<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Negation in Kambaata (Cushitic)

Yvonne Treis

► To cite this version:

Yvonne Treis. Negation in Kambaata (Cushitic). Matti Miestamo; Ljuba Veselinova. Negation in the languages of the world, Language Science Press, inPress. hal-02332852v3

HAL Id: hal-02332852

https://hal.science/hal-02332852v3

Submitted on 25 Aug 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Chapter xxx

# Negation in Kambaata (Cushitic)

Yvonne Treisª

ªCNRS-LLACAN

The Ethiopian language Kambaata (Cushitic) has five distinct negative inflectional suffixes that negate (i) declarative main verbs and non-verbal predicates, (ii) imperatives, (iii) jussives and benedictives, (iv) converbs and (v) relative verbs. Affirmative and negative verb forms do often not match each other in a one-to-one relation, but paradigmatic and constructional asymmetries can be observed. Depending on the verb type, aspectual and modal distinctions are neutralized under negation, the number of different subject indexes is reduced, the distinction between same subject and different subject forms is lost, and changes occur in the morphological makeup of verb forms. Finally, not all affirmative paradigms have dedicated negative counterparts. Most noteworthy from a typological point of view are Kambaata's negative relative verbs. Unlike affirmative relative verbs, which have exclusively verbal morphology, negative relative verbs are almost perfect verb-adjective hybrids with their combination of verbal and adjectival inflection. They index the person, gender, number and honorificity of their subject, and agree in case and gender with their head noun. Apart from inflectional means of negation, Kambaata has a productive caritive derivation -beel '-less' that generates adjectives from nouns.

# 1 Introduction

## 1.1 The language

The Kambaata language (ISO-code 639-3: ktb, Glottolog code: kamb1316) is spoken by the Kambaata, Xambaaro and Donga people, who are settled around the Hambarrichcho massif in southern Ethiopia, about 300km southwest of the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa. According to the last published census, Kambaata (endonym: Kambaatissáta) has more than 600,000 speakers (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Census Commission 2010: 91), the large majority of whom
live in the Kambaata-Xambaaro Zone of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples' Region. Kambaata belongs to the Highland East Cushitic branch of the Cushitic family (Afroasiatic phylum). There are possibly slight regional differences in prosody, grammar and lexicon (whose exact nature is still to be explored) across the Kambaata-speaking area, but these do not impact mutual intelligibility. The immediate neighbors of the Kambaata are speakers of other Highland East Cushitic languages (Hadiyya and Alaaba) and Ometo languages of the Omotic family (Wolaitta and Dawro). Amharic, the Ethiopian lingua franca, is the most important second language of Kambaata speakers. Kambaata is used as a medium of instruction in public primary schools and is taught as a subject up to grade 12. In 2018, Wachamo University started a Kambaata language BA program on its Duuraame campus. Despite having been taught in schools since 1997, Kambaata remains an overwhelmingly oral language, while Amharic is the written language in private and official contexts. Overall, Kambaata is still linguistically vital. Intergenerational transmission seems stable in rural areas yet threatened in towns. Amharic is dominant in certain communication contexts, such as social media, TV, religious services, political meetings, offices, courts, schools, and parts of the retail and gastronomic industries. Kambaata is more and more being restricted to communication within the family, with friends and neighbors.

The official Kambaata orthography is based on the Roman script (Treis 2008: 73–80; Alemu 2016) and follows the spelling conventions of the Oromo Qubee orthography. The official Kambaata orthography is adopted for all data transcription in this contribution with one important addition: Phonemic stress is marked by an acute accent. The following Kambaata graphemes are not in accordance with IPA conventions: <ph> /p’/, <x> /t’/, <q> /k’/, <j> /dʒ/, <c> /tʃ’/, <ch> /tʃ/, <sh> /ʃ/, <y> /j/ and <’> /?/. Geminate consonants and long vowels are marked by doubling the grapheme, e.g. <shsh> /ʃ:/ and <ee> /e:/.
Nasalization is marked by a macron, e.g. <ã> /ã/. The data for this paper comes from my recorded corpus of narratives and conversations (marked by the recorded speaker’s initials, the date, and the file number or name), my field notes of volunteered or elicited data as well as a corpus of locally published written Kambaata texts.

## 1.2 General typological profile

Kambaata is agglutinating-fusional and strictly suffixing. Its constituent order is consistently head-final; hence all modifiers precede the noun in the NP, and all dependent clauses precede independent main clauses. The last constituent in a sentence is usually a fully finite main verb or a copula. The following open
word classes are defined on morphosyntactic grounds: nouns, adjectives, verbs, ideophones, and interjections.

Kambaata is a nominative-accusative language. The nominative is the subject case; the accusative marks direct objects and certain adverbial constituents, and also serves as the citation form of nouns and adjectives. Nouns are marked for gender (masculine vs. feminine); the assignment of grammatical gender is mostly arbitrary, with the exception of nouns referring to human beings and higher animals, where it is sex-based. Nouns distinguish nine case forms (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative, instrumental, locative, oblique, predicative), all of which are marked by a segmental suffix and a specific stress pattern.

Adnominal adjectives, numerals and demonstratives agree with their head noun in case and gender. The case system of adnominals is reduced to three forms, namely nominative, accusative and oblique, with the oblique form marking agreement with non-nominative/non-accusative head nouns.

All verbs, with the exception of verbal nouns, carry simple or bipartite subject indexes, as exemplified by the structures of an affirmative declarative main verb in Figure 1 and a jussive main verb in Figure 2.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Affirmative declarative main verb with bipartite subject marking</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Affirmative jussive main verb with simple subject marking</figcaption></figure>

Verbs inflect for aspect (imperfective, perfective, perfect, progressive), mood (declarative, imperative, jussive, benedictive, apprehensive), polarity (affirmative, negative) and dependency status (main verbs, relative verbs, converbs, possessive verbs); the morphemes realizing these grammatical categories are placed in the slot after the first subject index. Inflectional morphemes tend to fuse into inseparable portmanteau morphemes and are therefore often unsegmented in the examples. Direct and indirect objects can be expressed by suffixed pronouns at the right edge of the inflected verb. The use of these pronominal object suffixes
is partly pragmatically determined and depends on the referential prominence
of the object. If a declarative verb is marked for past tense, the free morpheme
*ikke* is the last element of the verbal complex (Figure 1). Derivational morphemes
/passive, causative and middle morphemes, or combinations of these) are found
between root and inflection. The inflectional potential of dependent clause verbs
is less rich than that of main verb forms: certain person/gender and aspectual
distinctions are neutralized, they cannot be marked for mood, and only some of
them allow for object suffixes.

Ideophones and interjections are morphologically invariant. Interjections con-
stitute utterances of their own. Ideophones are integrated into the clause through
light verbs, y- ‘say’ or ih- ‘be(come)’ in intransitive clauses and a’- ~ ass- ‘do’ in
transitive clauses.

1.3 Earlier research on negation

Borelli's linguistic data appendix (1890: 463–482) is the earliest published source
on the Kambaata language. Though the section on negative verbs remains empty
in his questionnaire, there are five negative verb forms in his list of common
phrases (*phrases usuelles*), e.g. the negated imperfective *ossaamba* [ossa'áamba'a]
'I don't sleep', the negated non-imperfective *amé timba* [ameetimbá'a] 'I did
not go, have not gone, am not going', and the negated imperative *agoti* [ág-
gooti] 'don't drink'.<fnref n="1" /> *Leslau* (1952) gives the first coherent presentation of nega-
tive paradigms. Some relevant examples in *Korhonen et al.* (1986: 90–108) demon-
strate slight morphological differences in the non-imperfective negation of Kam-
baata (proper) and Xambaaro as well as the closely related language Alaaba. As
far as more recent publications are concerned, *Treis* (2012a) is a detailed discus-
sion of the negation of relative verbs, *Treis* (2012c: 86–90) deals with negative
converbs, and *Treis* (2012b) analyzes clausal negation in Kambaata from a com-
parative Highland East Cushitic perspective.

2 Clausal negation

As in many languages in the world, the affirmative and negative verb forms
and paradigms do not neatly match each other in a one-to-one relation. Rather,
paradigmatic and constructional asymmetries (Miestamo 2013) can be observed:
Not all affirmative paradigms have dedicated negative counterparts, aspectual
and modal distinctions may be neutralized under negation, and negation may

<footnote n="1">¹English translation mine.</footnote>
trigger changes in the morphological makeup of verb forms. Kambaata has five inflectional negation suffixes (Table 1), which will be treated in the following subsections (§2.1–§2.4). Negative morphemes are always located after the subject indexes and aspectual morphology, and before tense marking; their position relative to mood and object marking depends on the type of verb they combine with. Information on the order of morphemes will be given in the respective sections below.

<table><caption>Table 1: Inflectional negation morphemes</caption><tr><td>-ba('a)</td><td>NEG1</td><td>Declarative main verbs, existential verb yoo-, non-verbal predicates</td></tr><tr><td>'-oot</td><td>NEG2</td><td>Imperatives</td></tr><tr><td>'-ka</td><td>NEG3</td><td>Jussives</td></tr><tr><td>-u'nnáachch</td><td>NEG4</td><td>Converbs</td></tr><tr><td>-umb</td><td>NEG5</td><td>Relative verbs</td></tr></table>

## 2.1 Standard negation

Standard negation is marked with the suffix -ba('a) (NEG1). Two declarative negative constructions need to be kept apart in the following presentation: negative imperfective and negative non-imperfective. As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, affirmative declarative main verbs distinguish four aspectual categories: imperfective, perfective, perfect and progressive, all of which are marked by an aspect morpheme (printed in bold in the tables) wedged between the bipartite subject index.<fnref n="2" /> Under negation, the aspectual distinctions are reduced to two: imperfective (1) vs. non-imperfective (2).

(1) Recorded conversation (EK2016-02-23_003)

Af-óon áff-ee waas-á it-áno-ba'a,
mouth-M.LOC seize-3M.PRF.REL enset.food-M.ACC eat-3M.IPFV-NEG1
tú=y-í agúrr=ke'éechch waal-áno
spit.IDEO=say-[3M.]PFV.CVB³ leave.[3M.]PFV.CVB=SEQ come-3M.IPFV

(Context: Somebody hears about the death of a loved one.) 'He does not

<footnote n="2">²Illustrations of the use of affirmative declarative main verbs are found in the following examples: The last verb of (1) is an imperfective main verb, the reporting clause of (5) contains a perfective main verb, the last verb of (27) is a perfect main verb, and the last verb of (21) is marked for the progressive.</footnote>
swallow (lit. eat) the food that he has in his mouth, he spits it out (and) then comes (to the house of the deceased).’

(2) Recorded conversation (TD2016-02-11_001)

Hikkanneení-i teesuuhá-a bajig-g-im-bá'a
P_DEM2.M.ICP-ADD again-ADD be(come).happy-3F-NIPFV-NEG1
'Even with this, she was still not happy.'

In the imperfective aspect, the affirmative and negative paradigms are largely symmetrical (Table 2); they only differ in the presence of the standard negator.<fnref n="4" /> In contrast, we observe the following paradigmatic and constructional asymmetries in negative non-imperfective verbs (Table 3): (i) the second subject slot of the affirmative counterpart is dropped under negation, which leads to a reduction of the number of distinct subject indexes from seven to five, with 1SG=3M and 2SG=3F/PL; (ii) a dedicated aspect morpheme, the non-imperfective suffix -im,<fnref n="5" /> is used in the negative but not in any affirmative verb paradigm; (iii) the palatalization and gemination of stem-final consonants in certain 1SG and 3M affirmative verb forms is absent in the domain of negation; and (iv) the stress pattern of the negative non-imperfective paradigm is unlike the patterns of its affirmative counterpart.

