Beyond Time - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley

espectively. (409c) shows that -na- does not occur with prehodiernal imperfective negated
forms.
(409) a. tàndìnâli
ta-ndi-na-l-i
neg-1sg-pst-eat-fv.neg
‘I didn’t speak’ (ZT2009Elic45)
b. tàndìnàkálì
ta-ndi-na-ka-l-i
neg-1sg-pst-prehod-eat-fv.neg
‘I didn’t eat’ (yesterday or before) (adapted from analogous example in ZT2009-
Elic26)
c. cf. tàkándìlyâ
ta-ka-ndi-li-a
neg-prehod.ipfv-1sg-eat-fv
‘I didn’t use to eat’ (adapted from analogous example in ZT2009Elic58)
d. *takandinali
*ta-ka-ndi-na-li
neg-prehod.ipfv-1sg-pst-eat-fv.neg
(intended): ‘I didn’t use to eat’
Negation of hodiernal completive and -na- forms is identical, as in (410). Both of these
forms indicate that something did not happen in the hodiernal past. A full semantic study of
negation in Totela, in the spirit of Contini-Morava (1989) for Swahili, is outside the scope of
this study, but it may be noted that because non-occurrence entails nuclear non-completion,
a past negative is sufficient for both of these meanings. 1
(410) tàndìnâlwì
tà-ndì-nâ-lu-ì
neg-1sg-pst-fight-fv.neg
‘I didn’t fight’ (ZT2009Elic45)
‘I wasn’t fighting’ (ZT2009Elic45)
1 Furthermore, I argue in chapter 3 that -a- indicates that perspective time is located after the nuclear
completion of the predicate, and the location of the coda relative to perspective time is recoverable only
via context. Since negation does not appear to be able to scope over only tense and aspect markers, it
makes sense that a negative past is incompatible with a marker of nuclear completion. Negation asserts
non-occurrence, while the -a- marker asserts nuclear completion.
306