103
they anticipate that Athy will respond with non-firsthand information. This presupposition is
confirmed when their question is answered with a statment marked by
ekan:
Yopishayotgan ekan
‘[They were] smugging.’
These questions need not, however, be preceded by non-confirmative statements when
the speakers already have some idea as to the other’s knowledge. In the Kazakh example (141a-
b), the speaker asks his wife to go and identify a person on the street. The asker is presumably
aware that his wife will not know the identity of the person in question, so he employs
eken,
expecting that she will answer on the basis of non-firsthand information:
(141a)
Ol äyel-i-ne “Bar-ïp qara-p kel-ši, kim eken?” de-y-di. (Kaz)
He wife-3-
DAT
go-
CVB
look-
CVB
come-
IMP
who
EVID
say-
PRES
-3
‘He says his wife, “Go look and come back; who is that.”’
The asker’s wife does so, and employs
eken in her response, as she can only infer the correct
answer on the basis of other evidence.
(141b)
Äyel-i barïp qara-p kel-ip “Qayïrši eken, tamaq sura-y-dï” de-y-di. (Kaz)
Wife-3 go-
CVB
look-
CVB
come-
CVB
beggar
EVID
food ask-
PRES
-3 say-
PRES
-3
‘His wife went and looked and returned and said “He appears to be a beggar, he’s asking
for food.’
14
Yüklə
Dostları ilə paylaş: