We've discussed negative statements briefly already. A Common verb can take a number of different classes of modifiers (see attached article, Modifiers for Verbs (Adverbs)). One of those classes is modifiers of polarity, of which there are two, 'la' emphasising positive statements, and 'ikky' signaling negative ones (see attached vocabulary). We have also posted an article about asking and answering questions (attached) that uses the modifiers of polarity. In this section, we will go over the types of negative statements and the associated grammar more thoroughly.

Common is an emphatic negation or negative concord language. The presence of an additional negative is interpreted as a more emphatic negative, rather than the two negatives canceling out, as in Latin or standard English. However, there is an exception to this rule - when a negative either on a noun or a verb, is applied to a verb that already has a negative meaning, such as a term derived with the prefix 'ik-'', then two negatives do cancel out in terms of the overall meaning of the statement.

Simple Negation

In the most basic form, a negative verb form is made by placing the modifier 'ikky' in the verbal bracket between the auxiliary and the first term in the Polarity position in sequence - unlike other modifiers, 'ikky' cannot move from this position, but may be echoed in another part of the sentence where verbal modifiers are allowed to go, especially for emphasis in answering a question.

Examples:

Ikky, a costo se ikky an uzre.
The house is not green.

Ja pikki teno ikky slek a skitrem.
The cat did not eat the mouse.

The first example shows the form of the answer to a question, where the negation is emphasised by echoing the negation particle at the beginning of the sentence. By the way, this form grammatically requires a polarity particle in the verbal bracket, but it can be positive. Exmaple:

Z: Se an eotil a costo?
P: Ikky, a costo se la an uzre.

Q: Is the house red?
A: No, the house is green.

In this example, it is grammatically required to mark the polarity of the verb as positive.

Adverbial Negation

'Adverbial negation' in Common is when a modifier on a verb with a role other than that of polarity makes the verb negative. The classic case of adverbial negation is the word 'ikkaw', or 'never'. Such adverbs, when kept in the verbal auxiliary-head term bracket, sit in the typical place in sequence of their non-polarity category, and also serve to negate the verb. Take 'ikkaw', 'never' as an example, it will normally be treated as an adverb of frequency. For example:

We se ikkaw zra hitaj e na eonaz.
I never sleep well during the day.

Notice that the modifier of manner, 'zra', comes after 'ikkaw', becase 'ikkaw' is treated as an adverb of frequency rather than polarity in this sentence - the first category in sequence that fits, wins. However, it is possible to add a negative polarity marker explicitly:

We se ikkaw zra ikky hitaj e na eonaz.
I never, ever sleep well during the day.

The second version is harder to translate, but the important thing to note is that the addition of the explicit polarity marker does not reverse the negative polarity, it intensifies it. The modifier 'ikkaw', not occupying the polarity position, is an ordinary modifier and can move like any other verbal modifier. Notice what happens when this occurs, however:

Ikkaw we se zra ikky hitaj e na eonaz.
Never do I sleep well during the day.

When the negating adverb leaves the bracket, the polarity modifier is grammatically required - in other words, in this instance, a double negative is mandatory.

Negative Nouns

Noun phrases in Common can be negative, working in a similar way to expressions using the determiner 'no' or to words like 'no one', 'nobody', or 'nothing' in English. They express the absense of something, and in Common, impart a negative quality to the verb they are an argument of as well. There is a lot of dialectical variation in this particular area, so here again it may be a good idea to try and study up on the subtleties of usage in any area where you are traveling, if your goal is to blend in. We will go over standard High Common spoken in the Cascadian fashion, which is usually a safe default choice.

There are a few basic rules to keep in mind when working with negative nouns in this dialect:

1. A negative cannot be used with a definite article.
2. A negative must always be in the paucal number (because it is precisely counted and not exactly one).
3. The negative is formed by adding a negative modifier of quantity to the noun in the indefinite paucal - either 'ikky', 'not', or 'cul', 'zero' are used interchangeably.
4. If a verb has a negative argument, the verb itself must also be negative.

These rules represent an evolution from Old Common, because Old Common had no definite/indefinite distinction. Old Common had the rule about a negative argument triggering negative marking on the verb, and the rule that negative arguments must be paucal, but in old texts, you will see instances where it appears that a definite argument is being negated - however, what is actually happening in these instances is that the article is expressing agreement with the concrete gender, not definiteness. As the definite/indefinite distinction developed with the breakdown of the gender system, it took time for the rule that only indefinite articles could be negative to settle down.

A noun is negated by adding a modifier of negation to the indefinite paucal form - either 'ikky', or else 'cul' ('zero'). 'Ikky' was required in Old Common, but 'cul' became a popular alternative even during the early period. They remain interchangeable, but a preference for one of the other can occasionally be a marker of class or geographic origin, depending on the state.