<footnote n="3">³Subject indexes that are realized as Ø are glossed in [square brackets] in the examples.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Ignoring certain morphophonological changes triggered by the standard negator.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵In the Xambaaro-variant of Kambaata, the corresponding aspect marker is -um (Korhonen et al. 1986: 101).</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2: Negation of the imperfective</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Affirmative<br>Imperfective<sup>a</sup></th><th>Negative<br>Imperfective<sup>b</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1SG</td><td>-Ø-áa-m(m)<sup>c</sup>-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-áa-m-(OBJ)- ba'a</td></tr><tr><td>2SG</td><td>-t-áa-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-t-áa-nti-(OBJ)- ba'a</td></tr><tr><td>3M</td><td>-Ø-á-no-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-á-no-(OBJ)- ba'a</td></tr><tr><td>3F/PL</td><td>-t-áa-('u)--(OBJ)</td><td>-t-áa-(OBJ)- ba'a</td></tr><tr><td>3HON</td><td>-éen-Ø-no-(OBJ)</td><td>-éen-Ø-no-(OBJ)- ba'a</td></tr><tr><td>1PL</td><td>-n-áa-m(m)-(OBJ)</td><td>-n-áa-m-(OBJ)- ba'a</td></tr><tr><td>2PL/HON</td><td>-teen-á-nta-(OBJ)</td><td>-teen-á-nta-(OBJ)- ba'a</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Morpheme order: subject marker 1, aspect (in bold), subject marker 2 and (optional) object.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Morpheme order: subject marker 1, aspect (in bold), subject marker 2, (optional) object and negator.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup>Elements in round brackets are added or left out depending on what follows.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 3: Negation of non-imperfective aspects</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Affirmative<sup>a</sup><br>Perfective</th><th>Perfect</th><th>Progressive</th><th>Negative<sup>b</sup><br>Non-imperfective</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">1SG<sup>c</sup></td><td>[-C<sub>PAL/GEM:</sub>]</td><td>-Ø-óo-m(m)-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-ee-m(m)-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-áyyoo-m(m)-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-im- bá('a)-(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td>[-CC:]</td><td>-Ø-ée-m(m)-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-ée-m(m)-(OBJ)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2SG</td><td></td><td>-t-óo-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-t-ee-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-t-áyyoo-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-t-im- bá('a)-(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">3M</td><td>[-C<sub>PAL/GEM:</sub>]</td><td>-Ø-óo-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-ee-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-áyyoo-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-im- bá('a)-(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td>[-CC:]</td><td>-Ø-ée-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-ée-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3F/PL</td><td></td><td>-t-óo-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-t-ee-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-t-áyyoo-nt(i)-(OBJ)</td><td>-t-im- bá('a)-(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td>3HON</td><td></td><td>-éem-Ø-ma-(OBJ)</td><td>-éem-Ø-maa('u)-(OBJ)</td><td>-een-áyyoo-mma-(OBJ)</td><td>-een-im- bá('a)-(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td>1PL</td><td></td><td>-n-óo-m(m)-(OBJ)</td><td>-n-ee-m(m)-(OBJ)</td><td>-n-áyyoo-m(m)-(OBJ)</td><td>-n-im- bá('a)-(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td>2PL/HON</td><td></td><td>-téen-Ø-nta-(OBJ)</td><td>-téen-Ø-ntaa('u)-(OBJ)</td><td>-teen-áyyoo-nta-(OBJ)</td><td>-teen-im- bá('a)-(OBJ)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Morpheme order: subject marker 1, aspect (in bold), subject marker 2 and (optional) object.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Morpheme order: subject marker 1, aspect (in bold), negator and (optional) object.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup>In the perfective and perfect paradigms (but not in the progressive and negative paradigm), the realization of the 1SG and 3M forms depends on whether the verb stem ends in a single consonant (C) or cluster (CC). The 1SG and 3M perfective and perfect forms of verb stems ending in a consonant cluster (CC) seem identical, but they can be shown to follow different stress rules.</footnote>
If one compares the two declarative negative paradigms in Table 2 and Table 3 with each other, differences in the relative position of the object morpheme (OBJ) and the negator become apparent: The negator follows the object suffix in the imperfective (3) but precedes it in the non-imperfective (4).

(3) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 19)
(...) isso'óot kaa'll-itáa xa'mm-úta hór-a-n
3PL.NOM help-3F.IPFV.REL question-F.ACC all-F.OBL-EMP
xa'mm-itáa-'nne-ba'a
ask-3F.IPFV-2PL.OBJ-NEG1
'(...) they never ask you any useful questions.'<fnref n="6" />

(4) Recorded conversation (TD2016-02-11_001)
(...) teesuuhá-a hikkuuní-i duus-im-bá-se
again-ADD P_DEM2.M.NOM-ADD satisfy-[3M.]NIPFV-NEG1-3F.OBJ
'(But) this still did not satisfy her either.'

## 2.2 Negation in non-declaratives

Main verbs in non-declarative sentences are marked for imperative, jussive/benедictive or apprehensive mood. Imperatives and jussives/benedictives have dedicated negation strategies. The apprehensive, a paradigm of main verb forms expressing warnings and threats (Treis forthcoming), has no corresponding negative paradigm.

### 2.2.1 Negation of imperatives

<table><caption>Table 4: Affirmative and negative imperative endings</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Affirmative imperative<br>V-IMP-(OBJ)</th><th>Negative imperative<br>V-SBJ1-NEG2-IMP-(OBJ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2SG</td><td>'-i-(OBJ)</td><td>'-t-<u>oot</u>-i-(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">2PL/HON</td><td>[-C<sub>PAL/GEM:</sub>] -é-(OBJ)</td><td>-téen-<u>oochch</u>-e-(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td>[-CC:] -iyyé-(OBJ)</td><td>~ -téen-<u>oochch</u>-iyye-(OBJ)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="6">⁶Examples from Saint-Exupéry (2018) are translated literally from the Kambaata version.</footnote>
Affirmative imperatives are the simplest verb forms in Kambaata, as they lack the expected first subject index slot. Under negation (Table 4), however, the subject indexes 2SG-t and 2PL/HON-teen do occur.<fnref n="7" /> After the subject slot follows the imperative negator ‘-oot (NEG2) – which is realized palatalized and geminate (‘-oochch) in the plural –, the respective singular (5) or plural (6) imperative morpheme, and, if present, an object suffix.<fnref n="8" />

(5) Proverb (Alamu & Alamaayyo 2017: 33)<fnref n="9" />
“Bux-ichch-í min-í aag-ís-s-oot-e-’e”
poor-SGV-M.GEN house-M.ACC enter-CAUS1-2SG-NEG2-2SG.IMP-1SG.OBJ
y-ée’u buur-í hoof-íchch-u
say-3M.PFV butter-M.GEN wrapping material-SGV-M.NOM
“Don’t make me enter a poor man’s house!” said the butter wrapping.”

(6) (Volunteered 2016)
Míkk-míll=y-itéen-oochch-e
move-move.IDEO=say-2PL-NEG2-2PL.IMP
(Police to robbers:) ‘Don’t you (PL) move!’

For information on the apprehensive, whose second person form is in many contexts considered functionally equivalent to the negative imperative, see §4.6.1.

Kambaata has a handful of indexical imperative-only verbs (Table 5), which can neither be negated nor be inflected in a non-imperative mood. The entirely invariant directive interjections, of which Kambaata has several dozen (Table 6), cannot be negated either.

### 2.2.2 Negation of jussives and benedictives

The jussive is used for first and third person directives and expresses what should or may be done (Table 7). The first person singular jussive is predominantly used in questions, e.g. *áag-u* ‘May I come in?’. Whereas the imperative (§2.2.1) can be used to bless and curse second persons, e.g. *lé’-oot-i át* (*grow-* [2SG.]* )<fnref n="10" />*NEG2-2SG.IMP 2SG.NOM*) ‘Don’t (you) grow!’, blessings and curses of first and third persons are expressed by a dedicated verb form, the benedictive (7).

<footnote n="7">⁷As in other verb forms, the subject indexes of the first slot undergo regular morphophonological changes (Treis 2008: 60–72).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸In the Xambaaro-variant of Kambaata, the negative 2PL imperfective form is -tóon-oochch-e (Korhonen et al. 1986: 99).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹I have segmented, glossed and translated examples from published sources and added stress marks.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰The 2SG subject index -t is predictably omitted after a glottal stop.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 5: Imperative-only verbs</caption><thead><tr><th>2SG</th><th>2PL/HON</th><th>Translation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ám-i</td><td>amm-é</td><td>'Come (to me for an instant)!'</td></tr><tr><td>ī</td><td>i-yyé</td><td>'Take (what I have in my hands)!'</td></tr><tr><td>mée</td><td>mee-yyé</td><td>'Give (me what you have in your hands)!'</td></tr><tr><td>ashshám-i</td><td>ashshamm-é</td><td>'Hang in there!' (Greeting to people working)</td></tr><tr><td>kárag-i</td><td>káragg-e</td><td>'Listen up!'</td></tr><tr><td>híkkarag-i</td><td>híkkaragg-e</td><td>'Listen up!'</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 6: Some examples of directive interjections</caption><thead><tr><th>Interjection</th><th>Translation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ná”a</td><td>(to children:) ‘Eat!’</td></tr><tr><td>gá”a</td><td>(to children:) ‘Drink!’</td></tr><tr><td>sá</td><td>‘Shush!’</td></tr><tr><td>hág</td><td>(to donkeys:) ‘Keep going, go away!’</td></tr><tr><td>kút</td><td>(to chicken:) ‘Go away!’</td></tr><tr><td>háa</td><td>(to cattle): ‘Stay calm!’</td></tr><tr><td>hirká</td><td>(to cattle:) ‘Go into the pen!’</td></tr><tr><td>sú</td><td>(to dogs:) ‘Catch!’</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 7: Affirmative and negative jussive/benedictive endings</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Affirmative<br>Jussive</th><th>Affirmative<br>Benedictive<sup>a</sup></th><th>Negative<br>Jussive/Benedictive</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1SG</td><td>-Ø-ó ~ -Ø-u-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-ó</td><td>-Ø-ún- ka -(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td>3M</td><td>’-Ø-un-(OBJ)</td><td>’-Ø-u-(OBJ)</td><td>-Ø-ún- ka -(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td>3F/PL</td><td>’-t-un-(OBJ)</td><td>’-t-u-(OBJ)</td><td>-t-ún- ka -(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td>3HON</td><td>-éen-un-(OBJ)</td><td>-éen-u</td><td>-een-ún- ka -(OBJ)</td></tr><tr><td>1PL</td><td>-n-ó ~ -’-n-u ~ -’-n-un-(OBJ)</td><td>(n.a.)</td><td>-n-ún- ka -(OBJ)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Only two benedictive forms with object pronouns are attested in my database.</footnote>
(7) Blessing (overheard)

Magán-u áass-u

God-M.NOM give-[3M.]BDV

‘May God give (to you in return)!’ (i.e. Thank you.)

Under negation (Table 7), the distinction between jussive and benedictive is neutralized. The morpheme ‘-ka (NEG3) is the negator of both verb types; it follows the subject index and mood morpheme -un and precedes the object suffix (8).

(8) Blessing (Alamu & Alamaayyo 2017: 101)

Lankaann-í

híil-u,

land-í

kotím-u,

paternal.uncle-M.GEN bad-M.NOM leather.dress-M.GEN short-M.NOM

Laadd-í gíd-u

gambá=y-ún-ka-he!

PN-M.GEN cold-M.NOM encounter.IDEO=say-[3M.]JUS-NEG3-2SG.OBJ

‘May a bad uncle, a skimpy leather dress, (and) the cold of Laadda (= windy place) not catch up with you!’

