1. 1
Catie Baumgartner
May 1, 2016
Modals and Negation
The Kalmyk language1
has three negative morphemes: uga, -d̩ goβ, and -dʒaxʃu. The verb
tense determines where the negative appears in the sentence. Instead of modals, such as ‘would’
and ‘could,’ Kalmyk uses verbs like ‘to need’ and ‘to be,’ to convey the same meaning.
However, it appears that there is a distinct morpheme when a word that would be translated as a
modal is negated.
1. Negation
There are three distinct negative markers in this language: uga, -d̩ goβ and -dʒaxʃu.
1.1 uga
This is the general way to convey ‘no’ or ‘not.’ uga does not attach as a morpheme, instead,
it occurs as a distinct word, as in English. When the sentence is in the present tense, uga always
occurs sentence-finally in this head-final language.
(1) nandə gεr kεrktə
to me house need.inf
‘I need a house.’
(2) nandə gεr kεrktə uga
to me house need.inf not
‘I do not need a house.’

2. 2
However, surprisingly for a head-final language it occurs preverbally in the past tense.
(3) nandə gεr uga bilæ
me.dative house not be.past
‘I did not have a house.’
So far, uga has only been found with the verbs ‘to need’ (kεrktə) and ‘to have’ (βana) when used
as ‘not.’
It is used as ‘no’ when answering a yes/no question.
(4) t͡ ʃamdə utxə βanæv
do.informal.2nd.sing. knife have.pres
‘Do you have a knife?’
uga
‘no’
1.2 The negative morpheme -d̩ goβ
This morpheme negates a verb in a general or habitual context (e.g. ‘I never…’ or ‘I
dont…’). -d̩ goβ is a verbal suffix.
(5) (bi) bortsʊk itdʒεnæv
I bortsʊk eat.present.1st
.sg
‘I eat bortsʊk.’
(6) (bi) bortsʊk itd̩ goβ
I bortsʊk eat.neg.hab
‘I do not eat bortsʊk.’
This morpheme does not ever occur in place of uga. Therefore, it is never seen attached to kεrktə
(‘to need’) or βana (‘to have’).

3. 3
1.3 The negative morpheme -dʒaxʃu
This morpheme is used in a similar manner to -d̩ goβ. It also occurs as a verbal suffix and appears
to be restricted in the same way: it does not ever occur in place of uga. Therefore, it is never seen
attached to kεrktə (‘to need’) or βana (‘to have’).
. However, it signifies the present moment (e.g. ‘I am not currently’).
(7) (bi) gεr uzdʒεnæv
I house see.present.1st
.sg
‘I see a house.’
(8) (bi) gεr uzdʒaxʃu
I house see.present.neg
‘I do not see a house.’
2. Modals:
By asking for translations of sentences with modals in English, it was possible to
determine that modals do not exist in Kalmyk. By asking the speaker to translate sentences
containing ‘will,’ ‘must,’ ‘might,’ ‘could,’ ‘should,’ and ‘would,’ we could see that there was no
consistent pattern. No morpheme appeared to signify the presence of a modal. The verb guxə
appeared in the infinitive form; auxiliary verbs occurred in each case except for example (9), and
were in the standard present tense.
(9) (bi) guxu
I run.1st.sg
‘I will run.’
(10) guxə kɛrktɛβ
run.inf need
‘I must run.’
‘I need to run.’

4. 4
(11) guxə ranæv
run.inf want/need.pres.1st
.sg
‘I might run.’
The morpheme -ra in example (11) does not occur on its own; when the speaker was asked for a
translation, he reported that it did not mean anything on its own. However, it often appears in
place of the verbs ‘want’ and ‘need.’ Therefore, we can conclude that modal ‘might’ does not
exist.
(12) guxə βilæv
run.inf be.pres
‘I could run.’
(13) guxə kɛrktɛβ
run.inf need
‘I should run.’
‘I need to run.’
(14) guxə sεdʒεnæv
run.inf want.pres
‘I would run.’
‘I want to run.’
The verbs kεrktə (‘to need’), βana (‘to have’), setxə (‘to want’) and βilæ (‘to be’), are
used instead of modals. The speaker was unable to give a translation of ‘will,’ ‘must,’ ‘might,’
‘could,’ ‘should,’ and ‘would,’ when asked for them individually.
Modals & Negation:
When negated, the sentences that translate to English as modals take on a different
negative suffix: -ʃgot. This same morpheme is present in each person/number combination,
across all verbs, despite the fact that they all take on different forms and verbs before the
negation.

5. 5
(15) a. (bi) gu-ʃgot
I run-neg
‘I will not run.’
b. (bi) gu-ʃgot
I run-neg
‘I would not run.’
(16) a. guxə kɛrgu-ʃgot
run.inf have-neg
‘I must not run.’
‘I have not run.’
b. guxə kɛrgu-ʃgot
run.inf have-neg
‘I should not run.’
‘I have not run.’
(17) gu-ʃgot βilæv
run-neg be.pres
‘I could not run.’
(18) guxə ra-ʃgot
run.inf want/need-neg
‘I might not run.’
‘I need not run.’
This negative suffix always attaches to a verb, however, as seen in examples (15), (17)
and (20), sometimes it attaches to gu (‘run’), while other times it attaches to the auxiliary verb in
the sentence (as seen in examples (16), (18) and (19)). When guxə is the only verb in the
sentence, -ʃgot attaches to it. However, even when βilæ (‘to be’) is present, it attaches to guxə, as
in (17).
Conclusion:
The patterns surrounding modal translations from English and negative markers are fairly
clear. uga, the general ‘not,’ is only seen in sentences containing ‘need,’ or ‘have.’ It is also

6. 6
always used to signify ‘no.’ Verb endings -dgoβ and -dʒaxʃu mark the negative in a habitual and
present context, respectively, and do not ever appear in place of uga.a
It is clear that modal verbs do not exist in Kalmyk. Instead, verbs like kεrktə (‘to need’)
and βana (‘to have’) are used in the present tense. There is no direct translation of any modal
verbs from English. However, when the sentence is negated each subject and number and
sentence shares the negative morpheme -ʃgot.