. [B36AL] nää see.cng häne-le mik̆ kää ei 3Sg-all what.neg neg.3Sg ‘Nothing will help him’. [OM292] ke-ld hää ott-i who-aBl 3Sg get-iMPF.3Sg ‘From whom did he get the money?’ avida help.cng raha-d ? money-Pl.nOM kelt̆ tää neg.3Sg who.aBl.neg ‘From nobody’. [B36AL] ei (47) ke-št tö̯ ö̯ lägä-iži-ttä ? who-ela 2Pl talk-iMPF-2Pl ‘about whom were you talking?’ e-mmä keštkää neg-1Pl who.ela.neg ‘about nobody’. (230VF) (48) tämä on this be.PrS.3Sg ‘Whose child is that?’ ei kene-n who-gen kenengää who.gen.neg ‘Nobody’s’.[903EN] neg.3Sg lapš ? child negation in soikkola Ingrian (49) kuhu hää where.to 3Sg ‘Where did he go?’ 209 män-i ? go-iMPF.3Sg kuhuk̆ kaa neg.3Sg where.to.neg ‘Nowhere’. [B36AL] ei (50) konž šiä tämä-n when 2Sg this-gen ‘When will you make this?’ te̯ e̯ -d ? do.PrS-2Sg konš̆ šaa neg-1Sg when.neg ‘Never’. [B36AL] e-n 3.3. Abessive/caritive negation soikkola Ingrian has the abessive marker -da/-dä. In the contemporary language, this marker occurs only in the supine forms. (51) tämä peldo on künde-mä-dä this field be.PrS.3Sg plough-SuP-aBeSS ‘This field is not ploughed’. [B26_AL] (52) mö̯ ö̯ ol-i-mma šö̯ ö̯ -mä-dä 1Pl be-iMPF-1Pl eat-SuP-aBeSS ‘We were not fed’. [903EN] (53) ove-d on kraaška-ma-da door-Pl.nOM be.PrS.3Sg paint-SuP-aBeSS ‘the doors are not painted’. [B26_AL] These are elicited examples; there are no abessive forms in our text corpus. It is more common to express the same meaning with standard negation, as in (54, 55). (54) tämä peldo ei-oo this field neg-be.3Sg ‘This field is not ploughed’. [B26AL] künne-ttü plough-PrtPaSS 210 (55) Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus mi-dä tö̯ ö̯ te̯ e̯ -ttä tähä-š̆ šaa ku what-Part 2Pl do.PrS-2Pl until-terM when ei-oo mit̆ tää ode-ttu lehti-löj-ä neg-be.3Sg what.Part.neg take-PrtPaSS leaf-Pl-Part ‘What have you been doing until now, that the leaves are [still] not taken away?’ [Kabusta_AI] Laanest (1978: 223) lists many examples of nouns in the abessive form (rahada ‘without money’, naizeda ‘without wife’, luvada ‘without permission’, etc.), but remarks that in contemporary soikkola and lower luga dialects this form is rare, and usually the construction with the preposition ilma ‘without’ is used instead. He does not give any examples of the abessive in the supine forms. In our field materials, the abessive forms never occured spontaneously, but when asked, the speakers considered the abessive supine forms as understandable and grammatically correct. On the contrary, the abessive forms of nouns were not accepted by any speaker. a prepositional phrase with ilma ‘without’ and the partitive form of the noun is the only way to express the abessive meaning on the nominal in the contemporary language (56, 57). (56) ved e-d voi can.cng niin so ištu-a sit-inF Ptcl neg-2Sg tö̯ ö̯ -dä work-Part ‘Really, you cannot sit like this without work’. [Elo_AI] (57) ilma without niin el-i-mmä tähä-š̆ šaa a nüd so live-iMPF-1Pl here-terM and now elä-n jo kuuž vo̯ o̯ t-ta ilma live.PrS-1Sg already six year-Part without me̯ e̯ š-t husband-Part ‘[We] lived like that until recently, and now I live without my husband for six years already’. [Elo_AI] A limited set of adjectives contains a caritive suffix -doin/döin, e.g. onnedoin ‘unhappy’, häp̆ piimädöin ‘shameless’, viradoin ‘angry’, ho̯ o̯ limadoin ‘disobedient’. This suffix is no longer productive. negation in soikkola Ingrian 211 4. Other aspects of negation 4.1. The scope of negation Most often, the negative clauses in Ingrian are constructed so as to make the whole predication negative. However, the 