Chapter 19: Negation, Doubt, and "If only"

Starting point#

Ana is in the market of Tecpán (Iximche'), at the vegetable stall run by xta Ixchel.

ANA: ¿La k'o kape wawe', xta Ixchel?
Is there coffee here, Ixchel?

IXCHEL: Manäq. Majun kape wawe'. Xa xe ichaj chuqa' kinäq' nink'ayij.
No. There is no coffee here. I only sell greens and beans.

ANA: ¿Man nak'ayij ta ixim?
Don't you sell corn?

IXCHEL: Man nink'ayij ta ixim. Ri nute' nuk'ayij ixim, man rin ta.
I don't sell corn. My mother sells corn, not me.

ANA: ¿Akuchi' k'o wi rija' wakami?
Where is she now?

IXCHEL: Man wetaman ta. Majun b'ey npe wawe' pa nimaq'a'. Manta xpe, xalöq' ta ri ixim rik'in.
I don't know. She never comes here in the morning. If she had come, you would have bought the corn from her.

ANA: Majun achike ta. ¿Akuchi' ninwil wi kape?
Never mind. Where do I find coffee?

IXCHEL: Chrij ri rachoch Ajaw k'o jun k'ayb'äl. Po mani yab'e wakami, man jaqäl ta.
Behind the church there is a store. But don't go now, it isn't open.

ANA: Ütz k'a. Man yib'e ta wakami, xkib'e chwa'q. Matyöx chawe.
All right. I won't go now, I'll go tomorrow. Thank you.

IXCHEL: Man tab'ij ke ri'.
Don't mention it.

Count the negatives: manäq (a flat "no"), majun ("there is no / none / never / nothing"), the frame man ... ta around a verb, around a pronoun, around an adjective, manta ("if ... had"), mani for a prohibition, and one man with no ta at all in the set phrase man tab'ij ke ri'. Every one of these is explained below.

How it works#

Two pieces, one frame: man ... ta#

The ordinary Kaqchikel negative is a frame made of two particles. Man opens it and ta closes it. The word (or short phrase) you want to deny goes in between.

Man is simply the negative particle. Ta is called the irrealis particle. "Irrealis" is a grammarian's word for "not real": ta marks that whatever it follows is unreal, untrue, not the case, or not (yet) realized. In a negative sentence the two belong together: man says "no", and ta confirms that what it follows is not real. If you know French, the pair behaves a little like ne ... pas, except that the Kaqchikel frame can close around almost any kind of word, not only a verb.

Notice what is happening in the negative rows. Whatever the word class of the thing negated (a noun used as predicate, an adjective, a verb, a positional, an adverb), the two pieces simply close around it. Nothing else changes: no auxiliary verb appears, the verb keeps its aspect prefix, and word order inside the sentence stays as it was.

What sits inside the frame: the question of scope#

Linguists call the stretch of a sentence that a negative applies to its scope. English shows scope mostly by stress ("he didn't leave QUICKLY" denies the quickness, not the leaving). Kaqchikel shows it by where the frame closes. The basic rule is:

The frame man ... ta encloses the smallest possible unit, usually a single word, or a predicate together with its Set B subject marker.

Three consequences follow.

(a) A non-verbal predicate and its Set B subject stay together inside the frame. Remember from Chapter 3 that "I am a teacher" is in tijonel, with the Set B (absolutive) free pronoun in marking the subject. That little in stays inside the negative frame with its predicate:

(b) An independent pronoun stays outside the frame, or is itself the thing negated. The long pronouns rin, rat, rija', röj, rix, rije' are not part of the predicate, so they are not swallowed by the frame. Compare:

The third version negates the pronoun itself. That is how Kaqchikel says "not me" in the sense "it wasn't me": man rin ta. Ixchel used exactly this in the dialogue: Ri nute' nuk'ayij ixim, man rin ta "My mother sells corn, not me."

(c) A full noun-phrase subject or object stays outside. The frame does not stretch over a noun phrase with its article:

The order man xwär ri ak'wal ta is wrong: ta must close straight after the verb word.

Choosing the scope: adverbs and verbs#

Because the frame picks out one unit, a sentence with an adverb has two negatives with different meanings. Suppose the child fell asleep quickly: Chanin xwär ri ak'wal.

The same contrast with a time word:

Take your pick according to what you want to deny. When in doubt, negate the verb; it is the neutral choice.

