We are investigating the existential constructions according to the system established by Croft (1991) Type B (special existential negation) is the most frequent among the Uralic languages.
| A | A˜B | B | B˜C | C | C˜A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neg Verb Neg Ex |
Neg Verb Neg Ex (≠Neg) |
Neg Verb Neg Ex (=Neg) |
|||
| Finnish, Estonian, Livonian | Hungarian, Mari | Kamassian, Mator, Enets, Nganasan, Mordvin, Udmurt | Khanty, Mansi, Komi, Nenets, Selkup | -- | -- |
Type A: The ordinary existential predicate is negated by the verbal negator
Type A ~ B: The existential and the standard negation element differ, but the usage of the existential negation element is restricted to e.g. one tense.
Type B: There is a negative existential predicate different from the verbal negator.
Type B ~ C: There is a special negative existential predicate that is starting to penetrate into standard negation. This can happen in several ways: 1) the two forms may fuse and this new form may appear as a new standard negation element. (vide Croft 1991: 8); 2) the negation element, which normally appears in existential sentences may also be used in standard expressions.
Type C: The negative existential is identical to the verbal negator
Type C ~ A: The existential negation element is reassessed to a verbal negation element. The difference to type B is that the reassessment has not been finished yet, viz. negation can be expressed by two different constructions.