As Table 7 shows, the negative jussive/benedictive is almost entirely based on the affirmative jussive (with the exception of the 1SG form). However, the addition of the jussive negator triggers a shift of stress from the stem to the mood morpheme.

### 2.2.3 Negation of questions

Negated polar questions are built on negative declarative main clauses. They are marked by the interrogative suffix -ndo; see the negated non-verbal and verbal predicates in (9) and (10), respectively. The speaker suspects the answer to their question to be affirmative and asks the addressee to confirm this expectation. Negative questions are also seen in (34) and (35).

(9) Recorded conversation (EK2016-02-12_003)

Hikkúun qaláall-a-a

xáh-a-ba-ndo?

P_DEM1.M.NOM easy[Amh.]-M.PRED-M.COP2 issue-M.PRED-NEG1-Q

‘Isn’t this an easy problem?’

(10) Recorded conversation (EK2016-02-23_001)

Cii’-áta sharr-itaantí=g-a

ik-k-im-bá-ndo?

birds-F.ACC chase-2SG.IPFV.REL=SIM-M.OBL be(come)-2SG-NIPFV-NEG1-Q

‘Haven’t you reached the bird-chasing stage (yet) (lit. haven’t you become like you chase birds)?’
For information on the use of negative questions for strongly assertive statements, see §4.6.3.

## 2.3 Negation in stative predications

The standard negator -ba('a) (NEG1) (§2.1) is used with all types of non-verbal predicates, irrespective of whether the predicate expresses equation (11), proper inclusion (12),<fnref n="11" /> attribution (13), location (14) or possession (15), and irrespective of the type of copula used. The following examples illustrate the use of the non-verbal copulas -ha(a)/-ta(a) (M/F.COP2) and -Vt (COP3); for information on their intricate distribution, see Treis 2008: 397–436.

(11) (Kambaata and Hadiyya Translation Project Hosaina 2005: 44)

Isú agud-áyyoo['u] bagáan (.) íso-ob-ba'a
3M.ACC resemble-3M.PROG CNTR 3M.NOM-COP3-NEG1

‘He resembles him, but it’s not him.’ (John 9: 9; lit. translation from the Kambaata version)

(12) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 21)

Od-éet asúss-a-ta-ba'a
tree.sp-F.NOM seedling-F.PRED-F.COP2-NEG1

(Speaker correcting interlocutor’s word choice:) ‘Sycamore fig trees are not (/do not qualify as) “seedlings”’.

(13) (Kambaata Education Bureau 1989 E.C. 7.102)

“Húj-it hór-a<n>t baréed-a-ta” y-aanó-na
work-F.NOM all-F.NOM<EMP> good-F.PRED-F.COP2 say-3M.IPFV.REL-CRD

“Hór-a<n>t húj-it baréed-a-ta-ba'a” y-aanó
all-F.NOM<EMP> work-F.NOM good-F.PRED-F.COP2-NEG1 say-3M.IPFV.REL

boq-ó xaw-í al-éen (...) lámuanne

head-F.GEN topic-M.GEN top-M.LOC in.two.groups

beeh-an-téen oodamm-iyyé

divide-PASS-2PL.PFV.CVB discuss-2PL.IMP

‘Split into two groups and discuss the hypotheses “All (kinds of) work are respectable (lit. good)” and “Not all (kinds of) work are respectable (lit. all work is not good)”!’

<footnote n="11">¹¹See also (57).</footnote>
(14) (Kambaata Education Bureau 1989 E.C. 4.49)

(...) kook-í láal-ut re'-aa'í-ihu
peach-M.GEN fruit-F.NOM be(come).edible-3F.IPFV.REL-NMZ1.M.NOM
haqq-í al-éene-et bagáan (.) giir-áane-eb-ba'a
tree-M.GEN top-M.LOC-COP3 CNTR fire-F.LOC-COP3-NEG1
'It is on the tree and not on the fire that a peach becomes edible.'<fnref n="12" />

(15) (Kambaata and Hadiyya Translation Project Hosaina 2005: 69)

Ti maccoo-teenantá láag-a<n>t ées
A_DEM1.F.NOM hear-2PL.IPFV.REL word-F.NOM<EMP> 1SG.ACC
sokk-ó Ann-í-'i-ta bagáan (.)
send-3M.PFV.REL father-M.GEN-1SG.POSS-F.COP2 CNTR
íi-taa-ba'a
1SG.GEN-F.COP2-NEG1
'The word which you hear is the Father's who sent me but not mine.'
(John 14: 24; lit. translation from the Kambaata version)

The negator is found at the right edge of the non-verbal predicate. It is pre-
ceded by the copula (12)-(15) or, if the copula is realized as zero or has shifted to
a modifier,<fnref n="13" /> it directly follows the predicative or other case suffix (16).

(16) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 12)

(...) hittíin íi-taa lúus-a-ba'a
P_DEM2.F.NOM 1SG.GEN-F.COP2 fault-F.PRED-NEG1
'This is not my fault.'

The standard negator is also used for the negation of the defective verb yoo-(COP1) ‘exist, be (located), be (for a possessor)’, which is used in existential (17), locative-presentative (18) and possessive (19) predication. In possessive constructions, the negator follows the object suffix referring to the possessor (19).

(17) Recorded conversation (TD2016-02-11_001)

<footnote n="12">¹²The Kambaata verb *re*- is polysemous and can mean ‘ripen’ and ‘be cooked, become done’.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³As explained in see Treis (2008: 414–420), the copula -ha(a)/-ta(a) (M/F.COP2) is mobile and its position depends on the internal syntax of the nominal predicate. If the predicate is modified by an adjective, genitive noun or relative clause, it shifts to the modifier, see (16). If the modifier of the nominal predicate is a numeral or a demonstrative, the copula is zero. Kambaata’s other identificational-attributional copula, -Vt (COP3), is not mobile.</footnote>
Arráb-i-se
ful-táa=b-eechch-u
tongue-F.NOM-3F.POSS come.out-3F.IPFV.REL=PLC-SGV-M.NOM
yóo-ba'a
COP1.3-NEG1

'There was no place for her tongue to come out (lit. A place at which her tongue comes out does not exist.).'

(18) Proverb (Alamu & Alamaayyo 2017: 71)
Hall-eechch-óon lám-it gár-it yóo-ba'a
shade-SGV-F.LOC two-F.NOM truth-F.NOM COP1.3-NEG1

'There are no two truths in the shade (i.e. the elders under a shady tree always work out the (one) truth and pass a judgment).'

(19) Recorded conversation (EK2016-02-23_002)
[S1:] Qenéf-u me'-íqqi-a bár-i? –
birth.ceremony-M.NOM how.many-ORD-M.COP2 day-M.PRED
[S2:] Bár-u yóo-si-ba'a, isíi
day-M.NOM COP1.3-3M.OBJ-NEG1 3M.DAT

[S1:] 'The *qenefa*-ceremony is (on) which (lit. the how-many-eth) day?' –

[S2:] 'It doesn't have a (fixed) day (lit. A day is not for him (= *qenefa* m.)).'

All negative examples presented in this section differ from their affirmative counterparts only in the presence of the negator, which is most evident in (13). So, at first sight, the negation of stative predications does not seem to differ from standard negation (§2.1). However, §2.4.2 shows that negated existential predicates do not follow the relativization strategy of other verbal predicates.

## 2.4 Negation in non-main clauses

In complex sentences only the last verb is usually a fully finite main clause verb (or a copula),<fnref n="14" /> while verbs in preceding clauses are either based on converbs, relative verbs, purposive verbs or verbal nouns. Negation strategies in non-main clauses differ significantly from those in main clauses (§2.1–§2.3): A dedicated negative converb is used for converb clauses (§2.4.1), a negative participle for relative and purposive clauses (§2.4.2, §2.4.3), and a periphrastic strategy for the negation of verbal nouns (§2.4.4).

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Exceptions to this rule are sentences with coordinated final main verbs and with non-final main verbs in embedded reported speech. Furthermore, contrastive clauses with *bagáan* 'but' (§4.5) and the apodosis of hypothetical and counterfactual conditional clauses contain main verb forms.</footnote>
### 2.4.1 Negation of converb clauses

Kambaata makes a distinction between perfective (general) and imperfective (explicitly simultaneous) converbs; both affirmative converb types are obligatorily marked for switch-reference (-yan ds)<fnref n="15" /> if the subject changes between the converb and the superordinate clause (Treis 2012c). In the converb paradigms, five persons are distinguished (in contrast to main verbs, which distinguish seven) (Table 8). Perfective converbs consist essentially of a verb stem and the first subject index; in addition, the 1SG/3M form is marked by the palatalization and gemination of single stem-final consonants or – after stem-final clusters – by a stressed vowel suffix -í. Imperfective converbs consist of a verb stem, the indexes of the first subject index slot and an ending -án. The parentheses in the top half of Table 8 indicate that affirmative converbs can only receive object suffixes in their different subject form.<fnref n="16" />

<table><caption>Table 8: Affirmative and negative converb endings</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Perfective converb<br>(PFV.CVB)</th><th>Imperfective converb<br>(IPFV.CVB)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1SG/3M</td><td>[-C<sub>PAL/GEM</sub>:] '-(DS-(OBJ))<br>[-CC:] Ø-í-(DS-(OBJ))</td><td>-Ø-án-(DS-(OBJ))</td></tr><tr><td>2SG/3F/3PL</td><td>'-t-(DS-(OBJ))</td><td>-t-án-(DS-(OBJ))</td></tr><tr><td>3HON</td><td>-éen-(DS-(OBJ))</td><td>-een-án-(DS-(OBJ))</td></tr><tr><td>1PL</td><td>'-n-(DS-(OBJ))</td><td>-n-án-(DS-(OBJ))</td></tr><tr><td>2PL/HON</td><td>-téen-(DS-(OBJ))</td><td>-teen-án-(DS-(OBJ))</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Negative converb (NEG4)</td></tr><tr><td>1SG/3M</td><td>-Ø- <u>u'nnaachch</u> (&lt;OBJ&gt; or -OBJ)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2SG/3F/3PL</td><td>-t- <u>u'nnaachch</u> (&lt;OBJ&gt; or -OBJ)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3HON</td><td>-een- <u>u'nnaachch</u> (&lt;OBJ&gt; or -OBJ)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1PL</td><td>-n- <u>u'nnaachch</u> (&lt;OBJ&gt; or -OBJ)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2PL/HON</td><td>-teen- <u>u'nnaachch</u> (&lt;OBJ&gt; or -OBJ)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Converbs are negated with a dedicated converb negator, which is realized by three allomorphs in free variation: -u'nnaachch (20), -u'nnaan (21) or -ú'nna

<footnote n="15">¹⁵In (22), for instance, the switch from a 1PL to a 2SG subject is marked by the DS marker on the imperfective converb.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶An exception is that same subject converbs may be used as final verbs in questions; in this function, they can carry object suffixes.</footnote>
(22) (NEG4) (for reasons of space only the first allomorph is given in Table 8 and Table 1). The converb negator is positioned after the subject index. Under negation, the distinction between imperfective and perfective converbs is neutralized. Negative converbs are not sensitive to and, consequently, not marked for switch-reference. They take object morphemes either as suffixes or infixes (20) to the converb negator.<fnref n="17" /> Negative converb clauses express events posterior to the event in the superordinate clause ('before VERB-ing') or the absence of accompanying events ('without VERB-ing').

(20) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 22)

(...) **mexx-uhú-u** kaa' ll-u'nna<>'ée>chch
single-M.NOM-ADD help-[**3M.**]NEG4<1SG.OBJ>
(= kaa'll-u'nnáachchi-'e) dág-u has-íshsh-o-'e
= help-[**3M.**]NEG4-1SG.OBJ know-M.NOM want-CAUS1-3M.PFV-1SG.OBJ
'(...) I was obliged to find (a solution) without anybody helping me.'