Both are treated in sequence as modifiers of quantity, and because they are not singular, they absolutely demand paucal agreement, as counter-intuitive as it may be to use a number meaning 'a few' with a quantifier than means 'none' or 'zero'. This is because the singular can only be used with one thing, and the paucal is required for any precisely known quantity other than one. Since 'zero' is a precisely known quantity, the paucal number is used.

In any instance where a negative polarity noun would be required, a modifier of negation is not required if the head term itself is inherently negative. This can be seen, for example, with 'icókyn', 'nothing', or 'culyn', 'none'. The presence of such an inherently negative head term as a verbal argument triggers all the other associated rules, however - requirement for an indefinite paucal article and negative verb form.

Negative arguments are needed when making a universal statement. So for a statement like:

A Keli nox ikky jusal na ruk jymjym.
Kelly doesn't want the cookie.

No arguments need to be negative. But if Kelly doesn't want any cookie, it has to be:

A Keli nox ikky jusal ijyr cul ruk jymjym.
Kelly doesn't want a cookie.

Both the object and the verb are negated. And if all of the arguments are indefinite:

Yr ikky pocuk nox ikky jusal ijyr cul ruk jymjym.
None of the children want a cookie.

That reads back like 'No child don't want no cookie'!

English speakers have a tendency to try and say things like:

Yr ikky pocuk nox ikky jusal ijy ruk jymjym.
*None of the children want a cookie.

This doesn't have the meaning in Common that English speakers tend to think it does, because the 'ijy ruk jymjym' is explicitly singular, and in Common, you can't use that for general statements the way you can in English. This sentence would be grammatical in Common, but the sense is more like 'None of the children want one cookie', i.e., they all want more than one, perhaps.

As noted, definite arguments cannot be negated in modern High Common. Furthermore, Common is very free in allowing definite arguments as a kind of loosely-interpreted default. General negative statements can be made in Common using negated indefinite arguments, but also using definite arguments, often plurals. This choice leads to a lot of stylistic and dialectical variation in Common.

You could say something like in place of the general example above:

Az pocuk nox ikky jusal ijaz ruk jymjym.
The children don't want the cookies.

This use of the definite plural instead of the indefinite paucal with negation produces the same meaning as the former statement. However, the sense is less emphatically negative.

Where this becomes especially difficult for English speakers in when you are tempted to use a negative noun with a positive verb, which is not allowed in Common. Take the expression 'No man is an island'. This could be translated into Common as:

Yr cul atuin se ikky an nyr ikky atexa.

Notice here, the Common translation requires the verb to be negative as well. But also notice that the second argument to the verb 'an', 'nyr ikky atexa' or 'an island', has also been negated. If 'ny atexa' had been used, it would read like 'no man is one island' - the listener would have understood, but the Common would have seemed stilted and ungrammatical. This is an example of the negation even being applied to periphrastic arguments, since in a Common copular expression, the second argument is considered a periphrastic argument introduced with the null preposition.

Again, you can make this weaker but more succinct by using a definite plural phrasing:

Az atuin se ikky an naz atexa.
People are not islands.

Negative Articles (Nonstandard)

In varieties of Common slang, you can sometimes see the emergence of a negative third person article that declines like this:

When writers attempt to transcribe this style of speech, they typcially write it as above, with an apostrophe. This is not considered good Common, but depending on the area, you can sometimes hear it slip into the casual speech even of normally careful speaker, so it appears to be on the rise. Confusingly, these negatives forms might be used with ikky or cul, for emphasis!

Examples and Specific Cases

Nothing/No one/Nobody

The expressions 'nothing' or 'no one' can be translated a number of ways:

• Yr icókyn - Nothing. Negative on its own, can add a negative quantifier for emphasis.
• Yr culyn - No one, nobody, nothing. Usually idomatically preferred for the sense of  'no one'
• Yr ikky atuin/yr cul atuin - No one, very specific that a person is being discussed.

Where an inherently negative head term is used, the indefinite paucal article is required. The only exception would be in working with these concepts abstractly, as in talking about the properties of 'nothingness' or 'the void', in which case a definite singular would be used.

Forms like the latter can be used for any agent. For example:

Jyr culyn te ikky karo we.
Nothing/no one will stop me.

Jyr ikky zresu te ikky karo a horo.
No rain will stop the party.

The latter could have been 'Ja zresu te ikky karo a horo' and meant the same thing but been less emphatic. By the way, the first example could have been rendered in a very colloquial and slangy way as:

Jy'k te ikky karo we.