Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

particle: 
(145) a. 
qil-ğan eken-siŋ be (Kaz) 
 
b. 
qïl-ğan ba eken-siŋ 
c. 
*qïl-ğan-sïŋ ba eken 
 
d. 
*qïl-ğan eken me-siŋ 
‘Have you (apparently) done?’ 
 
The final difference between declarative and interrogative clauses containing ekan/eken is 
that, while declarative clauses are restricted as to the paradigms of the verb they allow, 
interrogative clauses bearing ekan/eken allow for the occurrence of any semantically compatible 
paradigm of the verb. 
As has been explained, forms derived from the copula typically only co-occur with 
nominal, adjectival, and non-finite verbal predicates. The major effect of this restriction is that 
copular forms may not co-occur with verbs in the simple past tense in -di/-DI. The inflected 

---

106 
converbial past in -(i)b/-(I)p (i.e. marked for person) typically also does not co-occur with 
copular forms, but in Uzbek, the combination of person-marked -(i)b and ekan is possible, 
provided that this combination occurs in interrogative context. 
 
In Uzbek, when the past, the question particle, and ekan are all present, the usual order is 
as in (146): 
PAST
+
QUESTION PARTICLE
+
EVID
. As the question particle mi cliticizes both to 
whatever it immediately follows and to ekan, this results in morpheme clusters of the sort -di-mi-
kan. 
(146) U ayt-di-mi-kan? (Uz) 
He say-
PST
-
Q
-
EVID
‘Did he say that?’ 
 
In Kazakh, the question marker may either preceed or follow eken: 
 
(147) Bar-dï eken be? ~ Bar-dï ma eken? (Kaz) 
go-
PST EVID Q
‘Did she go?’ 
 
The ability of the past and ekan/eken to co-occur is not limited to polar questions marked 
with mi/MA, but is possible as long as the clause in question is interrogative: 
(148) Ne qïl-dï eken? (Kaz) 
what do-
PST EVID
 
‘What did he do?’ 
 
(149) Qanaqa-si ol-di ekan? (Uz) 
which-3 take-
PST EVID
‘Which did she take?’ 
 
The co-occurrence of the simple past and and ekan/eken is not limited to the simplex 
form of the simple past; the copular past edi may also co-occur with ekan/eken. 
(150) Kim bar edi eken? (Kaz) 
who 
EXIST COP
-
PST EVID
‘Who was there?’ 
 

---

107 
(151) U yaqshi e-di-mi-kan? (Uz) 
it good 
COP
-
PST
-
Q
-
EVID
‘Was it good?’ 
 
As discussed in Chapter 5, the ability of ekan/eken to co-occur with the past -di/-DI in question 
suggests that, when in questions, ekan/eken loses its non-confirmative features.  
In Uzbek, the converbial past in -(i)b may co-occur with ekan; this combination never 
occurs in Kazakh. When these two morphemes occur in interrogatives, the converbial past may 
bear person marking: 
(152) Bor-a ol-ib-siz-mi-kan? (Uz) 
go-
CVB
be.able-
CPST
-2
PL
-
Q
-
EVID
‘Were you able to go?’ 
 
In summary, the main differences between declarative and interrogative clauses 
containing ekan/eken are the presence of the interrogative particle, which can affect the 
placement of agreement markers, and the ability of ekan/eken to co-occur with the past tense 
-di/-DI, and, in Uzbek, with the converbial past form in -(i)b.