Negating verbs#

With a verb, the frame encloses the whole verb word (aspect prefix, Set B, Set A, stem) and nothing more. Complements, objects, relational nouns, and directional particles follow ta. The frame works with every aspect and mood you have learned. Here is one negated transitive verb taken apart; the frame is shown as two separate words on the segmented line.

man x-Ø-u-tzijoj ta chqe
NEG COMPL-3sB-3sA-tell IRR to.us
"he did not tell it to us"

And an intransitive one with a directional particle:

man x-Ø-a-k'utuj ta pe
NEG COMPL-3sB-2sA-ask IRR hither
"you did not ask for it (toward here)"

Note the position of the directional particle in the second example: ta comes straight after the verb word and pe follows it. A directional never sits inside the frame.

Here is the full reference set, with one row per aspect or mood:

Here is a small set built on our family. Each pair shows an affirmative and its plain negative.

Negating location phrases and relational noun phrases#

With phrases built on the prepositions pa and chi and on relational nouns (Chapter 21), the frame can be drawn in two ways. Either the preposition (plus relational noun) alone goes inside, or the whole phrase goes inside. The first denies the relation ("not on the table, though the table is involved"); the second denies the whole location ("it wasn't on the table at all, it was somewhere else").

In practice the difference between the two placements is subtle, and speakers often use them interchangeably. What you must not do is leave the frame open: the closing ta is required.

Notice the particle wi in these examples. When a location or companion phrase has been put at the front of the sentence for focus, the verb often takes wi to mark that something was moved from its usual place (Chapter 5 and Chapter 20 discuss this "trace" wi). Negating a fronted location phrase typically brings wi along.

majun: nothing, nobody, none, never#

Majun is the negative of jun "one": literally "not one". It covers English "no", "none", "nothing", "nobody" and, combined with a few nouns, "nowhere", "never", and "no way". It replaces the existential k'o ("there is") in its negative use, and it is also the normal way to say that you do not have something.

Used alone, majun is "nothing / no one / none":

Very often majun is followed by the same ta that closes the man frame, especially when a predicate follows. You will see it with and without ta; both are good Kaqchikel.

A very useful point for English speakers: English switches "nothing" to "anything", "nobody" to "anybody", "never" to "ever" when another negative is present ("I didn't see anything"). Kaqchikel has no such switching. Majun stays majun whatever else is in the sentence, so "I didn't see anything" and "I saw nothing" are the same sentence: Majun xintz'ët. There is no rule against what English teachers call "double negatives"; majun ... ta is perfectly standard.

Three set combinations are worth memorizing:

The last example also shows that ta can follow majun rub'eyal before the verb; the irrealis "closes" the denial as usual.

manäq and näq: "no", and "there is no"#

Manäq is the word for "no" as an answer. It can be shortened to näq in quick speech. It also serves as a sentence negator and as a negative existential, "there is no ..., I have no ...". In that last job majun is the commoner choice, but manäq remains perfectly current: the sequel grammar uses it freely for possession (Kik'aslemal ri Kaqchikela', draft, p. 278).

One limit is worth knowing: manäq (like majun) denies existence or possession, not location. To say that someone is not in a place, negate k'o with the ordinary frame: Man k'o ta pa jay ri ma Kawoq "Kawoq is not in the house", never manäq with a place phrase (the sequel grammar stars such sentences as impossible, draft, pp. 278-279). The frame man k'o ta is also fine with possession, as the reading below shows (man k'o ta rusamaj "he had no work"); majun is simply the more usual tool there.

The usual pattern for a negative answer is manäq followed by a full negative statement with the frame: Manäq, man yib'e ta chwa'q. "No, I'm not going tomorrow." You will also hear the opposite order in emphatic speech: Man yib'e ta, manäq. A simple ja' "yes" and manäq "no" answer the question as asked, but the safest strategy is always to repeat the predicate in the answer (see Chapter 20 on echo answers).

Prohibitions: three ways to say "don't"#

You have three options for a negative command. They differ in tone.

Option 1: man ... ta around the imperative. This is the neutral "don't". It is a real injunction; the speaker allows that the listener might disobey, which is exactly what the irrealis ta conveys.

Option 2: mani + incompletive. Mani is a negative particle used with the ordinary incompletive (present) form of the verb, not the imperative. It is softer and very common in everyday speech ("don't be doing that"). No ta is used with it.

Option 3: man + imperative without ta. When the speaker assumes compliance, or when the prohibition is a fixed social rule rather than a live instruction, man appears without ta. The irrealis is dropped because non-compliance is simply not contemplated. The everyday example is the reply to thanks:

Compare this with man tab'ij ta ke ri' in option 1, which is a genuine rebuke: "don't talk like that!" The presence or absence of ta is doing real work: with ta, the speaker admits you might go on talking that way and tells you to stop; without ta, the "order" is a formula nobody is expected to break.

