Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh

6.2.1.1 Kyrgyz 
Although Kyrgyzstan is geopolitically part of Central Asia, the Kyrgyz language exhibits 
some phonological and lexical properties that relate it to languages of Southern Siberia (Tekin 
2005; Schönig 1999). Nevertheless, Kyrgyz is considered by most to be a Kipchak language, 
related to Kazakh (Schönig 2007, see also Figure 1 in Chapter 1 of this work), and it exhibits a 

---

166 
number of similarities to Uzbek and Kazakh, as well, likely due in part to the proximity of the 
three languages. 
Like Uzbek and Kazakh, Kyrgyz possesses three finite forms of the verb: the voluntative-
imperative-optative paradigm (1
SG
-(A)yIn, 1
PL
-(A)lIk, 2
SG 
-Ø,
 
-GIn, 2
PL
—IŋIz(dAr), 3
SG
/
PL
-sIn) , the conditional in -sA, and the simple past in -DI. It likewise possesses a three-way 
distinction in the past tense between what are termed the 'definite past tense’ -DI, the ‘indefinite 
past tense’ in -GAn, and the ‘subjective past tense in -Ip(tIr) (Abduldaev and Zakharova 1987).
This three-way distinction strongly resembles that of Uzbek and Kazakh in phonological form, 
and given the similarities between the terms used for cognate forms in Uzbek and Kazakh, they 
likely function in ways similar to those described here. Kyrgyz also possesses a form eken, 
which has similar distribution to Uzbek and Kazakh ekan/eken and is often translated as ‘it turns 
out’ or ‘as they say’ (Abduldaev and Zakharova 1987). Once again, it appears that the Kyrgyz 
form behaves in similar ways to the cognate forms in Uzbek and Kazakh, expressing a similar 
range of non-confirmative meaning. It does not appear that Kyrgyz possesses any forms derived 
from Proto-Turkic *-mIš, nor is it clear whether eken can be used to form rhetorical questions.