The negative converb is also used in two complex verb forms: (i) in combination with the defective verb *yoo- (COP1)* 'exist' (21), it expresses 'not yet' (see Treis 2021 for details), (ii) in combination with the verb *fa'- 'remain' (22)*, it serves as a periphrasis for a morphologically negated verb. <fnref n="18" /> The semantic difference between a morphologically and periphrastically negated verb is not yet clear and remains to be investigated. <fnref n="19" />

(21) (Volunteered 2003)

(...) **sú-mm-u-s** xáll-u ba' -u'nnáan yóó bagáan (.)
name-M.NOM-DEF only-M.NOM be.lost-[**3M.**]NEG4 COP1.3 CNTR
húj-i-s (...) tees-ó qalanch-áan fa'-án
work-F.NOM-DEF now-F.GEN generation-F.LOC remain-[3F.]IPFV.CVB
hab-an-t-án waal-táyyoo'u
forget-PASS-3F-IPFV.CVB come-3F.PROG
(Speaking about the customs on the masaala-holiday:) '(...) only the

<footnote n="17">¹⁷The first allomorph, -u'nnáachch, takes object infixes or suffixes (Table 8); the second allo-
morph, -u'nnáan, takes only suffixes. On the third allomorph, -ú'nna, the object can be realized
as a suffix, even though this is rarely attested in my database and not accepted by all speakers.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸See also (30).</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹Deginet Wotango Doyiso (personal communication) tends to translate the periphrastic con-
struction with *fa'*- as 'not have the occasion to *verb*, miss the opportunity to *verb'. Banti
(2010: 62, 64-65) shows that the combination of a negative converb plus a negated superordi-
nate verb 'remain' expresses a strong assertion ('certainly *verb*' = 'not remain un-verb-ing')
in the Lowland East Cushitic languages Saho and Afar.</footnote>
names (of these customs) are not yet lost, but (...) the work is being
forgotten in the young generation.'

(22) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 34)
Kank-áta j-eechch-úta barg-ám-m
that.much-F.ACC time-SGV-F.ACC add-PASS-1PL.PFV.CVB
he'-nn-áni-yan káan dag-g-ú'nna
live-1PL-IPFV.CVB-DS P_DEM1.M.ACC know-2SG-NEG4
fa'-oontí-ihu²⁰ ii luus-áane-et
remain-2SG.PFV.REL-NMZ1.M.NOM 1SG.GEN mistake-F.ICP-COP3

'It is my fault (lit. by my fault) that you have not learned (lit. known) this
in the whole time that we have been living together.'

2.4.2 Negation of relative clauses

Affirmative relative verbs are based on declarative main verbs and differ from
them, as far as the segmental realization is concerned, only minimally – note only
that if the inflectional complex ends in -’u (see e.g. -táo-’u 3F.IPFV in Table 2) this
element is dropped. There are regular stress differences between perfective and
imperfective main vs. relative verbs; in contrast, the stress pattern is identical
for perfect and progressive main and relative forms (see Treis 2012a for details).
Relativization is ubiquitous in Kambaata. Many subordinate clauses – e.g. tempo-
ral (63), causal, conditional (25), concessive, similative (10) – are relative-based.
Cleft sentences are a common focusing device; here, the focused information is
expressed in a non-verbal predicate, the backgrounded information in a headless
relative clause (22). While affirmative relative verbs – like declarative main verbs
distinguish between four aspectual values (imperfective (3), perfective (64), per-
fect (23), progressive), these values are neutralized under negation. The relative
negator is -umb (NEG5) and its position in the verb is illustrated in Figure 3. Note
the absence of an aspect morpheme.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: The structure of negative relative verbs</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>Table 9: Endings of negative participles (= negative relative verbs)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>-M.ACC</th><th>-M.NOM</th><th>-M.OBL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1SG/3M</td><td>-Ø- umb -ú</td><td>-Ø- úmb -u</td><td>-Ø- úmb -o ~ -Ø- úmb -ua</td></tr><tr><td>2SG/3F/3PL</td><td>-t- umb -ú</td><td>-t- úmb -u</td><td>-t- úmb -o ~ -t- úmb -ua</td></tr><tr><td>3HON</td><td>-een- umb -ú</td><td>-een- úmb -u</td><td>-een- úmb -o ~ -een- úmb -ua</td></tr><tr><td>1PL</td><td>-n- umb -ú</td><td>-n- úmb -u</td><td>-n- úmb -o ~ -n- úmb -ua</td></tr><tr><td>2PL/HON</td><td>-teen- umb -ú</td><td>-teen- úmb -u</td><td>-teen- úmb -o ~ -teen- úmb -ua</td></tr></tbody><thead><tr><th></th><th>-F.ACC</th><th>-F.NOM</th><th>-F.OBL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1SG/3M</td><td>-Ø- umb -úta</td><td>-Ø- úmb -ut</td><td>-Ø- úmb -o ~ -Ø- úmb -uta</td></tr><tr><td>2SG/3F/3PL</td><td>-t- umb -úta</td><td>-t- úmb -ut</td><td>-t- úmb -o ~ -t- úmb -uta</td></tr><tr><td>3HON</td><td>-een- umb -úta</td><td>-een- úmb -ut</td><td>-een- úmb -o ~ -een- úmb -uta</td></tr><tr><td>1PL</td><td>-n- umb -úta</td><td>-n- úmb -ut</td><td>-n- úmb -o ~ -n- úmb -uta</td></tr><tr><td>2PL/HON</td><td>-teen- umb -úta</td><td>-teen- úmb -ut</td><td>-teen- úmb -o ~ -teen- úmb -uta</td></tr></tbody></table>

Unlike affirmative relative verbs, which only have verbal morphology, negative relative verbs are almost perfect verb-adjective hybrids with their combination of verbal and adjectival morphemes (Treis 2012a, 2017). They index the person, gender, number and honorificity of their subject, and agree in case and gender with their head noun. The case/gender inflection is shown in Table 9.

In (23), the nominative head noun is modified by a numeral and two juxtaposed relative modifiers; the first relative clause ends in a negative participle, the second in an affirmative relative verb. The negative participle agrees in nominative case and feminine gender with the head noun; it is indexed for an honorific/impersonal subject. The affirmative relative verb does not agree with the head noun; it is indexed for a third person masculine subject (referring to the

<footnote n="20">²⁰The morphologically negated verb equivalent of *daggú'nna fa'oontiihu* in (22) would be *dag-g-umb-úu* (know-2SG-NEG5-MNZ1.M.NOM).</footnote>
unexpressed stimulus of confusion), marked for perfect aspect and carries an object suffix (referring to the target of confusion, i.e. the grammatically feminine beetle).

(23) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 45–46)

[[mát-it] [hann-óochch waal-tóo-ndo dag-een-úmb-ut] Relative 1
one-F.NOM where-F.ABL come-3F.PFV-Q know-3HON-NEG5-F.NOM
[zahh-ée-se] Relative 2 boomb-éechch-ut] Head noun (...)
confuse-[3M.]PRF-3F.OBJ.REL beetle.sp-SGV-F.NOM
yaaran-áta gaffár-ti-yan (...)  
loud sound-F.ACC release-3F.PFV.CVB-DS

'(...) when a confused beetle (f), which came from goodness knows where, released a loud noise (lit. when a beetle, (of) which one does/did not know where she came from and which (something) had confused, released a loud noise) and (...)'

In (24), the locative noun *hixéen* ‘over grass’ is modified by a negative participle, which agrees with it in feminine gender and case – note that the oblique case of modifiers shows agreement with non-nominative/accusative head nouns. As the head noun is coreferent with the subject of the participle clause in this particular example, the 3F subject index of the participle also points to the grass.

(24) (Volunteered 2019)

[[Kaa'll-it-úmb-o-ssa] Relative clause modifier hixéen] Head noun
help-3F-NEG5-F.OBL-3PL.OBJ grass-F.LOC
ba'án-t goof-fóo'u
quarrel(.PASS)-3F.PFV.CVB finish-3F.PFV

'They<fnref n="21" /> quarreled over grass that had no use for them (i.e. it was a
needless fight).'

Example (24) shows that negative participles, like affirmative relative verbs (23), can carry object morphology, which in this case is -ssa ‘them’ (3PL.OBJ). Interestingly, the (verbal) object morphemes are located at the right edge of the participle, still after the adjectival case/gender morphology.

Only a single verb follows a different negative relative strategy: The defective existential verb yoo- (COPI) ‘exist, be (located), be (for a possessor)’ (§2.3) uses the standard negator -ba(’a) in relative clauses. The negator is realized as -ba’í in its relative form (25).

<footnote n="21">²¹Recall that Kambaata does not make a distinction between 3F and 3PL subject indexes. So the 3F forms of *ba’ánt gooffóo’u* are translated here as ‘they’ (rather than ‘she’).</footnote>
(25) Recorded conversation (EK2016-02_23_002)

Mateemínn-itt yoo-ba'i=dda shool-uhá-a
shortage.of.manpower-M.NOM COP1.3-NEG1.REL=COND four-M.ACC-ADD
iill-itáa'u
reach-3F.IPFV

'If there is no shortage of manpower, she (= the young mother) is
confined (indoors) for as long as (lit. she reaches) four months.'

2.4.3 Negation of purposive clauses

Kambaata has two purposive paradigms, i.e. dependent verb forms used in purpose and certain complement clauses and marked for switch-reference (Treis 2010). The verb forms in -óta are used in same subject contexts, e.g. *hab-óta* (forget-[3M.]PURP.SS) ‘so that he (= ss) forgets’; the verb forms in *’-unta* in different subject contexts, e.g. *bá’-unta* (spoil-[3M.]PURP.DS) ‘so that he (= ds) is spoilt’. There is no negative purposive paradigm. Instead negative purpose clauses are based on negative relative clauses (§2.4.2) plus the similative marker =g ‘manner; like’ (see Treis 2017 on the multifunctionality of =g). The distinction between ss and ds purposive is neutralized under negation; see (26)-(27), where the same verb form is used in same and different subject contexts.

(26) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 74)

"(...)" y-ée'u qakk-íchch-u láah-u, barg-í
say-3M.PFV small-SGV-M.NOM prince-M.NOM add-[3M.]PFV.CVB
zákk-o ka xah-á
later-M.OBL A_DEM1.M.ACC words-M.ACC
hab-úmb-o=g-a
forget-[3M.]NEG5-M.OBL=SIM-M.OBL

"(...)", said the Little Prince again so that he (= ss) wouldn't forget these
words later.'

(27) (Volunteered 2003)

Zuug-gaa-sí=r-u boq-o-ssá múumm-u
scrape-3F.IPFV-DEF.REL=NMZ4-M.NOM head-F.GEN-3PL.POSS hair-M.NOM
hoog-óon ba'-úmb-o=g-a shom-úta
enset.juice-F.ICP spoil-[3M.]NEG4-M.OBL=SIM-M.OBL headgear.sp-F.ACC
wo'rr-ítée'u
put.on.MID-3F.PRF

(Description of a picture:) 'Those of them who are scraping (the enset
sheaths) are wearing headgear (made from enset leaves) so that their hair (= DS) is not damaged by the (acidic) enset juice.'

### 2.4.4 Negation of verbal noun clauses

Verbal nouns consist of a verbal stem plus a case/gender marker -ú (M.ACC) in the citation form, e.g. *taʼmm-ú* ‘using’ (28), and inflect like any other noun (Treis 2012a). They may function as arguments and as adverbial constituents, and are used, among other things, as final verbs in purpose, manner and complement clauses. Verbal nouns cannot be negated morphologically but require a periphrastic negation with *hoog-ʼnot do*. The negative verb takes the verbal noun as a direct object (28).

(28) (Maatewoos 1992: 16 [corrected by Deginet Wotango Doyiso])

Mát-e Kambaat-iss-á laag-á goof-óon i-hé
one-F.OBL Kambaata-GLOT-F.GEN word-F.GEN end-M.LOC i-F.GEN
táʼmm-uhu-u taʼmm-ú **hóog-uhu-u**
use-M.NOM-ADD use-M.ACC **not.do**-M.NOM-ADD
qood-am-anó-ohu láag-a-s
decide-PASS-3M.IPFV.REL-NMZ1.M.NOM word-F.NOM-3M.POSS
anabbab-[an-táa=g-iine-et]
read-PASS-3F.IPFV.REL=SIM-M.ICP-COP3

‘The use of “i” (lit. using and not using “i”) at the end of a Kambaata word is determined by the way it is pronounced (lit. read).’

## 2.5 Negative lexicalizations

The use of the inherently negative verb *hoog-ʼnot do; miss, lack, not have; be tiredʼ* as periphrastic negator has already been exemplified in (28). Alemu (2022) makes ample use of the verb in his monolingual definitions of idiomatic expressions (29)–(30); note that verbal head entries of his dictionary are given in their accusative verbal noun form.

(29) (Alemu 2022)

wozán-u saqal-am-ú = fooloocc-ú **hoog-ú**
heart-M.NOM hang-PASS-M.ACC rest-M.ACC **not.do**-M.ACC
[Entry] ‘to be hung (of heart)’ = [Definition] ‘not to rest’

(30) (Alemu 2022)
1 *Negation in Kambaata (Cushitic)*

godáb-u mool-ú = il-áta hinát-e-n
belly-M.NOM be(come).dry-M.ACC progeny-F.ACC totality-M.OBL-EMP
il-ée'nna<fnref n="22" /> fa'-ú; il-ú hoog-ú
give.birth-3HON.NEG4 remain-M.ACC give.birth-M.ACC **not.do**-M.ACC

[Entry] 'to be(come) dry (of belly)' = [Definition] 'to never have (lit. to remain totally without bearing) children; not to bear (children)>'

See §4.6.3 for information on the use of the converb form of *hoog-* 'not do' as a disjunctor.

Kambaata's second inherently negative verb, *waayy-* 'probably not do', is often used in its perfective converb form as an adverbial modifier to another verb (31). However, my fieldwork corpus also shows instances of main verb use (32), if it is clear from the context what probably does not happen. Note that the following examples contain no morphological negators.

(31) (Volunteered 2019)
Kabár xeená ubb-ó=da ba'-nn-óta-at!
today.M.OBL rain-M.ACC fall-3M.PFV.REL=COND be.lost-1PL-PURP.SS-COP3
Ati-sí-i daanxil-á **waayy-ít**
2SG.NOM-DEF-ADD umbrella-M.ACC **probably.not.do**-2SG.PFV.CVB
af-fáant
seize-2F.IPFV

‘We are going to be in trouble (lit. lost) if it rains today. You probably don’t have an umbrella with you either.’

(32) (Volunteered 2014)
Kám, **waayy-áno**
oh.no **probably.not.do**-3M.IPFV

(Context: S1 states that Duuballa is not as rich as Handiso. S2, however, thinks that they are equally rich. He replies:) ‘Come on, this is probably not (true).’

Kambaata does not have a lexicalized negative verb ‘not exist’. Among Highland East Cushitic languages, negative existential verbs are only attested in Hadiyya and Libido (Treis 2012b: 32).

<footnote n="22">²²The morpheme -ée'nna has arisen from the fusion of -éen (3HON) and the third allomorph of the converb negator, -ú'nna (NEG4). See §2.4.1.</footnote>
# 3 Non-clausal negation

## 3.1 Negative replies

Positive questions are answered positively with *áá* ‘yes’ or, as seen in (33), negatively with *ā́á́ā* ‘no’.

(33) (Elicited 2019)

[S1:] Át núr Ameerík-a-a
2SG.NOM last.year.M.OBL PN-M.PRED-M.COP2
mar-toontí-ihu? [S2:] Ā́á́ā, Jermán-a-a
go-2SG.PFV.REL-NMZ1.M.NOM no PN-M.PRED-M.COP2
[S1:] ‘Did you go to America last year?’ – [S2:] ‘No, to Germany.’

The negative interjection *ā́á́ā* ‘no’ is not attested as a polarity-reversing particle in reply to a negative question. Interestingly, the positive interjection *áá* ‘yes’ is found both in replies that confirm (34) or disconfirm negative questions (35). In (34), *áá* ‘yes’ signals agreement with the (negative) polarity of the question. In (35), in contrast, it signals agreement with the speaker’s implicit assumption of the negative question (§2.2.3), namely that the addressee can see the people on the horizon.

(34) (Volunteered 2019)

[S1:] Shariif-á dag-gáanti-ba-ndo? [S2:] Āā, án
PN-M.ACC know-2SG.IPFV-NEG1-Q yes 1SG.NOM
waayy-í márr kas-áamm
probably.not.do-[1SG.]PFV.CVB go.[1SG.]PFV.CVB do.ever-1SG.IPFV
[S1:] ‘Don’t you know Shariifa (= a place)?’ – [S2:] ‘No (lit. yes), (I don’t know it,) I have probably never been there.’

(35) (Volunteered 2016)

[S1:] Kóo, (...) ká'e qée'rr-a
2M.VOC P_DEM3.M.OBL far-M.OBL
lall-it-im-bá-he-ndo? [S2:] Āā, híkkada
occur-3F-NIPFV-NEG1-2SG.OBJ-Q yes then
xíshsh=á'-nn maram-moommí=da
strongly.IDEO=do-1PL.PFV.CVB walk-1PL.PFV.REL=COND
iill-ináan-sa
reach-1PL.IPFV-3PL.OBJ
[S1:] ‘Hey, (...) can’t you see them (lit. don’t they occur to you) far over
there?' – [S2:] ‘Yes, (I can see them,) so we can (still) catch up with them if we walk fast (lit. strongly).’

A frequent negative reply to questions in natural conversation is *kám* ‘oh no, come on, far from it, forget it, don’t worry’. The word class categorization of *kám* is difficult. It originates from the 2sg imperative form *kám[i]*<fnref n="23" /> of the full verb *kam-* ‘hold back, not give, forbid, remove, protect from, deprive of’, the corresponding 2pl form being *kammé*. As a negative reply, however, *kám* is no longer sensitive to the addressee’s number, so the singular imperative could be said to have fossilized into an invariant interjection. *Kám* is used to disconfirm or, better still, to refute, positive questions (36) and the implicit assumption in negative questions, e.g. the assumption in (37) that the addressee has just eaten. *Kám* can also signal disagreement with a previous statement; recall (32).

(36) (Volunteered 2015)

[S1:] Mat-e-’ée uull-áta Sabir-óochch ker-á
one-F.GEN-ASSOC.F.GEN land-F.ACC PN-M.ABL lease-M.ACC
aphph-íti-ndo, núr?
take.MID-2F.PFV.CVB-Q last.year.M.OBL

[S2:] Kó **kám**, m-á aphph-áammi-la?
2SG.VOC **oh.no** what-M.ACC take.MID-1SG.IPFV-PRAG1

[S1:] ‘Did you lease one of Sabiro’s (plots of) land last year?’ –

[S2:] ‘Far from it! I did not take anything at all (lit. what do I take?).’

(37) (Volunteered 2019)

[S1:] Téma abb-am-a-kkí=b-aan hooshsh-ú
now great-mother-F.GEN-2SG.POSS=PLC-M.LOC lunch-M.ACC
ít-t ke’-im-bá-ndo?
eat-2SG.PFV.CVB do.completely-[2F.]NIPFV-NEG1-Q

[S2:] **Kám**, it-im-bá-be, m-á it-áammi-la,
**oh.no** eat-[1SG.]NIPFV-NEG1-PRAG5 what-M.ACC eat-1SG.IPFV-PRAG1
it-íi ih-een-áni-yan Shaaméeb
eat-M.DAT be(come)-3HON-IPFV.CVB-DS PN.M.NOM
sókk-i-ya’nne mar-im-bá-ndo?
send-[3M.]PFV.CVB-DS<1SG.OBJ> go-[1SG.]NIPFV-NEG1-Q

(Context: Mother (S1) sees that her son (S2) is serving himself in the kitchen.) [S1:] ‘Haven’t you just eaten lunch at your grandma’s place?’ –

<footnote n="23">²³The bracketed vowel of the imperative is not pronounced word-finally but resurfaces when other morphemes are added.</footnote>
[S2:] ‘Far from it! I haven’t eaten (anything). I haven’t eaten anything at all (lit. what do I eat?). Didn’t I (have to) go (where) Shaameebo sent me when (people) were just about to eat?’

Examples (36)–(37) demonstrate another common Kambaata strategy for giv-
ing negative replies, namely by means of a rhetorical question of the type ‘What
do(es) [SBJ] V?’, with V being a copy of the verb used in the preceding sentence.

Finally, instead of using ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘far from it!’ as answers, speakers also of-
ten simply repeat the final verb of the question (in the same or opposite polarity)
to (dis)confirm a question (38).

(38) (Kambaata Education Bureau 1989 E.C. 4.118)

[S1:] (...) agan-áan agan-áan ma-mmat-é áa’ll-u month-M.LOC month-M.LOC RED-ONE-MULT wash-M.NOM

ih-áno-ba-ndo? [S2:] Ih-áno-ba’a

be(come)-3M.IPFV-NEG1-Q be(come)-3M.IPFV-NEG1

[S1:] ‘Isn’t it enough to wash once a month?’ – [S2:] ‘No (lit. it isn’t).’

For another type of negative reply, see (50).

3.2 Negative indefinites and quantifiers

Kambaata does not have any inherently negative indefinites. If interrogative pronouns are combined with the additive suffix ('also, even'),<fnref n="24" /> they can serve as free-choice indefinite pronouns ('WH-soever', 'any-WH') in affirmative contexts and be translated as negative indefinite pronouns under negation ('nobody', 'nothing', 'nowhere', 'never', etc.) (Treis 2015); see the additive-marked interrogative phrases in (39)–(40).<fnref n="25" />

(39) (Elicited 2019)

Fanqashsh-ú-s ay-í-i dag-áno-ba’a

answer-M.ACC-DEF **who-M.NOM-ADD** know-3M.IPFV-NEG1

‘Nobody (lit. even who) knows the answer.’

<footnote n="24"><sup>24</sup>Dependent on the quality of the final vowel and the stress pattern of the host, the additive suffix is either realized as a lengthening of the final vowel or as -nii.</footnote>

<footnote n="25"><sup>25</sup>As predicted by the semantic map in Haspelmath (1997: 64), who was pointed out to me by an anonymous reviewer, Kambaata’s additive interrogative pronouns are also used in indirect negation (e.g. ‘I don’t think that anyone (lit. even who) knows the answer’) and in comparatives (e.g. ‘She knows about it more than anyone (lit. than even who)’).</footnote>
(40) (Kambaata Education Bureau 1989 E.C. 6.124)

(...) **hátta** **j-aatá-a** méxx-o min-í
**which.F.ACC time-F.ACC-ADD** single-M.OBL house-M.GEN

aaz-éen gag-á iitt-uhú-u gar-ití-i

interior-M.LOC self-M.ACC love-M.NOM-ADD truth-F.NOM-ADD

hanqaphh-án-t he'-íiha dand-itáa-ba'a

embrace.MID-PASS-3F.PFV.CVB live-M.DAT be.able-3F.IPFV-NEG1

'(...) self-love and truth (i.e. selfishness and justice) can never live together in one and the same house (lit. cannot live together even (at) what time).'