Household and cultural rules are often phrased this way too, for instance warnings about not leaving a griddle (xot) on the fire or not stepping across a hearth (q'aq'). The absence of ta gives them the ring of a standing rule. The sequel grammar adds two more members of this family: the commandments ("thou shalt not kill" is man + imperative, no ta) and the parting salutation ¡Man katzaq pa b'ey!, literally "don't fall on the road!", said the way English says "take care" (Kik'aslemal ri Kaqchikela', draft, p. 279).

ta alone: would, should, might#

When ta appears without man, it keeps its irrealis meaning but loses the denial. The result is an assertion that is weakened, hypothetical, or about what ought to have happened. English translates it with "would", "should", "would have", "should have", or "I'd like to". The verb keeps its normal aspect marking; ta follows the verb word.

That last pair is what Chapter 16 already used for polite wishes: ninwajo' ta "I would like" is gentler than the flat ninwajo' "I want".

For plain uncertainty ("maybe, perhaps"), Kaqchikel usually adds the phrase rik'in jub'a', literally "with a little": Rik'in jub'a' yib'e chwa'q. "Maybe I'll go tomorrow." It combines happily with ta: Rik'in jub'a' xpe ta. "Perhaps he would have come."

manta: contrary-to-fact "if"#

English builds "if I had money I would buy a house" with "if" plus a special verb form. Kaqchikel does not use its ordinary "if" word wi (Chapter 22) for these unreal conditions. Instead, man and ta fuse into a single word, manta, which opens the "if" clause, and the verbs stay in their ordinary aspects. The "then" clause usually carries its own ta to keep the whole thing in the realm of the unreal.

How do you tell "would" from "would have"? By the aspect of the second verb. A potential (future) verb with ta reads as "would": xkib'e ta "I would go". A completive (past) verb with ta reads as "would have": xib'e ta "I would have gone". The incompletive with ta is used for general or habitual unreal situations: yib'e ta "I would go (regularly)".

Manta can also take a non-verbal scope, which gives neat sentences like these:

Take a moment over the second one: manta ri aq'omanel literally "not-irrealis the doctor" = "if it weren't for the doctor". The verb -nimaj in the third means "believe, obey", and xb'in is the antipassive of -b'ij "say" (Chapter 17), needed because the sayer is being focused.

One honest warning before you use this pattern. The form alone does not tell you which way the unreality runs, and this is true not only with a bare noun or pronoun but with full verb clauses too. Manta rin can mean "if it were me" (as in the first row) or "if it weren't for me"; manta ri aq'omanel could in principle be "if the doctor were the one" as well as "if it weren't for the doctor"; and a clause like manta xab'ij chwe is read by some speakers as "if you had told me" and by others as "if you had not told me". The two books by our source authors split exactly this way: the first consistently translates manta + verb as "if X had happened", the sequel just as consistently as "if X had not happened" (and the sequel's own exercises then use the positive reading again). Nothing in the grammar decides; context and plain sense do. In the doctor example above, only "if it weren't for the doctor" yields a sensible sentence, because a doctor is who keeps a child from dying. So when you meet manta, try both readings and keep the one the rest of the sentence supports; and when you speak, build your "then" clause so that it leaves the listener no doubt which reading you intend.

Not yet, no longer, not again, not very#

A few combinations with time and degree particles round out the system.

Pulling it together: how the pieces combine#

Negatives stack in predictable ways. A majun subject can have a man ... ta verb after it; a manta clause can contain man ... ta and be followed by a ta clause; a question can be negative and its answer negative again. Here is a short exchange between a Tz'ikin and a Tojil that uses several at once.

TZ'IKIN: ¿La majun akuchi' xab'e wi iwir?
Didn't you go anywhere yesterday?

TOJIL: Manäq. Man xib'e ta, majun nupwäq.
No. I didn't go, I have no money.

TZ'IKIN: Manta xab'ij chwe, xinya' ta jub'a' pwäq chawe.
If you had told me, I would have given you a little money.

TOJIL: Matyöx. Po man nik'atzin ta chik, xsamäj ri nutata' iwir.
Thanks. But it's no longer needed, my father worked yesterday.

Reading: Ri a Tojil pa Iximche'#

Here is the same situation told as a short text. Read it once for the story, then once more to spot every negative.

