Verbatim quote · from the corpus

“The negative ostensive is a new linguistic form, not merely a variant of the ostensive. The original imperative-ostensive dialogue took place around the successful presentation of the imperative object. The two utterances of its “name” mark the beginning and the end of the first speaker’s awaiting of this object. If we imagine a conversation consisting of a series of such exchanges, this name is all that can be said “about” each object, that is, just enough to identify it as the topic of both linguistic and real interest. In contrast, if the negative ostensive is acceptable to the first speaker as terminating, at least for the moment, the awaiting created by his request, the role of the object as topic would remain limited by the imperative and ostensive just as before. But whereas the imperative intends the presentifica­tion of its object, the negative ostensive, on the contrary, represents its non-presence. Thus it is the first linguistic form that truly says something about its object. As a “name” for its absence, it would be not unlike other names, but precisely, it is not the absence that is the topic of interest but the object itself. Whereas in the negative imperative, the operator of negation was a coordinate element of the requested performance, the not-hammer or not-run being both a kind of hammer or run and a specified inaction, hence a kind of “not-,” in the negative ostensive the preexistence of the hammer as topic makes its absence for the first time a true predicate .”

— Eric Gans, The New Origin of Language Part 11: Negation as Predication: The Origin of the Declarative · Saturday, May 6th, 2017 · Chronicles of Love & Resentment