Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

2.5 
Forms Relevant to Evidentiality 
As discussed in Chapter 1, studies of evidentiality in Turkic, and, indeed, in many of the 
languages of Eurasia, focus on the contrast between the past and the perfect. The simple past is 
frequently analyzed as being marked for confirmativity, while the perfect is either unmarked for 
this feature or is markedly non-confirmative (Friedman 1978; 1979). In regard to the Turkic 

---

59 
languages of Central Asia, Johanson (2003) proposes that there are four morphemes that express 
markedly evidential meaning. According to Johanson, two of these are attached directly to the 
verb: *-Ib(dIr), which functions like the simple past with no aspectual information given, and 
*-gAn, which bears a perfect or resultative meaning. The other two forms are copular: *erken 
(the copular form of *-gAn ) bears a variety of markedly non-confirmative meanings, while 
*ermiš indicates reportative or quotative meanings. 
In the analysis of Uzbek and Kazakh in the following chapters, the forms discussed by 
Johanson are considered and are contrasted with the simple past, as proposed by Friedman.
Chapter 4 addresses the contrast between the simple past and the two other forms that indicate 
past tense: the perfect and the converbial past. 
Table 23: Forms Relevant for Chapter 4 
Simple Past 
Perfect 
Converbial Past 
Uz: -di 
Kaz: -dI 
Uz: -gan 
Kaz: -gAn 
Uz: -(i)b 
Kaz: -(I)p 
Both Friedman and Johanson have noted that the copular forms of the perfect are somehow 
special, encoding information that is more classically evidential in meaning, than forms that are 
directly affixed to the verb. The analysis of copular forms provides the basis for the fifth and 
sixth chapters. In that Chapter 5, the copular forms of the simple past, the perfect, and the 
archaic perfect are compared. 
Table 24: Forms Relevant for Chapters 5 and 6