Alternatively, additive-marked noun phrases with *mexx-ú* (*M*)/*mexx-íta* (*F*) ‘single’, used either as the head or the modifier of the phrase, express ‘nothing’, ‘no-body’, ‘no N’ etc. under negation; see (20) and (41). See also the noun phrase *mexx-e-níi* (single-MULT-ADD), literally ‘also/even a single time’, which would express ‘never’ under a negative predicate.

(41) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 91)

(...) ka heess-á méxx-o man-ch-iihá-a
A_DEM1.M.ACC story-M.ACC single-M.OBL people-SGV-M.DAT-ADD

ku'll-im-bá'a

tell.MID-[1SG.]NIPFV-NEG1

'(...) I have not told this story to anybody (lit. to even a single person).'

## 3.3 Negative derivation

Kambaata has a caritive derivational morpheme *-beel*, which generates denomi-
nal adjectives with the meaning '[N]-less, [not having] N'. It either attaches to
the nominal stem or the genitive form and is followed by the case and gender
markers -ú (*M*)/-úta (*F*) in the citation form (accusative). Treis (2008: 277) has too
hastily characterized the caritive derivation as "seldom used",<fnref n="26" /> whereas Alemu's
(2016) dictionary shows that it is in fact fairly productively applicable – at least
in a certain genre, namely written texts (including the schoolbooks) (42).<fnref n="27" />

(42) *bonx-beel-ú(ta)* ‘leafless, without leaves’ < *bonx-á* ‘leave(s)’
*muum-beel-ú(ta)* ‘hairless, without hair’ < *muumm-í* ‘hair’
*seer-beel-ú(ta)* ‘illegal, without rules’ < *seer-á* ‘rule, law’

<footnote n="26">²⁶In Treis (2008), the label “privative” rather than “caritive” is used for the derivation with -beel.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷Alemu (2016) alone contains 128 different caritive adjectives, most of which are used in the monolingual definitions.</footnote>
The use of the caritive derivation in speech remains little attested, and clausal
constructions of the type ‘which does not have N’ are clearly preferred. Further-
more, most caritive adjectives attested in my written corpus are best considered
semantically transparent adhoc creations and the result of the generalization of a
hitherto only weakly productive derivational schema. Examples of caritives that
are not adhoc creations but widely shared across the speech community are given
in (43). Note that many of these established caritives are lexically idiosyncratic
derivations.

(43) *wol-beel-ú(ta)* ‘countless’ < *woll-úta* ‘counting, number’
*wozan-beel-ú(ta)* ‘forgetful (lit. heartless)’ < *wozan-á* ‘heart’
*su’mm-beel-é*<fnref n="28" /> ‘first week of July (lit. nameless)’ < *su’mm-á* ‘name’
*maq-ee-beel-úta* ‘pregnant (lit. powerless)’ < *maq-ée F.GEN* ‘of power’
*hagar-beel-ú(ta)* ‘indescribable, uncategorizable, ugly (lit. without type)’
< *hagar-á* ‘type’
*man-beel-(ch)*<fnref n="29" />*ú(ta)* ‘foreign, without relatives in the area (lit. without people)’ < *mann-á* ‘people’

Kambaata does not have an adposition or a case marker expressing ‘without’.
Hence absence is expressed in a negative converb clause or a circumstantial rel-
ative clause as ‘not having seized N’ (44) or as ‘N not being present’.

(44) Proverb (Alamu & Alamaayyo 2017: 113)
Meqqéerr-at úull-a úb-b huur-á af-f-ú'nna
afterbirth-F.NOM ground-F.OBL fall-3F.PFV.CVB dirt-M.ACC seize-3F-NEG4
ke'-áa-ba'a
get.up-[3F.]IPFV-NEG1

'When the afterbirth falls to the ground, it does not get up without dirt
(lit. without having seized dirt).'

4 Other aspects of negation

4.1 The scope of negation

The negation of a final main or relative verb generally has scope over a preceding
same subject general converb – e.g. *beeqq-am-éen* in (45).

<footnote n="28">²⁸The case/gender-morpheme -é is the accusative morpheme of the largest declension of feminine proper nouns (Treis 2008: 103).</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹The -ch-morpheme marks the singulative.</footnote>
(45) Recorded conversation (EK2016-02-23_001)

(...) nugguss-áan-ch-u he'-áni-yan maal-á
circumcise-AG-SGV-M.NOM live-[3M.]IPFV.CVB-DS meat-M.ACC
beeqq-am-éen it-éenno-ba'a
share.MID-PASS-3HON.PFV.CVB eat-3HON.IPFV-NEG1

'(...) if there is a (newly) circumcised (boy in the household), one (does not) share the meat among (the family members) and does not eat it (together).'

The scope of negation is often narrowed down to a specific constituent (an NP, a clause etc.) through a cleft construction (46); see also (66). The focussed constituent is the non-verbal predicate (marked by a copula), which is negated by -ba('a) (NEG1); the backgrounded part of the sentence is expressed in a headless, nominative-marked relative clause.

(46) (Kambaata Education Bureau 1989 E.C. 3.54)

Lag-áakk-at kaa'll-itaa'í-i(hu) maranch-áa
river-PLV2-F.NOM be.used-3F.IPFV.REL-NMZ1.M.NOM transport-F.DAT
xall-íiha-ab-ba'a
only-M.DAT-COP3-NEG1

'The rivers are not only used for the transport (of goods) (lit. it is not only for the transport that the rivers are used).'

Whereas all the examples presented so far in this chapter show that the in-
flectional negators are affixed to the predicate, an ellipsis construction from a
recorded conversation and elicited data triggered by this natural example prove
that the standard negator can also directly attach to (pro)noun phrases in order
to restrict the scope of negation (47).<fnref n="30" />

(47) (Elicited 2019)

Antab-eechch-úta min-í aag-ís-i, gamball-áb-ba'a,
chicken-SGV-F.ACC house-M.ACC enter-CAUS1-2SG.IMP black-F.ACC-NEG1
wojj-úta!
white-F.ACC

'Bring the hen into the house; not the black one, the white one!'

<footnote n="30">³⁰As pointed out to me by an anonymous reviewer, languages are often more liberal in the placement of negative markers in ellipsis constructions than in independent clauses, e.g. *I invited John but not Bill* vs. *I invited not Bill*.</footnote>
## 4.2 Negative polarity

The additive-marked indefinite pronouns discussed in §3.2 can count as negative polarity items, as they cannot be used in affirmative, non-free choice contexts, e.g. in reference to specific individuals, as in *Someone was looking for you*.

## 4.3 Marking of NPs in the scope of negation

Case marking (§1.2) is not affected under negation. Other effects that negation may have on the marking of NPs, e.g. the possible interaction between negation and the use of various pragmatically determined focus and attitude morphemes, have not yet been examined and would make an interesting subject for future research.

## 4.4 Reinforcing negation

Negation is reinforced by the adverbials *hór-a*-(-n) (48) or *hór-a-nii* (49), which are oblique case forms of the adjective *hor-á* (*M*)/*hor-áta* (*F*) ‘all’. The bracketed -n is a focus morpheme (*EMP*) whose functional range is yet to be investigated; -nii is an allomorph of the additive morpheme. The adverbials are used in positive contexts to express ‘all, completely’; under a negative verb, they are translatable as ‘not at all, really not, definitely not, never’. Alternatively, the synonymous *hinát-e-n* totality-*M*.OBL-*EMP* ‘at all’ can be used (30).

(48) Recorded conversation (TH2003-06-04_xinkuta)

Hór-a-n dag-g-im-bá’a (...). Hór-a hór-a
all-M.OBL-EMP know-2SG-NIPFV-NEG1 all-M.OBL all-M.OBL
dag-g-im-bá’a
know-2SG-NIPFV-NEG1

(One player to another in a riddling session:) ‘You have no clue (...), so so wrong (lit. you don’t know at all, at all)!’

(49) Blessing on the masaala-holiday (Volunteered 2003)

Aat-teenantá=r-u hór-a-nii
give-2PL.IPFV.REL=MNZ4-M.NOM all-M.OBL-ADD
kot-ún-ka-’nne
lack-[3M.]JUS-NEG3-2PL.OBJ
‘May you never/not at all lack the means to give (food, support etc. to people)!’
There is one context in which the adverbial *hór-a-nii* is attested as inherently negative, namely as a one-word answer to a question (50).

(50) (Volunteered 2015)

[S1:] Hoosáan-u Halaab-íichch qée’rr-a-a-ndo?

PN-M.NOM PN-M.ABL far-M.PRED-M.COP2-Q

[S2:] **Hór-a-nii!**

all-M.OBL-ADD

[S1:] ‘Is Hosaina more distant than Halaaba?’ – [S2:] ‘Not at all!’

A negated verb can also be reinforced through a verbal noun copy, as in (51). The verbal noun is marked for the accusative case, which does probably not mark it as a direct object in this particular example but rather as an adverbial adjunct (§1.2).<fnref n="31" />

(51) (Kambaata Education Bureau 1989 E.C. 8.23)

(...) etar-íin-ta-s yóo Sabir-ó dag-ú<n>ka

behind-M.ICP-LNK-3M.POSS COP1.3.REL PN-M.ACC notice-M.ACC

dag-im-bá'a

notice-[3M.]IPFV-NEG1

'(...) it (= the leopard) did not at all notice Sabiro (lit. did not notice noticing Sabiro), who was standing behind it.'

Kambaata’s third strategy to reinforce a negative clause is through an experi-
ential perfect construction (Treis 2021: 327–331), which expresses ‘have (n)ever
(once) VERB-ed’ (52). The construction consists of a perfective converb plus a
phonologically independent, non-inflecting element *kása* ‘ever’, or plus an in-
flected verb *kas-* ‘do ever’. The converb and the adjacent ‘ever’ constitute a pe-
riphrastic verb form that cannot be separated by an intervening constituent.

(52) (TD2016-02-11_001)

Hítt gaararéem-at kará xúud-d

A DEM1.F.NOM chameleon-F.NOM P DEM1.M.PL.ACC see-3F.PFV.CVB

kása-ba'a

ever-NEG1

'The chameleon had never seen these (animals).'

<footnote n="31">³¹Even intransitive verbs can take verbal noun copies, which suggests that the latter is not a direct object.</footnote>
The positive construction is predominantly used in questions ('Has SBJ ever VERB-ed?'), as in the first part of (53); it is rarely attested in declarative clauses, where it stresses that SBJ has as only VERB-ed once, as in the second part of (53).

(53) (Volunteered 2021)

[S1:] Ajjoor-í faam-á xúud-d **kása** – PN-M.GEN waterfalls-M.ACC see-2F.PFV.CVB **ever**

[S2:] Āā, xúujj **kása** yes see-[1SG.]PFV.CVB **ever**

[S1:] ‘Have you ever seen the Ajjoora falls?’ – [S2:] ‘Yes, I have seen them (only) once.’

The negative construction is most common in declarative clauses (‘SBJ has never/not once VERB-ed’) (52). The time in which the subject never VERB-ed is usually the span of their existence (‘never (in SBJ’s life time)’) (52), but may also be a period from a given starting point onward, e.g. the time when the addressee in (54) promised to call.

(54) (Volunteered 2017)

Mexx-é dawwal-tóont, dawwal-áamm y-ít single-MULT call-2SG.PFV call-1SG.IPFV say-2F.PFV.CVB ba'-óont hikkanníichch ka=b-á disappear-2SG.PFV P DEM2.M.ABL P DEM1.M.ACC=PLC-M.ACC

dawwál-t **kása-ba'a** call-2F.PFV.CVB **ever-NEG1**

‘You called (me) once; (then) you said “I will call (again)”, (but) you disappeared, and up to now you have never called (again).’

