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. 239–264

Negation in Komi

There are several types of negative markers in Komi. Negation of verbal predicates is based on negative auxiliaries in the present, future and 1st past tense of the indicative as well as in the imperative and optative moods. In the 2nd past tense and in the negation of non-verbal predicates a marker appears that can be considered a particle, although in the negation of existence and possession it has nominal features. Borrowed negative particles are used in constituent negation and as negative prefixes of indefinite pronouns and adverbs. Finally, two negative suffixes can be attached to both verbs and nouns. One of them forms negative converbs and is an abessive case suffix, whereas the other forms negative participles and is a derivational ending of adjectives.

Published online: 24 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.108.09ham
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
Baker, Robin
1985 The Development of the Komi Case System. A Dialectological Investigation [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 189]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartens, Raija
1996 Die positive und negative Existentiale in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 14 (Neue Folge): 58–97.Google Scholar
2000 Permiläisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys (The structure and development of the Permic languages) [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 238]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Bátori, István
1969 Wortzusammensetzung und Stammformverbindung im Syrjänischen mit Berücksichtigung des Wotjakischen [Ural-Altaische Bibliothek XVII]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bernini, Giuliano & Ramat, Paolo
1996 Negative Sentences in the Languages of Europe: A Typological Approach [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 16]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beznosikova, Ljucija M., Ajbabina, Evgenija A. & Kosnyreva, Rajsa I
2000 Komi-roć ki̮vćuke̮r – Komi-russkij slovar’ (Komi-Russian dictionary). Syktyvkar: Komi ńebe̮g leʒìanin.Google Scholar
Cypanov, Evgenij A
1996 Pseudonegatiiviset verbilausekkeet komin kielessä (Pseudo-negative verb phrases in the Komi language). In Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-ugristarum 10.-15.8.1995, Pars III, Heikki Leskinen, Sándor Maticsák & Tõnu Seilenthal (eds), 85–89. Jyväskylä: Moderatores.Google Scholar
2000 Kadaki̮v (The verb). In E̮nija komi ki̮v. Morfologija (The contemporary Komi language. Morphology), Galina V. Fedjunëva (ed.), 207–403. Syktyvkar: Komi ńebe̮g leʒìanin.Google Scholar
2007 Viʒìa olan! Samoučitel’ komi jazyka. (Hello! A textbook for self-study of the Komi language). Syktyvkar: Izdatel’stvo Anbur.Google Scholar
2009 See: Tsypanov, Jölgin.Google Scholar
Hamari, Arja
2001a Negaatio komin kielessä (Negation in the Komi language). Licentiate thesis, University of Turku.
2001b Komin kielteinen eksistentiaali abu (The Komi negative existential abu). Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 89: 33–56.Google Scholar
2011a The negation of stative relation clauses in the Mordvin, Mari and Permic languages. In Congressus XI Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Piliscsaba 2010, Pars VI, Sándor Csúcs, Nóra Falk, Viktória Tóth & Gábor Zaicz (eds), 250–257. Piliscsaba: Reguly Társaság.Google Scholar
2011b The abessive of the Permic languages. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 93: 37–84.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Terho
1992 Ugrilaisten kielten karitiivista (On the caritive of the Ugric languages). In Festschrift für Károly Rédei zum 60. Geburtstag, Pál Deréky, Timothy Riese, Marianne Sz. Bakró-Nagy & Péter Hajdú (eds), 221–237. Wien: Institut für Finno-Ugristik der Universität Wien.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha
1982 On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen XLIV: 23–42.Google Scholar
Kipruševa, Anastasija I
1955 Glagol (The verb). In Sovremennyj komi jazyk (The contemporary Komi language), Vasilij I. Lytkin (ed.), 131–158. Syktyvkar: Komi knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Korhonen, Mikko
1981 Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan (Introduction to the history of the Lappish language) [Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 370]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lytkin, Vasilij I
1955a Dialektologičeskaja xrestomatija po permskim jazykam 1 (A dialectal chrestomathy of the Permic languages 1). Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
1955b Ob’’ektnye padežy (The cases of the object). In Sovremennyj komi jazyk (The contemporary Komi language), Vasilij I. Lytkin (ed.), 142–143. Syktyvkar: Komi knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Lytkin, Vasilij I. & Guljaev, Evgenij S
1970 Kratkij etimologičeskij slovar ’komi jazyka (A short etymological dictionary of the Komi language). Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Manova, Nadežda D
1994 Učimsja govorit’ po-komi. Samoučitel’ komi jazyka (Let’s learn to speak Komi. A textbook for self-study of the Komi language). Syktyvkar: Komi knižnoe izdatel’stvo.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
Payne, Thomas E
1997 Describing Morphosyntax. A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rédei, Károly
1970 Kiellon ilmaisemisen alkuperästä unkarissa [On the origin of the negative expressions in Hungarian]. Virittäjä 74: 47–51.Google Scholar
1978 Syrjänische Chrestomathie. Mit Grammatik und Glossar [Studia Uralica, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Finno-Ugristik der Universität Wien, Band 1]. Wien: Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs.Google Scholar
Serebrennikov, Boris A
1963 Istoričeskaja morfologija permskix jazykov (The historical morphology of the Permic languages). Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Sovijärvi, Antti & Peltola, Reino
1977 Suomalais-ugrilainen tarkekirjoitus (Finno-Ugric transcription) [Helsingin yliopiston fonetiikan laitoksen julkaisuja = Publicationes Instituti Phonetici Universitatis Helsingiensis 9]. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.Google Scholar
Tsypanov, Jölgin
(Jevgeni) 2009 Permiläisten kielten nykytila (The present state of the Permic languages). In The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 258], Jussi Ylikoski (ed.), 207–224. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Vk
1997a = Vojvi̮v koʒìuv. The monthly magazine “North Star”, 1. Syktyvkar: Komi giži̮śjasle̮n koti̮r.Google Scholar
Vk
1997b = Vojvi̮v koʒìuv. The monthly magazine “North Star”, 2. Syktyvkar: Komi giži̮śjasle̮n koti̮r.Google Scholar
Vk
1997c = Vojvi̮v koʒìuv. The monthly magazine “North Star”, 3. Syktyvkar: Komi giži̮śjasle̮n koti̮r.Google Scholar
Vk
1997d = Vojvi̮v koʒìuv. The monthly magazine “North Star”, 4. Syktyvkar: Komi giži̮śjasle̮n koti̮r.Google Scholar
Vk
1997e = Vojvi̮v koʒìuv. The monthly magazine “North Star”, 5. Syktyvkar: Komi giži̮śjasle̮n koti̮r.Google Scholar
Wade, Terence
1992 A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi
2001 Havaintoja komin konverbeistä (Observations about the converbs of Komi). Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 89: 199–226.Google Scholar