Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

6.2 
Implications 
6.2.1 Implications for Related Languages 
Because Uzbek and Kazakh express evidential and related meanings in such similar 
ways, we expect that the expression of these meanings in related languages will resemble that of 
Uzbek and Kazakh. A starting point for the expansion of the claims made in this work would be 
to study the other major languages of Central Asia: Kyrgyz, Uyghur, and Turkmen, all Turkic 
languages; and Tajik, which is an Indo-European language closely related to Farsi. Other 
languages of Central Asia likely resemble Uzbek and Kazakh with regard to their expression of 
evidentiality, but most of them are so poorly documented that they cannot yet be considered 
here. 

---

165 
It is hoped is that future analyses of Central Asian languages may take as their starting 
point the framework that has been adduced here for Uzbek and Kazakh. As outlined in 6.1.1, we 
anticipate that certain features may be present in other Central Asian languages: 
i. a distinction between finite and non-finite verb forms that corresponds with the 
distribution of copular forms of the verb 
ii. a number of past tense forms that differ mainly in markedness for confirmativity 
iii. non-confirmative forms of the copula, likely originating in the perfect, a 
secondary past tense, or a non-finite past tense marker, which may variously 
express: 
a. non-firsthand information source 
b. admirativity 
c. rhetorical questions 
In Turkic languages, we might also expect a distinction between copular forms based on *er-
GAn and the now largely obsolete *er-mIš. Uzbek and Kazakh ekan/eken, in their evidential 
usage, are not restricted in the sort of non-firsthand information source that they express, 
whereas emish/-mIs strictly expresses reportativity.