Cover not available
Part of
Negation in Uralic Languages
Edited by Matti Miestamo, Anne Tamm and Beáta Wagner-Nagy
[Typological Studies in Language 108] 2015
► pp. 133–158

Negation in Selkup

| University of Hamburg
This chapter describes negation in Selkup. There are four negative markers used in different sentence types in Selkup. Negation of verbal predicates generally is based on a negative particle, but the Northern dialects use a negative existential verb in the past tense. The same negative marker is used in possessive, locational and existential sentences. Imperative (prohibitive) sentences feature a negative particle different from that used for standard negation. This article presents the inventory and distribution of negative markers in Selkup and gives a detailed description of negation. Significant differences between the main dialects will be indicated.
Published online: 24 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.108.05wag
References (28)
References
van der Auwera, Johan & Lejeune, Ludo (with Valentin Goussev). 2005. The prohibitive. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 290–293. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bajdak, Aleksandra V., Maksimova, N.P. & Fedotova, N.L. 2010. Seľkupskye teksty (Selkup texts). In Annotirovannye foľklornye teksty obsko-enisejskogo jazykovogo areala (Annotated folklore prose texts of Ob-Yenisei language area), Andrey Filchenko (ed.), 133–184. Tomsk: Veter.Google Scholar
Bajdak, Aleksandra & Maksimova, N.P. 2012. Seľkupskij tekst (Selkup text). In Sbornik annotyrovannyh foľklornyh I bytovyh tekstov obsko-enisejskogo jazykovogo areala (Annotated folk and daily prose texts in the languages of Ob-Yenissei linguistic area), 72–100. Tomsk: Tomsk state Pedagogical University.Google Scholar
Bekker, E.G., Alitkina, L.A., Bykonja, V.V. & Iľjašenko, I.A. 1995a. Morfologija seľkupskogo jazyka. Južnye dialekty. Časť I. (Morphology of the Selkup language. The Southern dialects. Part 1). Tomsk: Izdanie Tomskogo Universitete.Google Scholar
Bekker, E.G., Alitkina, L.A., Bykonja, V.V. & Iľjashenko, I.A. 1995b. Morfologija seľkupskogo jazyka. Južnye ďialekty, časť II (Morphology of the Selkup language. The Southern dialects. Part 2). Tomsk: Izdanie Tomskogo Universitete.Google Scholar
Bykonja, V.V. (ed.) 2005. Seľkupsko-russkij ďialektnyj slovar’ (Selkup-Russian dialectal dictionary). Tomsk: Tomskij gos. Ped. Universitet.Google Scholar
Castrén, Alexander. 1854. Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Čeremisina, M.I. & Martynova, E.I. 1991. Seľkupskyj glagol: Formy i ih sintaksičeskie funkcii (Selkup verbs: Form and its syntactic function). Novosibirsk: Novosibisrkij gosudarstvennyj universitet.Google Scholar
Csepregi, Márta (ed.). 1998. Finnugor Kalauz (Finno-ugric guide). Budapest: Panorama.Google Scholar
Erdélyi, István. 1969. Selkupisches Wörterverzeichnis. Tas-Dialekt. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helimski, Eugen. 1998. Selkup. In The Uralic Languages, Daniel Abondolo (ed.), 480–515. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 1977. Samojedischer Wortschatz. Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien [Castrenianumin Toimitteita 17]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Janurik, Támas. 1978. A szölkup nyelvjárások osztályozásához (On the classification of Selkups dialects). Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 80: 77–104.Google Scholar
Ermakova, N.D. 1998. Sintagmatičeskie vozmozhnosti seľkupskih otricateľnyh častic (Syntagmatic possibility of the Selkup negation particles). Linguistica Uralica 34: 367–371.Google Scholar
Ermakova, N.D. & Kuznecova, N.G. 1998. Suffiksaľnoe otricanie v seľkupskom jazyke [Suffixal negation in Selkup]. Linguistica Uralica 34: 134–139.Google Scholar
Katz, Hartmut. 1970. Zwei Etymologien. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 72: 147–150.Google Scholar
Kazakevič, Olga 2008. Seľkupskij jazyk (Selkup language). In Malye jazyki i tradicii: Suščestvovanie na grani. Vypusk 2 (Small languages and tradition: On the verge of existence. Issue 2). Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), 130–161. Moscow: Institut mirovoj kuľtury MGU.Google Scholar
. 2009. Otricanie v jazykah srednego Jeniseja (ketskom, seľkupskom, evenkijskom) (Negation in languages of Middle Yeniesei (in Ket, Selkup, Evenki)). In Logičeskij analiz jazyka. Assercija i negacija (Logical analysis of language. Assertion and negation), N.D. Arutjunova (eds), 467–479. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc & Honti, László. 2003. Verbal prefixation in the Uralic languages. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50: 137–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim-Maloney, Alexandra 2004. Shared Selkup-Ket terminology in ritual and spiritual culture. In Languages and Prehistory of Central Siberia [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 262], Edward J. Vajda (ed.), 169–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznecova, Ariadna, Helimskij, Evgenij & Gruškina, E.V. 1980. Očerki po seľkuskomu jazyku (Sketch grammar of Selkup). Moskva: Izdateľstvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Kuznecova, Ariadna, Kazakevič, Olga, Joffe, L. Ju. & Helimskij, Evgenij. 1993. Očerki po seľkuskomu jazyku. Tazovskij dialekt (Sketch Grammar of Selkup. Taz dialect). Moskva: Izdateľstvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Kuznecova, Nadežda. 1995. Grammatičeskie kategorii južnoseľkupskogo glagola (Grammatical categories of Southern Selkup verbs). Tomsk: Izdateľstvo Tomskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Nagy, Zoltán. 2007. Az őseink még hittek az ördögökben. Vallási változások a vaszjugani hantiknál (Our forefathers still believed in devils. Religious change in the Vasyugan Khanty). Budapest: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Szabó László. 1967. Selkup Text with Phonetic Introduction and Vocabulary. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Tereščenko, Nataľja M. 1973. Sintaksis samodijskih jazykov (Syntax of Samoyedic languages). Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tučkova, Nataľja & Helimskij, Evgenij. 2010. O materialah A. I. Kuz’minoj po seľkupskomu jazyku (On the Selkup material of A. I. Kuzmina). Hamburg: Institut für Finnougristik/Uralistik.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Budzisch, Josefina
2021.  [Studiauralo-altaica, 54], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Forker, Diana & Lenore A. Grenoble
2021. Some structural similarities in the outcomes of language contact with Russian. In Language Contact in the Territory of the Former Soviet Union [IMPACT: Studies in Language, Culture and Society, 50], DOI logo
Hölzl, Andreas
2018. Constructionalization areas. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Tamm, Anne, Reili Argus & Kadri Suurmäe
2018. Chapter 6. Uralic perspectives on experimental evidence for evidentials. In Evidence for Evidentiality [Human Cognitive Processing, 61], ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.