Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

Simple Past 
Perfect 
Archaic Perfect 
Uz: edi 
Kaz: edi 
Uz: ekan 
Kaz: eken 
Uz: emish 
Kaz: -mIs 
The analysis of Turkic proposed in this chapter, in which non-verbs and non-finite verbs 
and treated as morphologically equivalent, allows for a unified treatment of copular forms.
Previous analyses of Turkic languages frequently overlook the similarity of non-verbs and non-

---

60 
finite verbs, so it is hoped that by unifying these two classes, the markedly non-confirmative 
meanings of copular perfects may be captured.

---

61 
CHAPTER 3 
THE PAST AND CONFIRMATIVITY 
It has been widely observed that the locus of evidential meaning among the languages of the 
Eurasian evidentiality belt lies in the distinction between various past forms. For the majority of 
languages, the two relevant past tense forms are termed the “past” and the “perfect.” The term 
perfect is somewhat misleading, as these so-called perfects usually derive from historical perfect 
forms but no longer bear 
PERFECT
meaning in the sense of the 
PERFECT
that has been described 
for Western European languages. 
Within Turcological studies, it is the simple past tense *-DI that is ascribed 
witnessed/firsthand, definite, direct, or confirmative meaning and the perfect *-mIš (or the 
morpheme *-GAn that has supplanted it in many languages) that is ascribed non-witnessed/non-
firsthand, indefinite, indirect, or non-confirmative meaning. These two morphemes bore similar 
meanings in the earliest attested stages of Turkic to those that they bear in modern Turkish 
(Tekin 1965; Erdal 2004; Al-Kāšğarī 1982). In modern Turkish, the basic distinction between 
the simple past -DI and the perfect -mIş is one of confirmativity. That is, when a speaker 
employs the simple past -DI, it is employed for the purpose of expressing the speaker’s 
confirmation of a past event. When a speaker employs the perfect -mIş, no such confirmative 
meaning is meant, as the perfect is unmarked for this confirmativity and may exhibit a wide 
range of confirmative or non-confirmative interpretations based upon the context of the utterance 
(see Friedman 1978). 
In Uzbek and Kazakh, the past/perfect distinction functions much as it does in Turkish, 
except that the -DI/-mIš distinction that was found in Old Turkic, and which is still found in most 
Oghuz languages, has been supplanted by a contrast between past tense -di/–DI and the perfect in 

---

62 
-gan/-GAn. The basic distinction between these two forms is also one of confirmativity. Like 
Turkish -DI and -mIş, Uzbek and Kazakh -di/ -DI is marked as confirmative, and -gan/-GAn is 
unmarked for confirmativity. The lack of confirmativity associated with -gan/–GAn has led to 
the use of this morpheme in so-called ‘distant’ or ‘indefinite’ contexts. The perfect -gan/ -GAn 
is used, for example, to denote historical events and events with indefinite time reference, in 
addition to events whose validity the speaker is merely unwilling to confirm. 
A third morpheme has been added to this past paradigm, the converbial past tense 
-ib/-(I)p, which is (usually) marked as non-confirmative. This morpheme has its origin in the 
perfective converbial marker, and in this capacity it still serves to denote a relation of perfectivity 
or non-simultaneity among a sequence of events (50).
(50) Uy-ga kel-ib yot-di-m. (Uz) 
home-
DAT
come-
CVB
lie.down-
PST
-1
SG
‘I came home and (then) lay down.’ 
As a converbial marker, it stands in opposition to the imperfective converbial marker -a/A/y, 
which denotes imperfectivity or simultaneity in a sequence of events (51). 
(51) Student-ter iste-y üyren-e-di. (Kaz) 
Student-
PL
work-
CVB
learn-
PRES
-3 
‘The students are working and learning.’ 
In Uzbek (although not in Kazakh), a split in meanings occurred as this marker evolved from a 
converbial marker to a predicative past tense marker. When attached to certain verbs denoting 
ongoing action (namely, yot- ‘to lie down’, tur- ‘to stand’, o’tir- ‘to sit’, and yur- ‘to walk, 
move’), the imperfective properties of the verb block both the non-confirmative and perfective 
properties of this morpheme, and the resulting meaning is an imperfective past (Sjoberg 1963, 
113). In any other contexts, however, this morpheme is strictly non-confirmative, indicating 
non-volitionality, subjective interpretation, hearsay, or inference. 

---

63 
As non-finite verb forms, both -ib/-(I)p and -gan/-GAn may be followed by the copular 
form of the simple past (edi), resulting in pluperfect forms. In both cases, the presence of this 
marked confirmative past results in pluperfect forms that are marked as confirmative.