Ri a Tojil k'o pa Iximche' wakami. Iwir majun akuchi' xb'e wi, roma majun rupwäq. Man xsamäj ta ri rutata' pa jun ik', man k'o ta rusamaj. Ri a Tz'ikin xub'ij chre: "Manta xab'ij chwe, xinya' ta jub'a' pwäq chawe." Po ri a Tojil man nrajo' ta pwäq. Man nik'atzin ta chik, roma xsamäj ri rutata' iwir. Wakami ri a Tojil k'a k'o na pa Iximche'; majani ntzolin pa Tz'olöj Ya'. Rik'in jub'a' xtib'e chwa'q, man wakami ta.

Tojil is in Tecpán today. Yesterday he did not go anywhere, because he had no money. His father did not work for a month, he had no work. Tz'ikin told him: "If you had told me, I would have given you a little money." But Tojil does not want money. It is no longer needed, because his father worked yesterday. Today Tojil is still in Tecpán; he has not yet returned to Sololá. Maybe he will go tomorrow, not today.

Patterns at a glance#

The frame and its relatives

Scope at a glance

Negative time and degree phrases

Vocabulary#

Usage and dialect notes#

• Ta goes right after the verb word. Directional particles (pe, el, kan, apo, qa), objects, and complements come after ta: man xak'utuj ta pe, man nitzaq ta qa, man xutzijoj ta chwe.
• Negative questions are asked with the same frame: ¿Man nak'ayij ta ixim? "Don't you sell corn?" They often carry a note of surprise. Answer them with a full echo (Man nink'ayij ta / Nink'ayij) rather than with a bare ja' or manäq, which can be ambiguous across languages.
• "No" and "none". Use manäq as the one-word answer "no". Use majun for "there is none" and "I don't have any". Manäq for "there is no ... / I have no ..." is also good current Kaqchikel, just less common; remember that neither word negates location (that is man ... k'o ... ta).
• Tone of prohibitions. Mani + incompletive is gentle and frequent with children and friends; man ... ta + imperative is more direct. The bare man + imperative is reserved for formulas and standing rules, so do not generalize it. Mani also stands alone as a refusal: a child told to go to bed answers ¡Mani! "No! (I don't want to)", often in a pleading whine (Kik'aslemal ri Kaqchikela', draft, p. 280).
• A relative of manta you may meet. The sequel grammar introduces plain "if I were ..." counterfactuals with xa ta (xa ta in b'eyom "if I were rich"), keeping manta for "if ... had not". You need not produce xa ta, but recognize it: xa is the same "just, only" particle you know, and ta the irrealis doing its usual work.
• Manta is written as one word. Its negative meaning ("not") is not felt; speakers understand it as "if only / supposing that". Do not try to use wi "if" for contrary-to-fact conditions.
• Children's speech often reduces mani to ni, and in fast speech manäq becomes näq. You need not imitate these, but you will hear them.
• Regional vocabulary around negation is stable; the forms in this chapter are used across the central towns (Tecpán, Comalapa, Patzún) and in Sololá. What does vary is the spelling of combined forms (majun beside manjun, majani beside ma jani ta); the meanings are the same.

Pitfalls for English speakers

1. Dropping the closing ta: man xib'e for "I didn't go". Without ta the sentence sounds unfinished. Only the routinized prohibitions (man tab'ij ke ri') go without it. If you are not sure, close the frame.
2. Putting ta at the end of the sentence, English-style: man xwär ri ak'wal ta. Ta closes right after the negated word: man xwär ta ri ak'wal.
3. Switching to "any-" words: there is no majun / "any" alternation. "I didn't see anything" is simply majun xintz'ët.
4. Using wi "if" for unreal conditions: "if I had money" is manta k'o nupwäq, not wi k'o nupwäq (which means "if I have money", a real possibility).
5. Using the imperative after mani: mani takes the incompletive (mani nachäp), never the imperative (mani tachapa').
6. Using manäq or majun to say something is not in a place: "the coffee isn't in the house" is man k'o ta ri kape pa jay, with the frame around k'o. For "there is no coffee", majun kape is the usual choice and manäq kape the less common one; both are good Kaqchikel.

Looking back and ahead#

This chapter leaned on the Set B free pronouns of Chapter 3 (so that man in tijonel ta made sense), on the aspect prefixes of Chapters 10 to 12, and on the imperatives of Chapter 13. The irrealis ta that you met there as "I would like" (Chapter 16) now has its full picture. Chapter 20 uses negation to build negative questions and tag questions, and Chapter 21 takes up the relational nouns whose negation scope we sketched above. Chapter 22 returns to wi as the ordinary "if" and "whether" and contrasts it with manta.