jeff_l
(Jeff_L)
#1
338 7 Verbal morphology
'die' -t-aemaetta-t -t-amatti-t -t-ämaetta-t
'say' -jsenna- -jsnni- -janna-
c. characteristic melody
'hit' -(t-)awwat- -(t-)awwit -(t-)awwat-
I now consider the clause-level prohibitive (=negative imperative)
constructions. There are two, both containing Negative preverb waer. Both
constructions are widely distributed in Tamashek dialects.
In what I call the PerfN prohibitive, waer is followed by a PerfN stem
with the usual (non-imperative) 2Sg, 2MaPl, or 2FePl subject affixes (2Sg
t-...-aed, 2MaPl t-.-.-asm, 2FePl t-...-maet, with the t- prefix generally deleted
before a C). The entire construction is identical to the (2nd person) perfective
negative construction. Examples in (342).
(342) a. waer t-alle^-asd
Neg 2S-insert.PerfN-2SgS
'Don't-Sg insert!' or 'You-Sg did not insert.'
b. waer t-osel-aed
Neg 2S-run.PerfN-2SgS
'Don't-Sg run!' or 'You-Sg did not run.'
c. waerAtaen t-ares-aed
Neg-\3MaP10 2S-dig.PerlN-2SgS
'Don't-Sg dig them out!' or 'You-Sg didn't dig them out.'
d. waer t-attes-maet
Neg 2Sg-sleep(Vds).PerfN-2FePlS
'Don't-FePl sleep (late)!' (K)
The alternative is an unambiguously prohibitive form that I call the
Lolmpf prohibitive. This construction consists of Negative waer plus a form
of the Prohib stem with imperative-type subject marking (§7.4.3): zero for
2Sg, O-aet for 2MaPl, and O-maet for 2FePl (both 2MaPl and 2FePl suffixes
require word-penultimate accent). Examples are in (343). The t- prefix in some
of the verbs is that of the long imperfective system, not the 2nd person (non-
imperative) subject prefix.
(343) a. waer t-aellaez
Neg LoImpf-insert.Prohib
'Don't-Sg insert!'