## 4.5 Negation, coordination and complex clauses

Kambaata does not have any special negative coordinators. Main, complement and adverbial clauses are coordinated with the additive morpheme (ADD) irrespective of their polarity; see the coordinated benedictive clauses in (55) and the coordinated verbal noun clauses in (56). In the same way as other modifiers in the noun phrase, relative clauses are coordinated with -na (CRD), irrespective of their polarity; in (56), the gods are modified by a negative and an affirmative relative clause in coordination.<fnref n="32" />

<footnote n="32">³²Compare with the coordination of two affirmative relative clauses in (13).</footnote>
(55) Blessing on the masaala-holiday (Volunteered 2003)
Maadd-u'-né-e horajj-áata
eating place M.NOM-2PL.POSS-ADD all times F.ACC
haráar-u-nii gáa'nn-u-nii
be (come) wide- [3M.]BDV-ADD be (come) fat- [3M.]BDV-ADD
hór-a-n xuqq-ún-ka-nii
all-F.OBL-N be (come) narrow- [3M.]JUS-NEG3-ADD
qac-ún-ka-nii
be (come) thin- [3M.]JUS-NEG3-ADD

'And may your eating place always be wide (i.e. with many family mem-
bers) and fat (i.e. with plenty of food); may it never be narrow and thin.'

(56) (Draft translation of Deuteronomy 4: 28)
(...) it-iihá-a hansuus-iihá-a dand-it-umb-ú<fnref n="33" />-na (...) eat-M.DAT-ADD smell-M.DAT-ADD be.able-3F-NEG5-M.ACC-CRD mann-í ang-áan wez-eemmá kiil-á people-M.GEN hand-M.ICP make-3HON.PFV.REL sorcery-F.GEN magan-n-aakk-áa saggad-deen[án]ta god-PLV1-PLV2-F.DAT prostrate-2PL.IPFSV

'(...) you will prostrate before gods that cannot (...) eat and smell, and that are made by human hands (...).' (lit. translation from the Kambaata version)

Contrastive negation is expressed by two main clauses conjoined with the con-
junction *bagáan* ‘but’ (*CNTR*), which belongs prosodically to the first clause. The
possible pause is indicated by (.) in (57) and similar examples. Mostly, the second
clause is negated (‘p but not q’), as in (57)<fnref n="34" /> – note, however, that in an idiomatic
English translation the order of clauses is reversed (‘not q but p’). The conjunc-
tion *bagáan* is not inherently negative and also used to contrast two affirmative
clauses.

(57) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 14)
Kúun búud-u yóo-si-a hambúl-a
P_DEM1.M.NOM horn-M.NOM COP1.3-3M.OBJ.REL-M.COP2 ram-M.PRED
bagáan (.) hóol-ch-u-ta-ba'a
CNTR sheep-SGV-F.PRED-F.COP2-NEG1
'This is not a ewe but (this is) a ram with horns.'

<footnote n="33">³³It is unclear why the masculine marker is used here, although the head of the NP is feminine.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴Cf. (11), (14) and (15). See, however, (21) for a contrastive example in which the first clause is negative.</footnote>
Kambaata does not have inherently negative subordinators. See §2.4 for information on the negation of subordinate clauses.

## 4.6 Other aspects of negation

### 4.6.1 Negation through inference

There are (at least) two constructions that regularly invite a negative inference even in the absence of an overt negative morpheme. The first construction contains the equative demonstrative (and by extension: intensifier) *kank-á* ‘that much/ many; very much/many’. If used predicatively (lit. ‘it is that/very much’) (58), the demonstrative often invites a negative interpretation (‘it is not that/very much’) (see also Treis 2019: 195).

(58) (Kambaata Education Bureau 1989 E.C. 4.56)

Gíir-at katam-í mann-íi aass-itáa tám-it
fire-F.NOM town-M.GEN people-M.DAT give-3F.IPFV.REL use-F.NOM
kánk-a-anta
that.much-F.PRED-F.COP2<EMP>

‘The use that fire has (lit. gives) for townspeople is not that much (lit. is that much).’

The apprehensive verb form (Treis forthcoming) is a fully grammaticalized main verb paradigm that is used in warnings of looming dangers and in threats (59a)-(59c).

(59) a. bu<m>bókkoomm

burn<1PL>APPR
‘(take care, otherwise) we might burn’

b. eeb-bókkoont

bring-2SG APPR
‘(take care, otherwise) you might bring/cause (something)’

c. ag-ókkoo-kke

drink-3M.APPR-2SG.OBJ
‘(take care, otherwise) (it) might drown (lit. drink) you’

Whereas the second person apprehensive can be used as a warning of an imprudent realization of an undesirable event, as in (59b), it is also very common to employ the second person apprehensive as a negative command and thus as synonymous to the negative imperative (§2.2.1). See (60), where the second person
apprehensive and the negative imperative occur in the same context, and Treis
(forthcoming: §3.3) for details.

(60) (Draft translation of Deuteronomy 14: 8)

Bookk-íta it-téen-oochch-e; (...) resh-á-ssa-n

pigs-F.ACC eat-2PL-NEG2-2PL.IMP carcass-M.ACC-3PL.POSS-EMP

ul-teenókkoonta

touch-2PL.APPR

'Don't eat pork; (...) don't touch their carcasses.' (lit. translation from the
Kambaata version)

4.6.2 Metalinguistic negation

Kambaata does not have a dedicated strategy for metalinguistic negation. Instead, as (61) proves, the contrastive construction (cf. 57) is employed. The disputable word choice is negated in clause 2.

(61) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 47)

Wóm-m-at gashsh-itáá **bagáan** (.) mát-ua=rr-íi

king-PLV1-F.NOM reign-3F.IPFV **CNTR** one-M.OBL=NMZ4-M.GEN

ann-á ik-káa-ba'a

owner-M.ACC be(come)-3F.IPFV-NEG1

(The businessman interrupts the little prince mid-sentence and corrects his word choice:) 'Kings do not "own" anything; rather they "reign over" (their kingdom).'

A different conversational pattern used for metalinguistic negation is illustrated in (62). S2 does not negate S1’s word choice, as in (61), but first quotes it in a question. The preferred wording is then expressed in an isolated *bagáan*-clause.

(62) (Elicited 2019)

Árr-u fúll-ee'u y-áano-ndo? Hór-a buss-áyyoo

sun-M.NOM come.out-3M.PRF say-3M.IPFV-Q all-M.OBL burn-3M.PROG

bagáan

CNTR

(Context: S1 says: 'The sun is shining (lit. has risen).' – S2 corrects S1's word choice.) 'The sun is not shining but really burning (lit. Does one say "The sun has come out"? Rather "(It) really burns").'
### 4.6.3 Non-negative use of negative constructions

This section discusses two non-negative uses of negative constructions. Firstly, the fossilized 3M perfective converb form, *hóogg* lit. ‘(he) not being’, of thelexically negative verb *hoog-‘not do’* (§2.5) serves as a disjunctor between phrases and clauses (‘or’), especially in locally produced written material (63), where it is possibly triggered by the need to find a handy translation for Amharic *wäy ‘or’* in Kambaata.

(63) (Kambaata Education Bureau 1989 E.C. 6.133)

(...) **mán-ch-u-s** shuma'-anó j-áata
people-SGV-M.NOM-DEF pee-3M.IPFV.REL time-F.ACC

**hóogg** wól-e gajaajj-óon mal-á-s

**not.do.[3M.]PFV.CVB** other-F.OBL reason-F.ICP pustule-F.ACC-DEF

úll (...)

touch.[3M.]PFV.CVB

‘(...) when the person pees or when he touches the pustules for another reason (...)’

Kambaata has a construction that bilingual speakers regularly translate as a negative question in English. It is marked by question intonation and the morpheme -bay (64). However, questions marked by -bay are not intended to solicit an answer. They are possibly best characterized as rhetorical questions and are, as such, also found in the middle of monologues. They can express (i) a strong expectation on the side of the speaker that the addressee will fully agree, (ii) the speaker's surprise that the addressee has expressed the opposite, forgotten about something or not realized something obvious (64), or (iii) the speaker's comment about a surprising encounter or discovery (65). So even though the construction comes in the form of a negative question, it is a strongly non-negative assertive statement.

(64) (Volunteered 2019)

Ayichch-é=b-a mán-n shaf-an-tóó

Mum-F.GEN=PLC-M.ACC go-1PL.PFV.CVB churn-PASS-3F.PFV.REL

az-úta a<n>gim-báy?!

milk-F.ACC drink<1PL>NIPFV-BAY

(Context: S1 asks S2 to explain to her what “churned milk” is. S2 is surprised by the question and says:) ‘Didn’t we drink churned milk when we went to Mum’s place?! = Remember, we drank churned milk when we went to Mum’s place!’
(65) Recorded conversation (EK2016-02-12_003)

[S1:] Xáh-u waal-áyyoo-bay?! [S2:] Āā (...).

issue-M.NOM come-3M.PROG-BAY yes

(Comment from the audience during a recording of a narrative:) [S1:] ‘Oh, (here/now) comes the problem!’ – [S2 (Narrator):] ‘Yes, (...).’ (S2 explains the turning point of the story again.)

The morpheme -bay is probably segmentable into the standard negator -ba
(§2.1) plus an undetermined -y. However, even though speakers tend to trans-
late it as a negative interrogative in English or provide it as a rough equivalent
of the -ba-ndo-form in (9)-(10), the categorization of -bay as a negator is not
entirely certain. On the one hand, it is attested after the non-imperfective mor-
mpheme -im (64), which is an aspect category exclusive to negative polarity (recall
Table 3), and thus this combination is an argument in favor of interpreting -bay
as a negator. On the other hand, -bay is also attached to progressive verbs (65),
where the standard negator never occurs. Furthermore, -bay can combine with
an already negated verb, the result being a double negative question (lit. ‘Wasn’t
it not by chance?’), which serves as a strongly assertive negative statement (66),
often after a surprising discovery (e.g. ‘Oh, it was not by chance!’). If the standard
negator (NEG1) in (66) were dropped, the sentence would again be an assertive
affirmative statement (lit. ‘Wasn’t it by chance?’ for ‘Oh, it was by chance!’).

(66) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 82)

(...) qée’rr-aa=bb-aan maran-t-áni-yan
far-M.OBL=PLC-M.LOC walk-2SG-IPFV.CVB-DS

gambá=y-inoommí-i(hu) áda

meet=say-1PL.PFV.REL-NMZ1.M.NOM DM

dangítt-a-ne-eb-ba-bay?!

chance-M.OBL-LNK-COP3-NEG1-BAY

(Speaker realizes that he was mistaken:) ‘So it was not by chance that you were walking along in this remote place (...)?!’

There are two possible positions of -bay: It can be suffixed to the main predi-
cate (64)–(66) or a focused constituent (67). In the latter case, the sentence-final
predicate undergoes final vowel-lengthening whose functional motivation is not
yet clear.

(67) (Saint-Exupéry 2018: 28)
Ta abbabbáann-uta mann-aakk-á=g-a-bay

A_DEM1.F.ACC grown.up-F.OBL people-PLV2-F.GEN=SIM-M.OBL-BAY

haasaaww-itáyyoonti-i?!

talk-2SG.PROG-VV

(Speaker surprised:) ‘You talk like the grown-ups!’

### 4.6.4 Diachronic notes and observations

The diachrony of the Kambaata negative morphology is still unexplored. A study of verbal negation in Highland East Cushitic (Treis 2012b) has shown that the languages apply fairly divergent means of standard negation. There are four non-cognate standard negators: (i) Hadiyya -yyo, Libido -ssho, (ii) Kambaata and Alaaba -ba'(a), K'abeena -ba, Gedeo -baa and -bo', (iii) Sidaama di=, and (iv) Burji -ey'i. Given that the Highland East Cushitic languages are closely related, some standard negators must be fairly recent innovations. Negators with initial b are found in the standard negation of Kambaata, Alaaba, K'abeena and Gedeo as well as in Hadiyya and Libido, which have a dedicated negative existential verb bee'e 'not exist'. Bee'e is probably cognate with Kambaata -ba'(a) (NEG1). Sasse (1982: 22) expresses the tentative hypothesis that the Highland East Cushitic negators with initial b are "borrowed from Omotic" – but without providing any supporting evidence.

