Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

2.3 
Verbal Predication 
Regardless of whether a finite or non-finite verb form is used, the basic ordering of affixes is as 
follows: 
(28) R
OOT 
+
 
V
OICE
/V
ALENCY 
+
 
N
EGATION 
+
 
T
ENSE
/A
SPECT
/M
OOD 
+
 
A
GREEMENT
There are five morphemes that fall under the voice/valency category: the passive, causative, 
reciprocal, and cooperative forms. In Uzbek, the form of the negative is -ma, in Kazakh, -MA.
Tense/aspect/mood forms are discussed below. Agreement markers agree with the subject of the 
3
Other Turkic languages have a number of different members in this class, which seems to be 
especially susceptible to borrowing, e.g. Sakha naada, from Russian nado ‘necessary.’ 

---

47 
verb and are marked for three persons, two numbers (singular and plural) and, in the 2
nd
person, 
for two degrees of formality (informal and formal). The question particle (Uzbek: mi, Kazakh: 
MA) usually follows the verb. Although the question particle is orthographically separate in both 
languages, it behaves as a clitic and may be considered part of the verbal complex. 
2.3.1 Finite Verbal Morphology 
In Uzbek and Kazakh, there are only three paradigms that are unambiguously finite: the 
desiderative, the simple past, and the conditional. 
What I refer to here as the ‘desiderative’ paradigm is not, strictly, a paradigm, as it 
involves three distinct ranges of meaning that vary by person. The term volitional or hortative is 
perhaps a better descriptor first person forms, which express a desire or suggestion to oneself or 
ones group. The term ‘imperative’ is a the standard description of the second person forms, and 
the third person forms, which express an indirect command or wish, are usually termed ‘optative’ 
or ‘voluntative’ (Johanson 2009, 489-91). Although these forms do vary in meaning, their 
mutual exclusivity and expression of obligation have led scholars of the Turkic languages to 
group them together under a single paradigm (see Koç and Doğan 2004 for Kazakh; Coşkun 
2000 for Uzbek; Erdal 2004 groups these forms together as ‘volitional’). 
Table 16: Desiderative Paradigm of 'Do' 
Uzbek 
Kazakh 
Person 
S
G
. 
P
L
. 
S
G
. 
P
L
. 
1 
qil-ay, qil-ayin 
qil-aylik 
qïl-ayïn 
qïl-ayïq 
2 
qil, qil-gin 
qil-ingiz 
qil-ingiz,
qil-inglar 
qïl, qïl-ïŋïz 
qïl-ïŋdar,
qïl-ïŋïzdar 
3 
qil-sin 
qil-sin(lar) 
qïl-sïn 
qïl-sïn(dar) 
The volitional paradigm does not interact with non-confirmativity. 

---

48 
The other two finite paradigms - the simple past and the conditional - are distinguished 
from all others through their use of the possessive personal markers (Tables 17 and 18).
Etymologically, the past tense is proposed to have developed from a verbal noun, which explains 
the presence of the possessive markers (Erdal 2004, 238). The origin of the conditional is 
unclear. In modern Uzbek and Kazakh, however, both the simple past and conditional always 
function as predicates, so they must be considered truly finite. 
Verbs inflected with the conditional correspond roughly to English clauses marked with 
‘if’ and indicate irrealis mood. 
(29) Qaš-sa-m qutïl-a al-ar e-mes-pin. (Kaz) 
Run-
COND
-1
SG
escape-
CVB BE
.
ABLE
-
AOR COP
-
NEG
.
AOR
-1
SG
‘If I run, I will be unable to escape.’ 
(Koç and Doğan 2004: 355) 
Table 17 - Conditional Paradigm of 'Do' 
Uzbek 
Kazakh 
Person 
S
G
. 
P
L
. 
S
G
. 
P
L
. 
1 
qil-sa-m 
qil-sa-k 
qïl-sa-m 
qïl-sa-q 
2 
qil-sa-ng 
qil-sa-ngiz 
qïl-sa-ŋ 
qïl-sa-ŋïz 
3 
qil-sa 
qil-sa(lar) 
qïl-sa 
qïl-sa(lar) 
The simple past tense contrasts with the perfect and the converbial past, which will be discussed 
in the following sections, not only in terms of what sort of pastness is meant, but also in terms of 
confirmativity. These distinction forms the basis of the third chapter. 
Table 18 - Simple Past Paradigm of 'Do' 
Uzbek 
Kazakh 
Person 
S
G
. 
P
L
. 
S
G
. 
P
L
. 
1 
qil-di-m 
qil-di-k 
qïl-dï-m 
qïl-dï-q 
2 
qil-di-ng 
qil-di-ngiz 
qïl-dï-ŋ 
qïl-dï-ŋïz 
3 
qil-di 
qil-di(lar) 
qïl-dï 
qïl-dï(lar) 
The conditional and simple past are the basis for two of the five copular forms that are discussed 
in 2.4. 

---

49