Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

Bulgarian 
Tajik 
“Neutral” 
(Confirmative) 
“Mediative” 
(Non-Confirmative) 
“Neutral” 
(Confirmative) 
“Mediative” 
(Non-Confirmative) 
Present 
čéte 
mekunad 
Imperfect 
četeše 
četjal 
mekard 
mekarda-ast 
Aorist 
četé 
čel 
kard 
karda-ast 
Perfect 
čel e 
karda-ast 
Pluperfect 
čel beše 
čel bil 
karda bud 
karda buda-ast 
Examples of the uses of the Tajik forms are shown below in (9) and (10) (Lazard 1996, 29): 
(9) 
xola pago meomaday. 
-ki guft? -Ra ab. 
aunt tomorrow come.
COMPLEXPERF
who say Rajab 
‘Aunt is (reportedly) coming tomorrow. -Who said? -Raǰab.’ 
(10) pul-am na-buday
5
money-my 
NEG
-be.
PRF
‘Look, I have no money!’ 
It is worth noting that in the above examples, strong evidential and admirative meanings are 
expressed in forms constructed using either the complex perfect or forms involving the copula.
This parallels the situation in Uzbek and Kazakh, where only the copular form of the perfect 
bears marked non-confirmative meaning. Further research will be necessary to determine 
whether the simple perfect in non-copular contexts bears the same range of meanings in Tajik as 
it does in Uzbek and Kazakh. 
5
Note that the verb endings in –ay are dialectal forms and are otherwise equivalent to the forms 
in –ast in the table above. 

---

38 
It will be shown in the following chapters that a number of previous analyses of 
evidentiality in Eurasia, such as Aronson (1967) and Friedman (1977) can be applied to 
phenomena in Uzbek and Kazakh. In particular, their claims that evidentiality and related 
notions should be considered consequences of the expression of non-confirmativity will be 
shown to hold true in Uzbek and Kazakh. Although the main points of these previous analyses 
hold true, a number of details in Uzbek and Kazakh require some expansion and alteration of 
these analyses. Whereas Turkish, Macedonian, and Bulgarian contrast only two forms in the 
past (a simple past and a perfect), Uzbek and Kazakh possess three simplex past-denoting forms: 
a simple past, a perfect, and a form derived from the perfective converb. The addition of this 
converbial term requires a detailed analysis of each morpheme, in order to determine how each 
expresses (non-)confirmativity, as well as what other meanings are born by these morphemes.
These three past-tense markers are discussed in Chapter 3. A second difference between 
previously studied languages and Uzbek and Kazakh is that Uzbek and Kazakh employ the 
copular form of the perfect (Uzbek: ekan, Kazakh: eken) not only to express marked non-
confirmativity, but also to express rhetorical questions. The properties of ekan and eken are 
discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. This ususual results of ekan/eken in questions, espcially the 
production of rhetorical questions, form the basis of the claim that the relationship between 
STATUS
/
MODALITY
and the expression of evidentiality and admirativity is more complex that 
previously supposed, and that in Uzbek and Kazakh, admirativity and rhetorical questions are 
representative of an emotive use of the forms in question. The emotive properties of ekan and 
eken are covered in Chapter 5. Before any of these past tense forms or ekan and eken may be 
examined, however, it is necessary to first determine how these forms fit into the predication 
system of Uzbek and Kazakh, as discussed in Chapter 2.

---

39