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. 325–352

Negation in Mari

| University of Turku
The negation system of Mari (Eastern and Western literary languages) is mainly based on the use of the negative auxiliary, which takes personal endings. Its stem varies in tenses and moods. In some cases the suffixed verb ‘be’ is attached to the negative auxiliary, and this form displays functions of non-verbal negation. In Western Mari, 2nd past tense suffixal negation is used. The use of different negative markers is conditioned by the tense and mood of the predicate, predicate type, clause type and pragmatics of the clause. This article introduces an inventory of the negative markers used in the Eastern and Western literary languages. The sentence examples are mostly from Eastern Mari. Western Mari examples are included when they differ structurally from the former.
Published online: 24 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.108.12saa
References (20)
References
Alhoniemi, Alho. 1993. Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari). Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Bartens, Raija. 1981. Suomalais-ugrilaisen kantakielen muoto- ja lauserakenteesta (On the morphological and syntactical structure of Proto-Finno-Ugric). Virittäjä 85(2): 101–108.Google Scholar
. 1996. Die positive und negative Existentiale in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, Neue Folge 14: 58–97.Google Scholar
Erdődi, József. 1972. Apropos de la question de la pluralité non-marquée de l’objet et du sujet dans quelques langues ouraliennes. In Mélanges offerts a Aurélien Sauvageot pour son soixante-quinzième anniversaire, Jean Gergely, Jean-Luc Moreau & Jean Perrot (eds), 67–79. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 466–469. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ignat’ev, N.V. 1964. Komsomol üdyr. Povest’ (The Komsomol girl. Novel). Joškar-Ola: Marijskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Erkki. 1962. Beobachtungen über die Entwicklung des tscheremissischen Konjugationssystems. In Commentationes fenno-ugricae in honorem Paavo Ravila [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 125], 85–125. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.Google Scholar
Ivanov, I.G. 1981. Marij dialektologij (Mari dialectology). Joškar-Ola: Marij gosudarsvennyj universitet.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
Ravila, Paavo. 1941. Über die Verwendung der Numeruszeichen in den uralischen Sprachen. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen: 27, 1–136.Google Scholar
Saarinen, Sirkka. 1985. Die Dialekte des Tscheremissischen: Einteilung und Klassifizierungskriterien. In Dialectologia Uralica [Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, Band 20], Wolfgang Veenker (ed.), 195–199. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1987. Über Bedeutung und Funktion der modifizierenden Verbalsuffixe im Tscheremissischen. In Papers on derivation in Uralic. Szegeder und Turkuer Beiträge zur uralischen Derivation [Studia Uralo-altaica 28], 29–45. Szeged: Universitas szegediensis de Attila József nominata.Google Scholar
Savatkova, A.A. 2002. Gornoe narečie marijskogo jazyka (The Hill dialect of Mari language) [Bibliotheca ceremissica tomus V]. Savariae: Berzsényi Dániel főiskola.Google Scholar
SMJa 1990–2005 = Slovar’ marijskogo jazyka 1–10 (Dictionary of Mari language). Joškar-Ola: Marijskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
SMJaM 1961 = Sovremennyj marijskij jazyk. Morfologija (Modern Mari language. Morphology). Joškar-Ola: Marijskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
SS 1969 = Sämërëk sändälëk. Povest’, lǝdǝšwlä, šajǝštmašs, p’esa (The young world. Novel, poems, short story, play). Joškar-Ola: Marijskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
TS 1978 = Tscheremissische Sätze. Gesammelt von Yrjö Wichmann, herausgegeben von Alho Alhoniemi und Sirkka Saarinen [Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 163]. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.Google Scholar
Učaev, Z.V. 1985. Marij jǝlme (The Mari language). Joškar-Ola: Marijskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
UEW 1988 = Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I–III. Károly Rédei (ed). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Georgieva, Ekaterina, Martin Salzmann & Philipp Weisser
2021. Negative verb clusters in Mari and Udmurt and why they require postsyntactic top-down word-formation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39:2 ► pp. 457 ff. DOI logo
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
2018. The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, 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.