Negation in Saisiyat: Another Perspective

Abstract

In a recent paper, Mei-li Yeh compares the distribution and function of eight Saisiyat negators and attempts to resolve the following questions: [I] What is the morphosyntactic relationship that 'oka', 'okay, 'okik, 'amkay, and 'amkik bear to one another? [2] Why are certain negators followed by a (either 'i or 'ik) and others not? [3] Is it the negator or the ligature that determines the marking of the negated verb as dependent or independent? While the first of these questions is well handled, Yeh is unable to answer the last two questions. Based on my own fieldnotes, I suggest answers, showing that together with 'oka', 'izi', and 'i'ini', both dynamic and stative verbs occur in their [+dependent] form, and demonstrating that while 'i is a ligature, 'ik is not. I also account for the distributional differences between 'oka', '?izi', and 'i'ini', on the one hand, and kayni' on the other. 1. INTRODUCTION. In a recent paper, Yeh (2000b) [1] compares the distribution and function of eight Saisiyat negators ('oka', 'okay, 'okik, 'amkay, 'amkik, 'izi', 'in'ini, [2] and kayni') and attempts to resolve the following questions: what is the morphosyntactic relationship that 'oka', 'okay, 'okik, 'amkay, and 'amkik bear to one another? [3] Why are certain negators followed by a ligature--two different ligatures are identified, the first is 'i (Ia) and the second is 'ik (Ib)--and others not (Ic)? (I) Based on Yeh (2000b) 4 a. yako 'am 'oka' ila 'i shebet ka korkoring ISG.OM will NEG ASP LIG beat ACC child 'I will not beat the child any longer.' b. t[less than]in[greater than]aw'an 'aehae' ila tinal'omaeh, build.house[less than]PERF[greater than] one ASP year b. t[less than]in[greater than]aw'an 'oka' na 'ik sizaeh 5 build.house[less than]PERF[greater than] NEG still LIG finish 'It has been built for one year, but is (still) not finished.' c. yako kayni' [theta] s[less than]om[greater than]i'ael ka alaw ISG.NOM NEG [theta] eat[less than]AF[greater than] ACC fish 'I do not want to eat the fish.' What is the grammatical status of these ligatures? To what degree do they differ from ligatures occurring in complex sentences (cf. [ FOREIGN LANGUAGE CHARACTER NOT REPR [2a] and komosha' [6] in [2b1])? (2) a. 'oya' sh[less than]om[greater than]iwa: ka kapinnaw mother agree ACC lady (2) a. 'oya' [theta] sh[less than]om[greater than]a'ish ka mother [theta] sew[less than]AF[greater than] ACC (2) a. 'oya' kayba:en mother clothes 'Mother agreed that the lady sew the clothes.' (Yeh 1997) b. sia ra:am k[less than]om[greater than]osha' yako kama 3SG.NOM know COMP ISG.NOM REL b. sia rae'oe: ka pinobae:h 3SG.NOM drink ACC wine 'He knows that I drink wine.'(Chang 1997) What are the factors that determine the marking--as dependent (3a) or independent (3b)--of the negated verb? The negator or the ligature? (3) a. 'izi' si'ael/*s[less than]om[greater than]i'ael NEG eat/*cat[less than]AF[greater than] 'Don't eat (the) rice.' (Yeh 2000b) b. yako kayni' ISG.NOM NEG 'I do not want to sleep.' (Yeh 1991:91) (3) a. 'izi' ka pazay? NEG ACC rice 'Don't eat (the) rice.' (Yeh 2000b) b. yako m-ae'rem/*pae'rem ISG.NOM AF-sleep/*sleep 'I do not want to sleep.' (Yeh 1991:91) In my opinion, while the first of these questions is well handled, that is, the morphosyntactic relationship 'oka' and its counterparts bear to one another is correctly identified and accounted for, Yeh (2000b) is unable to answer the last two questions, because linguistic phenomena pertaining to verbal morphology (which are rather transparent in other Formosan languages) have been blurred in Saisiyat. …