Variation in negation in Seto

Lindström, Liina; Pilvik, Maarja-Liisa; Plado, Helen

doi:10.1075/sl.19063.lin

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As already noted, both preverbal and postverbal positions are possible in Lutsi, Kraasna,Seto,and Võro (e.g.,40). Still, in Seto and Kraasna, the postverbal clitic turns out to be the primary option (for Seto, see also Lindström et al 2021). For instance, ( 42) is of the few examples containing the preverbal ei in Kraasna.…”

Section: Standard Negationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the case of asymmetric negation, the form of the lexical verb may vary either appearing as a bare root or also containing an affix. One or more of the following categories are expressed in the negative marker: person, number, or tense (see, e.g., Miestamo et al 2015, Metslang et al 2015, Lindström et al 2021.…”

Section: Standard Negationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(41) Vro: ei annaq ~ anna eiq (Iva 2007 Kraasna, Lutsi, Seto, and Võro also show instances of double negation, as in (44a-b). As example (44b) reveals, double negation can also be attested with negative imperatives (according to Lindström et al 2021, this is also possible in Seto). The function of double negation in Võro and Seto has included intensifying negation and marking its scope.…”

Section: Standard Negationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The function of double negation in Võro and Seto has included intensifying negation and marking its scope. In present-day Seto, the use of double negation is rare and inconsistent (Lindström et al 2021).…”

Section: Standard Negationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The South Estonian language islands in the context of the Central Baltic area

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers a comparative analysis of several morphosyntactic and phonological features in the South Estonian language islands: Leivu, Lutsi, and Kraasna. The objective is to give an overview of the distribution of selected features, their (in)stability over time, and discuss their form and use in a broader areal context. To achieve this goal, comparative information was also included from the closest cognate varieties (Estonian and the South Estonian varieties, Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian) and the main contact varieties (Latgalian, Latvian, and Russian). The data analysed in this study originated from various sources: text collections, dictionaries, and language corpora. The results reveal a multitude of linguistic patterns and distribution patterns, which means that the studied varieties are similar to / different from one another in various ways and points to multifaceted contact situations and outcomes in this area. Kokkuvõte. Miina Norvik, Uldis Balodis, Valts Ernštreits, Gunta Kļava, Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu, Eva Saar: Lõunaeesti keelesaared Kesk-Balti mõjuväljas. Artikkel esitab lõunaeesti keelesaarte – Leivu, Lutsi ja Kraasna – mitme morfosüntaktilise ja fonoloogilise joone võrdleva analüüsi. Uurimuse eesmärgiks on anda ülevaade valitud joonte levikust ja püsivusest ajas ning arutleda nende vormide ja kasutuse üle laiemas areaalses kontekstis. Selleks võetakse arvesse lähimate sugulaskeelte (eesti ja lõunaeesti, Kuramaa ja Salatsi liivi) ja -murrete ning tähtsamate kontaktkeelte (latgali, läti, vene) esinemusi. Analüüsitakse erinevatest allikatest, mh tekstikogudest, sõna- raamatutest ja keelekorpustest pärit ainest. Uurimistulemused toovad esile mitmesuguseid vormiseoseid ja muutuste levikuviise, osutades uuritud keelte ja murrete omavaheliste kontaktide mitmelaadsusele ning sellest tingitud erinevatele keelesüsteemi arengutele.

show abstract

Section: Standard Negationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Standard Negationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Standard Negationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Standard Negationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The South Estonian language islands in the context of the Central Baltic area

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…g Uiboaed 2013;Ruutma et al 2016;Lindström & Uiboaed 2017;Taremaa 2017;Lindström, Pilvik & Plado 2018;Pook 2019;Hint et al 2021;Lindström, Pilvik & Plado 2021;Pook 2021…”

unclassified

The use of the indefinite pronoun keegi ‘someone’ in Estonian dialects

Pook

Lindström²

2022

Nord J Linguist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Estonian indefinite pronouns keegi ‘someone’ and miski ‘something’ are distinguished by being able to refer to animate or inanimate entities, respectively. However, in certain Estonian dialects, keegi is used to refer to inanimate entities as well. The aim of this paper is to describe the functions and use of keegi based on the data in the Corpus of Estonian Dialects. We used statistical analyses to determine which dialects typically use keegi to refer to inanimate entities and which variables (polarity, function, position in the clause, case marking) contribute most to this variation. The results show that there are significant differences between the dialects: keegi is mostly used to refer to inanimate entities in the northern dialects (most frequently in the Western, Mid, and Eastern dialects), but this phenomenon is rare or non-existent in the southern dialects. All of the variables studied contribute to this variation: keegi is most likely to refer to an inanimate being when it is in the partitive case, functions as an object, a partitive subject, or a negative polarity item, and is positioned at the end of a negative clause.

show abstract