170
between a past tense marked as confirmative and a ‘perfect’ that is unmarked for confirmativity.
There does not appear to be a third, non-confirmative past tense form that functions like Uzbek
and
Kazakh -(i)b/-(I)p. Doubled perfect forms, however, do express markedly non-confirmative
meanings of the sort expressed by
ekan/eken.
Lazard (2000) has compared
Tajik and Bulgarian
7
, demonstrating the remarkable
similarities between the two systems:
Table 33: Confirmativity in Bulgarian and Tajik
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
Note that in both languages, a copular form (Bulgarian
bil, Tajik
buda-ast) is employed to
indicate the non-confirmative perfect. This situation
resembles the use of Uzbek ekan and
Kazakh
eken to indicate a similar range of meaning.
Perry (2005) indicates that Tajik may employ the “non-witnessed perfect” form in
questions to indicate that questions are prompted by inference (much as
ekan/eken signals the
same in Uzbek and Kazakh). A final enclitic marker -
a may signal what Perry (2005, 295) refers
to as “ruminative questions”, which appear to be similar to what I have described
as rhetorical
questions, but further research is necessary to determine whether Tajik employs a marker of non-
7
Note, however, that Lazard’s Bulgarian data includes only those paradigms found in the
normative description of Bulgarian.
The form četjal bil also occurs, but is not found in Lazard’s
chart.
171
confirmativity to express rhetorical questions, and whether there are as-of-yet unnoticed
similarities between Uzbek, Kazakh, and Tajik.
Yüklə
Dostları ilə paylaş: