See data and maps.
Melenchenko, Maksim (2025). “Negation with auxiliaries”. In: Typological Atlas of the Languages of Daghestan (TALD), v 2.0.1. Ed. by George Moroz, Michael Daniel, Konstantin Filatov, Timur Maisak, Timofey Mukhin, Irina Politova, Elena Shvedova, Samira Verhees and Chiara Naccarato. Moscow: Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, HSE University. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6807070. https://lingconlab.ru/tald.
@incollection{melenchenko2025,
title = {Negation with auxiliaries},
author = {Maksim Melenchenko},
year = {2025},
editor = {George Moroz and Michael Daniel and Konstantin Filatov and Timur Maisak and Timofey Mukhin and Irina Politova and Elena Shvedova and Samira Verhees and Chiara Naccarato},
publisher = {Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, HSE University},
address = {Moscow},
booktitle = {Typological Atlas of the Languages of Daghestan (TALD), v 2.0.1},
url = {https://lingconlab.ru/tald},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.6807070},
}In many languages of Daghestan, for many verb forms negation is expressed with a periphrastic construction which has an auxiliary verb. As East Caucasian languages often boast a large number of periphrastic verb forms, this strategy is widespread in the family.
In East Caucasian languages auxiliaries in negative propositions are used in various ways. A widespread strategy for periphrastic tenses is replacement of the auxiliary verb with a negative form. The negative form of the auxiliary may be expressed by a suppletive morph (this is attested for copulas) or derived from the affirmative form of the auxiliary through affixation.
Hinuq (< Tsezic) exemplifies both strategies. Periphrastic tenses can be divided into two types based on the auxiliary they use. “Present-tense” periphrastic forms use the affirmative auxiliary goɬ and its negative counterpart gom (1), whereas “past-tense” periphrastic forms use the auxiliary zoq’ʷes and negate it with the suffix -me (2), which is also used in synthetic tenses (Forker 2013: 199–200). (Note the final /m/ in gom, which might be cognate with the synthetic negation suffix but is not treated that way in the grammar.)
| r-ux-ƛ’os | goɬ |
| v-take-hab | be.prs |
| ‘[usually] take’ |
| y-iƛ’i-ƛ’os | gom |
| ii-go-hab | be.prs.neg |
| ‘will not go’ |
| Ø-eq’i-yo | zoq’ʷe-s |
| i-know-ipfv.cvb | be-pst |
| ‘knew’ |
| toqqo | zoq’ʷe-s-me |
| hear.ipfv.cvb | be-pst-neg |
| ‘did not hear’ |
Periphrastic tenses may be more complex, which is also illustrated by the Hinuq system. A third group of tenses, “evidential” forms, use a different form of the past auxiliary: zoq’ʷen. When negated, the form of this auxiliary does not change, but the negative gom is attached after it (Forker 2013: 200).
In some languages, in negative periphrastic forms the regular negative suffix can be attached either to the lexical verb or to the auxiliary. For example, this is the case in Bagvalal (< Andic), where the majority of periphrastic tenses with the auxiliary -uk’a ‘be’ have both options (Tatevosov 2001: 112), as shown in (3).
| hec’i-č’i | b-uk’a |
| rise.aor-neg | n-be.aor |
| ‘had not risen’ |
| hec’i | b-uk’a-č’i |
| rise.aor | n-be.aor-neg |
| ‘had not risen’ |
In periphrastic tenses with the auxiliary ek’ʷa, a similar situation is observed. The negative form of this auxiliary, however, is suppletive (4).
| hec’i-č’i.ra-b-o | ek’ʷa |
| rise-neg-hpl-cvb | be.prs |
| ‘were not rising’ |
| hec’i-b-o | weč’e |
| rise-n-cvb | be.prs.neg |
| ‘were not rising’ |
Moreover, Bagvalal has more complex tenses, in which two auxiliaries are used. In such cases, either of the three words (the lexical verb or one of the two auxiliaries) can express negation (Tatevosov 2001: 112).
The possibility to express negation not only through the form of the auxiliary but also on the lexical verb is mentioned for different languages. It is reported in the sources on Bagvalal, Botlikh, Godoberi, Itsari Dargwa, Khwarshi, Lak, Mehweb Dargwa, and Tsakhur. For other languages of the family, such an option is usually not mentioned in grammars, and sometimes it is explicitly prohibited, e.g. in Archi (< Lezgic) (Kibrik 1977: 89) and Ingush (< Nakh) (Nichols 2011: 308). In Khwarshi (< Tsezic), as reported by Khalilova (2009: 206), the two options have different scopes: negation of the auxiliary has scope over the whole sentence, while negation of the lexical verb has scope over the action itself (5). Apparently, such effects have not been described for other languages where both options are possible.
| huniža | q’ala | kere-yun | b-eč-bi |
| yesterday | children | play-pfv.cvb | hpl-be-neg |
| ‘Yesterday the children did not play’ |
| huniža | q’ala | kere-bič | b-eč-i |
| yesterday | children | play-neg.cvb | hpl-be-pst.dir |
| ‘Yesterday the children were not playing [they were in the state of not playing]’ |
In Hinuq (1), as well as in many other languages of the East Caucasian family, the negative auxiliary replaces its affirmative counterpart. In some others, however, a negative auxiliary is added to the verb form without additional changes. For example, this can happen with the negative copula deš in Tsakhur (< Lezgic). This is the most frequently used negation strategy, and it can be applied to all synthetic and periphrastic verb forms (6). Expression of negation through replacement of the auxiliary with its negative form (different from deš) or affixation on the lexical verb are also possible (Dobrušina 1999: 81–84).
| alʲaʔu | ɨxa |
| built.pfv | become.pfv |
| ‘had built’ |
| alʲaʔu | ɨxa | deš |
| built.pfv | become.pfv | neg |
| ‘had not built’ |
In some languages, there are cases of paradigmatic neutralization, i.e. affirmative verb forms which do not have a negative counterpart. For example, in Hinuq the Simple Present does not have a negative form. To negate the Simple Present, speakers of Hinuq use the negative form of the periphrastic Compound Present tense, employing the negative auxiliary. The two tenses are more or less similar semantically (Forker 2013: 206, 212). (See (Miestamo 2005: 54) on paradigmatic neutralization.)
In some cases, the negation suffix originates in the auxiliary. Such cases are discussed in the chapter on suffixal negation.
Negation with auxiliaries is attested in the majority of East Caucasian languages (37 lects). It was not found in the sources on Andi (< Andic), Bezhta and Tsez (< Tsezic), Budukh, Tabasaran, Udi (< Lezgic), Tsova-Tush (< Nakh), and Khinalug. It is not clear whether these languages actually lack negation with auxiliaries or such a strategy was for some reason not explicitly mentioned in the sources. Among the non-East Caucasian languages in the sample, negation with auxiliaries is found everywhere except Georgian.
aor — aorist; cvb — converb; dir — directional; hab — habitual; hpl — human plural; i — class I; ii — class II; ipfv — imperfective; n — neuter; neg — negation; pfv — perfective; prs — present; pst — past; v — class V
The examples are in the Habitual Present, which expresses either habituality or future.↩︎