From the History of “Ultimatum” Conjunctions ne to and a ne to ‛or else’ (According to the Russian National Corpus)

The article examines the semantic history of the connectors ne to and a ne to ‛or else’ used as so-called “threat” conjunctions, that is, used to express a threat in a situation that can be defined as a proposal of an ultimatum (Give me back my money, or else [“ne to”<“a ne to”>] I’ll sue!). The study is based on materials of the Russian National Corpus (RNC). According to the RNC, a ne to is primary in relation to ne to; the first one has been recorded since the 16th century and initially has in its meaning the components ‘hypothetical’ and ‘mutual exclusion’. The main clause, following the clause with a ne to and attached to it by a correlate, indicates a consequence — both negative and positive — from the situation described by the clause with a ne to; then a ne to is fixed in contexts where the main clause indicates a negative consequence and, in particular, a negative situation caused by a person (threat contexts). Gradually, the correlate in the main clause becomes more and more optional, the boundary between clauses is erased, and a ne to begins to be conceptualized as a connector that introduces a clause indicating a negative consequence.

The binomial connector ne to was once recorded in the RNC in the 17th century; with one exception in this unique context, a correlate is never used. Since the 19th century, in all the considered cases, it turns out to be completely synonymous with a ne to and can be considered as its variant.