Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

The double negation implicit in the juxtaposition of the negative contrastive focus
particle, *nam, and the non-visible demonstrative, *-re, i.e., that which is no longer
visible, complicates matters. I understand the basic underlying form of the line to be the
following:
(39) **u 4…re igi bi 2.ib 2.du 8
They see/saw the storm that is/was no longer there.
Regardless of variation in tense or other factors, the English translation is problematic. If,
however, the negative contrastive focus particle, *nam, is introduced into (39), and the
new formulation translated in line with the non-BNBV inal examples in sections 4.2 and
4.3, the result might be something like this:
(40) *u 4…re igi nam bi 2.ib 2.du 8
It is not the storm (u 4) that is/was no longer visible that they saw, (but rather the
light of the land (u 4 kalam.ma) that is/was visible = Nanna)
The contrast, therefore, consists of two parts: the contrast between that which is not
visible and that which is visible and the contrast between the storm (u 4) and the light of
the land (u 4 kalam.ma = Nanna). If the parallel with the double negative construction in
Spanish holds, then each of the two possible interpretations of the double negative
construction in Spanish corresponds to half of the translation in (40): the interpretation in
305