## 5 Summary

Kambaata has five negative inflectional suffixes:

- -ba('a) negates declarative main verbs and non-verbal predicates (§2.1). It can also be used for constituent negation (§4.1).

- -oot negates imperatives (§2.2.1).

- -ka negates jussives/benedictives (§2.2.2).

- -u'nnáachch and its free variants negate converbs (§2.4.1).

- -umb negates relative verbs and purposive verbs (§2.4.2).

Non-morphological means, i.e. periphrases with a lexically negative verb, are needed to negate verbal nouns. As shown in §2.1 and §2.3, only negated imperfective main verbs and non-verbal predicates are fully symmetrical to their affirmative counterparts. Everywhere else the following paradigmatic asymmetries are observed:
* Reduction or neutralization of aspectual distinctions – see non-imperfec-
tive main verbs (§2.1), converbs (§2.4.1) and relative verbs (§2.4.2).

• Reduction of the set of subject indexes – see non-imperfective main verbs (§2.1) and relative verbs (§2.4.2).

• Neutralization of a modal distinction – see jussives/benedictives (§2.2.2).

* Neutralization of the same subject/different subject distinction – see con-
verbs (§2.4.1) and purposive verbs (§2.4.3).

The following constructional asymmetries are observed:

• Different means of subject indexing:

- Type 1: Bipartite subject indexing is reduced to simple subject in-
dexing – see non-imperfective main verbs (§2.1) and relative verbs
(§2.4.2).

- Type 2: Covert subject indexing in the affirmation vs. overt subject indexing in the negation – see imperatives (§2.2.1).

• Optional object marking in the negation, but incompatibility of object mark-
ing in the affirmation – see converbs (§2.4.1).

* Fully verbal morphology in the affirmation, but verb-adjective hybrids in the negation – see relative verbs (§2.4.2).

• Neutralization of the distinction between relative-based and purposive-
based purpose verb forms (§2.4.3).

Apart from inflectional means of negation, Kambaata has a productive cari-
tive derivation *-beel* ‘-less’ that generates adjectives on the basis of nouns (§3.3).
Kambaata has no negative indefinite pronouns and instead uses additive-marked
interrogatives and quantifiers to express ‘nobody, nothing, nowhere etc.’ under
negation (§3.2).

Acknowledgements

The author is affiliated to the research centre *Langage, langues et cultures d'Afrique (LLACAN, UMR8135 du CNRS/Inalco/EPHE)*. Work on this chapter was supported
Yvonne Treis

by a grant from the *Institut des Sciences Humaines et Sociales* of the *Centre Na-
tional de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)* under the program *Soutien à la mobilité
internationale 2019*. I am indebted to Deginet Wotango Doyiso for all the fruitful
discussions of the data and analyses presented here. Thanks to the editors and
an anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this
paper.
Abbreviations

<table><tr><td>A_</td><td>adnominal</td><td>NEG1</td><td>standard negator</td></tr><tr><td>ABL</td><td>ablative</td><td>NEG2</td><td>imperative negator</td></tr><tr><td>ACC</td><td>accusative</td><td>NEG3</td><td>jussive negator</td></tr><tr><td>ADD</td><td>additive</td><td>NEG4</td><td>converb negator</td></tr><tr><td>AG</td><td>agentive</td><td>NEG5</td><td>relative negator (negative participle)</td></tr><tr><td>APPR</td><td>apprehensive</td><td>NIPFV</td><td>non-imperfective</td></tr><tr><td>ASSOC</td><td>associative plural</td><td>NMZ1</td><td>nominalizer -V</td></tr><tr><td>BAY</td><td>rhetorical question</td><td>NMZ2</td><td>nominalizer -bii</td></tr><tr><td>BDV</td><td>benedictive</td><td>NMZ4</td><td>nominalizer =r</td></tr><tr><td>CAUS1</td><td>simple causative</td><td>NOM</td><td>nominative</td></tr><tr><td>CNTR</td><td>contrastive</td><td>OBJ</td><td>object</td></tr><tr><td>COND</td><td>conditional</td><td>OBL</td><td>oblique</td></tr><tr><td>COP1</td><td>existential copula</td><td>ORD</td><td>ordinal</td></tr><tr><td>COP2</td><td>copula -(h)a(a) (M)/ -ta(a) (F)</td><td>P_</td><td>pronominal</td></tr><tr><td>COP3</td><td>copula -Vt</td><td>PAL</td><td>palatalization</td></tr><tr><td>CRD</td><td>coordinative</td><td>PASS</td><td>passive</td></tr><tr><td>CVB</td><td>converb</td><td>PFV</td><td>perfective</td></tr><tr><td>DAT</td><td>dative</td><td>PL</td><td>plural</td></tr><tr><td>DEF</td><td>definite</td><td>PLC</td><td>place</td></tr><tr><td>DEM1</td><td>proximal demonstrative</td><td>PLV1</td><td>plurative with -C</td></tr><tr><td>DEM2</td><td>medial demonstrative</td><td>PLV2</td><td>plurative with -aakk</td></tr><tr><td>DEM3</td><td>contrastive demonstrative</td><td>PN</td><td>proper noun</td></tr><tr><td>DS</td><td>different subject</td><td>POSS</td><td>possessive</td></tr><tr><td>EMP</td><td>emphasis</td><td>PRAG1</td><td>mitigator -la</td></tr><tr><td>F</td><td>feminine</td><td>PRAG5</td><td>-be-suffix (function yet to be determined)</td></tr><tr><td>GEM</td><td>gemination</td><td>PRED</td><td>predicative</td></tr><tr><td>GEN</td><td>genitive</td><td>PRF</td><td>perfect</td></tr><tr><td>GLOT</td><td>glotronym</td><td>PROG</td><td>progressive</td></tr><tr><td>HON</td><td>honorific, impersonal</td><td>PURP</td><td>purposive converb</td></tr><tr><td>ICP</td><td>instrumental-comitative-perlative</td><td>Q</td><td>question</td></tr><tr><td>IDEO</td><td>ideophone</td><td>RED</td><td>reduplication</td></tr><tr><td>IMP</td><td>imperative</td><td>REL</td><td>relative</td></tr><tr><td>IPFV</td><td>imperfective</td><td>SBJ1</td><td>first subject index</td></tr><tr><td>JUS</td><td>jussive</td><td>SBJ2</td><td>second subject index</td></tr><tr><td>LNK</td><td>linker</td><td>SEQ</td><td>sequential</td></tr><tr><td>LOC</td><td>locative</td><td>SG</td><td>singular</td></tr><tr><td>M</td><td>masculine</td><td>SGV</td><td>singulative</td></tr><tr><td>MID</td><td>middle</td><td>SIM</td><td>similative, manner</td></tr><tr><td>MULT</td><td>multiplicative</td><td>SS</td><td>same subject</td></tr><tr><td>n.a.</td><td>not attested</td><td>VOC</td><td>vocative</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>VV</td><td>vowel lengthening</td></tr></table>
References

Alamu Banta & Alamaayyo G/Tsiyoon. 2017. *Hambarrichcho yaanata: Kambaatissa-Amaarsa hayyo'ooma yannaakkata* [Spices of Mount Hambarrichcho: Kambaata-Amharic proverbs]. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.

Alemu Banta Atara. 2016. *Kookaata: Kambaatissa-Amaarsa-Ingiliizissa laaga doon-nuta* [Kambaata-Amharic-English dictionary]. Addis Ababa: Berhanena Selam Printing.

Alamu Banta Ataara. 2022. *Daambiliqa: Kambaatissa finka* [Intellectual advance-
ment: Kambaata metaphors]. Duuraame: [n.p.]

Banti, Giorgio. 2010. Remarks on the typology of converbs and their functional equivalents in East Cushitic. *Frankfurter Afrikanistische Arbeitsblätter* 19. 31–80.

Borelli, Jules. 1890. *Éthiopie méridionale. Journal de mon voyage aux pays Amhara, Oromo et Sidama* (septembre 1885 à novembre 1888). Paris: Quantin.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Census Commission. 2010. *The 2007 pop-
ulation and housing census of Ethiopia. Vol. 5: Results for country level, statisti-
cal report.* Addis Ababa: Central Statistical Agency. https://www.statsethibia.
gov.et/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/National_Statistical.pdf (18 August,
2022).

Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. *Indefinite pronouns*. Oxford: Clarendon.

Kambaata and Hadiyya Translation Project Hosaina. 2005. *Qarichcho Yesuus Kiristoositannee Yohannis xaaffo mishiraachchi maxaafa* / Latin version of the Gospel of John in Kambaata language. Addis Ababa: The Bible Society of Ethiopia.

Kambaata Education Bureau (ed.). 1989 E.C. *Kambaatissata: Rosaanchi maxaafa* [Kambaata language: School book]. Grade 1-8. Hawassa: Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Regional State.

Korhonen, Elsa, Mirja Saksa & Ronald J. Sim. 1986. A dialect study of Kambaata-Hadiyya. *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 5.5-41, 6.71-122.

Leslau, Wolf. 1952. Notes on Kambatta of southern Ethiopia. *Africa* 22. 348–359.

Maatewoos Shagana. 1992. *Kambaatissa xifati seerrata* [Kambaata spelling rules]. Liiranso Wotango & Tiitoos Hegana (eds.). Duuraame: Educational Department of the Kambaata-Alaaba-Xambaaro Zone.

Miestamo, Matti. 2013. Symmetric and asymmetric standard negation. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), *The world atlas of language structures online*. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/113 (4 January, 2020).

Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de. 2018. *Qakkichchu laaha* [The little prince]. Trans. by Deginet Wotango Doyiso & Yvonne Treis. Neckarsteinach: Tintenfaß.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1982. *An etymological dictionary of Burji*. Hamburg: Buske.

Treis, Yvonne. 2008. *A grammar of Kambaata*. Part 1: Phonology, morphology, and non-verbal predication. Cologne: Köppe.

Treis, Yvonne. 2010. Purpose-encoding strategies in Kambaata. *Afrika und Übersee* 91. 1–38.

Treis, Yvonne. 2012a. Categorial hybrids in Kambaata. *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 33(2). 215–254.

Treis, Yvonne. 2012b. Negation in Highland East Cushitic. In Ghil’ad Zuckermann (ed.), *Burning issues in Afro-Asiatic linguistics*, 20–61. Newcastle-on-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Treis, Yvonne. 2012c. Switch-reference and Omotic-Cushitic language contact in Southwest Ethiopia. *Journal of Language Contact* 5. 80–116.

Treis, Yvonne. 2015. The additive -V in Kambaata. Paper presented at 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Workshop *Additives across languages*, 2–5 September 2015, Leiden. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01505627.

Treis, Yvonne. 2017. Similative morphemes as purpose clause markers in Ethiopia and beyond. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.), *Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective*, 91–142. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Treis, Yvonne. 2019. Similative and equative demonstratives in Kambaata. *Faits de Langues* 51(1). 175–201.

Treis, Yvonne. 2021. The expression of phasal polarity in Kambaata (Cushitic). In Raija Kramer (ed.), *The expression of phasal polarity in African languages*, 311–334. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Treis, Yvonne. 2014. Forthcoming. The apprehensive in Kambaata (Cushitic): Form, meaning and origin. In Martina Faller, Marine Vuillermet & Eva Schultze-Berndt (eds.), *Apprehensional constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective*. Berlin: Language Science Press.