3Sg form of the negative auxiliary ei can function as a negative particle that narrows the scope of negation (58). Probably, the use of ei as a particle reflects the Russian influence on the speakers. the particle often occurs in sentences with code-switching (59–61). (58) šiž ol-i što ve̯ e̯ l täššä ei et̆ tää not far then be-iMPF.3Sg that more there lehmä karjaa aje-ttii ede-mmä-ž cow herd.ill drive-iPS.iMPF forward-cOMP-ine ‘At that time it was [so] that they drove the cow to the herd there, not far away, further’. [Lehmä_EI] (59) hei-dä šao-t̆ tii še ei šan̆ no-a 3Pl-Part say-iPS.iMPF that not say-inF pit̆ tää šan̆ no-a ven̆ näähee-l have.to.PrS.3Sg say-inF Russian-aDe za izmenu rodini̮ ih zabrali [ruS] for the betrayal of Motherland they were taken ‘they were said… It cannot be said, it has to be said in Russian: “they were arrested for the betrayal of Motherland.”’. [Pistolet_MM] (60) pit̆ tää ilmiž-i-le tehhä štob have.to.PrS.3Sg person-Pl-all do.inF in.order.to ilmiže-le ol̆ l-iiž pare-mb a nʼe person-all be-cOnD.3Sg better-cMPr but [ruS] not a ei niin ku zakon ono so how [ruS] law be.PrS.3Sg but not ‘It is necessary to do it for people so that it is better for a person and not as the law is”’. [Selsovetiz_GI] 212 (61) Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus tait̆ taa avant̆ taa probably ice-hole.Part pit̆ tää lö̯ ö̯ vvä da have.to.PrS.3Sg hit.inF and enemmän more ‘Probably, it is necessary to cut [Püütämäz_talvel_OM] viittä-kümmenää fifty.Part esli i [ruS] if and ei not about fifty ice-holes, if not more’. In the texts corpus we also have an example where the 3Sg negative auxiliary is used not as a negative particle, but as a question particle ‘whether’ (62). Possibly, this sentence is a calque from Russian (compare with the Russian не дома ли он [neg home whether he] ‘… whether he is at home’). (62) pit̆ tää šaavva kattso-a ei-k have.to.PrS.3Sg get.inF look-inF neg.3Sg-Ptcl ̆ še tit toova on koi-ž that tit be.PrS.3Sg house-ine ‘It is necessary to check if Tit is in’. [Varastamaz_marjad_OM] 4.2. Negative polarity items In addition to the negative polarity forms of pronouns and adverbs discussed in 3.2, Ingrian has adverbs that only occur in the negative sentences, for example ühtää ‘at all’ (63) and ennää ‘anymore’ (64). (63) vot millišt=kaa vot še ol-i here which.Part=Ptcl here that be-iMPF.3Sg ihan tot-ta e-n pettele ühtää totally truth-Part neg-1Sg lie.cng at.all ‘So it was so, absolutely true, I am not lying at all’. [Varastamaz_marjad_OM] (64) la let ei män̆ nöö poiž i ennää go.PrS.3Sg away and anymore tüe tänne neg.3Sg come.cng here ‘Let him go away and does not come here again’. [376_AL] hää 3Sg negation in soikkola Ingrian 213 4.3. Case marking under negation Ingrian has a typical Finnic opposition between total and partial objects (a total object is marked with the genitive, nominative, or accusative,10 and a partial object is marked with the partitive). This opposition expresses a range of temporal, aspectual, referential and other characteristics. In negative sentences, this opposition is neutralised, and the object is always in the partitive (cf. also with examples of non-verbal clauses in 2.3). (65) (66) a. hää joi tä-dä vet-tä 3Sg drink.iMPF.3Sg this-Part water-Part ‘He drank (some of) this water’. [903_EN] b. hää joi tämä-n 3Sg drink.iMPF.3Sg this-gen ‘He drank (all of) this water’. [903_EN] c. hää ei jo̯ o̯ -nd tä-dä 3Sg neg-3Sg drink-Prtact this-Part vet-tä water-Part ‘he did not drink (any of) this water / (all of) this water’. [EN903] a. miä te̯ e̯ -n šuur-d 1Sg do.PrS-1Sg big-Part ‘I am building a big house’. [903_AL] kot̆ ti-a house-Part b. miä te̯ e̯ -n šuure-n 1Sg do.PrS-1Sg big-gen ‘I will build a big house’. [B36_AL] koi-n house-gen c. miä e-n te̯ e̯ šuur-d 1Sg neg-1Sg do.cng big-Part kot̆ ti-a house-Part ‘I am not building / will not build a big house’. [C47_AL] vee-n water-gen 10 accusative occurs only with plural forms of personal pronouns. e.g. hää ajoi meijed poiž ‘he drove us (acc) away’. 214 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus 4.4. Reinforcing negation negation is often reinforced with an emphatic particle -gaa/-gää/-kaa/-kää11 that forms a single phonetic word with the preceding form12. In our text corpus, this particle was never observed in the affirmative clauses. In most cases, it either occurs in a negative clause (67, 68) or in a dependent affirmative clause when the main clause is negative (69, 70). this clitic particle can follow various parts of speech, e.g. verbs (7, 13, 67, 69, 70), pronouns (7), numerals (68). (67) (68) (69) (70) ja metsää kenk̆ kää ei and forest.Part who.Part.neg neg.3Sg katso=gaa look.cng=Ptcl ‘And nobody looks after the forest’. [Kala_ja_metsä_EN] i mö̯ ö̯ külä-ž üht=kää and 1Pl village-ine one.Part=Ptcl kogo talvee-ž mö̯ ö̯ šve̯ e̯ š̆ šaa all winter-ine 1Pl fresh.Part e-mmä näh-need neg-1Pl see-Prtact.Pl ‘and we here in the village not once in the whole see the fresh fish’. [Kala_ja_metsä_EN] kert̆ taa time.Part kal̆ laa fish.Part winter we did not miä e-n muišša enebää kuin 1Sg neg-1Sg remember.cng anymore how i lää-dä=gää and speak-inF=Ptcl ‘I do not remember anymore how to tell’. [Püütämäz_talvel_OM] a meije-n viiš̆ šii miä e-n and 1Pl-gen manner.Pl.ill 1Sg neg-1Sg tiije kui hää kutsu-daa=gaa know.cng how 3Sg call-iPS.PrS=Ptcl ‘And in our language I do not know how it is called’. [Kala_ja_metsä_ EN] In glossed examples, we separate this particle with “=”. Most probably, it is the same particle that was lexicalized in negative polarity pronominal forms (see 3.2). 11 12 negation in soikkola Ingrian 215 4.5. Negation, complex clauses and coordination Noun and verb phrases are coordinated with the complex conjunction ei ... eigä ‘either... or’. In our materials, we also attested variants without the vowel harmony ei … ei-ga, and an apocopated variant ei … ei-g. (71) miä e-n taho piirakkaa 1Sg neg-1Sg want.cng pie.Part e-n-gä vadruškaa neg-1Sg-Ptcl curd.tart-Part ‘I do not want neither the pie nor the curd tart’. [B36_AL] (72) lapš-i-a ei-oo koi-ž ei-ga child-Pl-Part neg-be.3Sg house-ine neg.3Sg-Ptcl tarhaa-ž garden-ine ‘Children are neither at home nor in the garden’. [903_EN] (73) miä e-n šö̯ ö̯ pudro-a 1Sg neg-1Sg eat.cng porridge-Part en-g šö̯ ö̯ šuppi-a neg.3Sg-Ptcl eat.cng soup-Part ‘I do not eat either soup or porridge’. [B28_EI] the conjunction agrees with the subject of the clause in person and number (engä, et-kä, ei-gä, etc.). Often only the second part is left from the conjunction, while the first part is just the auxiliary that forms a predication. (74) hää ei jout̆ tuu-nd ei tö̯ ö̯ -hüü 3Sg neg.3Sg reach-Prtact neg.3Sg work-ill ei-gä kot̆ tii neg.3Sg-Ptcl house.ill ‘He managed to get neither at work nor home’. [B36_AL] (75) šiä e-d oštaa-nd leip̆ pää 2Sg neg-2Sg buy-Prtact bread.Part e-t-kä keittää-nd šuppi-a neg-2Sg-Ptcl boil-Prtact soup-Part ‘You neither bought some bread nor made a soup’. [B36_AL] If the nominals within a coordinated noun phrase refer to different persons, the first part of the conjunction agrees with the first nominal. The second part 216 Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus of the conjunction either repeats the first part (76), or agrees with the second nominal (77), or loses the agreement (78). the variation is free, but speakers tend to have preferences towards a particular variant. (76) e-n miä e-n miu-n 1Sg neg-1Sg 1Sg-gen lapše-d e-väd mää linnaa child-Pl.nOM neg-3Pl go.cng town.ill ‘Neither me nor my children will go to the town’. [B28_EI] neg-1Sg (77) e-mmä mö̯ ö̯ i e-tt-ka tö̯ ö̯ 1Pl and neg-2Pl-Ptcl 2Pl e-ttä te̯ e̯ tä-dä tö̯ ö̯ -dä neg-2Pl do.cng this-Part work-Part ‘Neither we nor you will do this work’. [903_EN] neg-1Pl (78) e-d e-mmä neg-2Sg šiä ei-gä miä 2Sg neg.3Sg-Ptcl 1Sg šuv̆ vaa var̆ raa noiže-maa like.cng early become-SuP.ill ‘Neither I nor you will get up early’. [B36_AL] neg-1Pl ül̆ lää up If the coordinated noun phrase takes the position of the object, there is no agreement with the subject (79). (79) hö̯ ö̯ evä-d otta-need ei ro̯ o̯ k̆ kaa 3Pl neg-3Pl take-Prtact.Pl neg.3Sg food.Part ei-gä vet-tä neg.3Sg-Ptcl water-Part ‘They took neither the food nor the water’. [B36_AL] It should be noted that constructions with coordinated noun phrases in the non-subject position are usually avoided. the speakers prefer to integrate the conjunction with the predication (see examples 71, 72), or to coordinate verb phrases instead of noun phrases (80). negation in soikkola Ingrian (80) 217 häne-n tüttöi ei šö̯ ö̯ 3Sg-gen daughter neg.3Sg eat.cng šuppi-a ei-g šö̯ ö̯ pudro-a soup-Part neg.3Sg-Ptcl eat.cng porridge-Part ‘His daughter eats neither soup nor porridge’. [B28_EI] In general, the constructions with ‘either... or’ are very rare in spontaneous speech. In our text corpus, we have only one such example: (81) mit̆ tä ei taho ei-ga what.Part.neg neg.3Sg want.cng neg.3Sg-Ptcl te̯ e̯ mit̆ tää do.cng what-Part.neg ‘She neither wants anything nor does anything’. [Tüü_lapsena_EN] 5. Conclusions negation in Ingrian preserved typical Finnic features, including the formation of negative forms with the negative auxiliary verb, and the loss of the total/ partial object opposition in negative clauses. In a language on the verge of extinction with all remaining speakers preferring Russian in everyday communication, one would not be surprised to observe the loss of some negative forms and a gradual lexicalization of the negative verb into a negative particle. however, Ingrian has preserved the negative correlates for all affirmative forms, and the use of the 3Sg negative auxiliary as a negative particle is only occasional. the loss of the abessive forms of nouns can be considered an areal feature. the same loss has taken place in the neighbouring Votic varieties and lower luga Ingrian dialect. The most specific feature of the Ingrian negation is the use of the infinitive as a connegative in plural imperative forms. another remarkable feature is the variation in negative polarity forms of pronouns and adverbs. Many of them have two variants, and the choice between the variants depends mostly on idiolect. Abbreviations 1 2 3 aBl aBeSS acc all aDe 1st person 2nd person 3rd person ablative abessive accusative allative adessive iPS ine inF nOM neg Part Pl PrS Impersonal Inessive Infinitive nominative negative Partitive Plural Present 218 cng cOMP cOnD ela Fut gen ill iMP iMPF Fedor Rozhanskiy – elena Markus Connegative Comparative Conditional elative Future Genitive Illative Imperative Imperfect Prtact PrtPaSS Ptcl ruS Sg SuP active participle (past tense) Passive participle (past tense) Particle Fragment of the Russian speech singular supine Acknowledgements this research was supported by the estonian Research Council grant IUt2-37. References auwera, Johan van der; lejeune, ludo (with Goussev, Valentin) 2013: the Prohibitive. In Matthew s. dryer & Martin haspelmath (eds.): The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. leipzig: Max Planck Institute for evolutionary anthropology. available online at http://wals.info/chapter/71. accessed on 2013-08-08. hakulinen, lauri 1961: The Structure and Development of the Finnish Language. Bloomington: Indiana University. [Indiana University publications. Uralic and Altaic series. Volume 3]. Köppen, Peter 1867: Erklärender Text zu der ethnographischen Karte des St. Petersburger Gouvernements. st. Petersburg: K. akademie der Wissenschaften. Kuznetsova, Natalia V. [Кузнецова, Наталья В.] 2009: Фонологические системы ижорских диалектов. Санкт-Петербург: диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата филологических наук. Laanest, Arvo H. [Лаанест, Арво X.] 1978: Историческая фонетика и морфология ижорского языка. Таллин: диссертация на соискание ученой степени доктора филологических наук. Majtinskaja, Klara E. [Майтинская Клара Е.] 1982: Служебные слова в финно-угорских языках. Москва: Наука. Miestamo, Matti 2005: Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective (empirical approaches to language typology 31). Berlin/new York: Mouton de Gruyter. Miestamo, Matti; tamm, anne; Wagner-nagy, Beáta 2015: Negation in Uralic Languages. amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Musajev, Vadim I. [Мусаев, Вадим И.] 2004: Политическая история Ингерманландии в конце XIX–XX веке. Санкт-Петербург: Нестор-История. Rozhanskiy, Fedor I.; Markus, Elena B. [Рожанский, Федор И.; Маркус Елена Б.] 2013: Ижора Сойкинского полуострова: фрагменты социолингвистического анализа. In N. N. Kazansky (ed.): Acta Linguistica negation in soikkola Ingrian 219 Petropolitana. Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies. Vol. IX, part 3. st. Petersburg: nauka. 261–298. Rozhanskiy, Fedor; Markus, elena 2014: lower luga Ingrian as a convergent language. In FINKA Symposium: On the Border of Language and Dialect. University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, 4–6 June, 2014. Joensuu, 36–37. Rozhanskiy, Fedor; Markus, elena 2015: negation in contemporary Votic. In Miestamo, Matti; tamm, anne; Wagner-nagy, Beáta (eds.): Negation in Uralic Languages. amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 487–515. Appendix List of speakers (the Ingrian name of a place is given in parentheses after the Russian name) Index Gen- Year of Place of birth der birth Place of recording aG aI al ea eI en GI lM MB MM OM VF f f f f f f f f f f f f 1936 1926 1933 1913 1929 1932 1936 1930 1928 1920 1931 1935 Valjanitsy (Voloitsa) Vistino (Vistina) Valjanitsy (Voloitsa) Valjanitsy (Voloitsa) smenkovo (Otsave) Pahomovka (Venakontsa) Vistino (Vistina) Gorki (Mättäsi) slobodka (säätinä) Vistino (Vistina) Vistino (Vistina) Vistino (Vistina) VV f 1937 Zd f 1936 Repino (Repola) Vistino (Vistina) Gamolovo (hamala) Repino (Repola) Vistino (Vistina) Pahomovka (Venakontsa) Vistino (Vistina) Repino (Repola) slobodka (säätinä) Vistino (Vistina) Vistino (Vistina) Mishino (Mäkkylä) Krasnaja Gorka (Yhimägi) Koshkino (Koskina) slobodka (säätinä) Koshkino (Koskina) Fedor Rozhanskiy, Research Fellow Elena Markus, senior Research Fellow University of tartu, department of Finno-Ugric studies, Jakobi 2, IV korrus, 51014, tartu, estonia e-Mail: fedor.rozhanskiy@ut.ee, elena.markus@ut.ee