162
In Uzbek, it is possible for the question particle to follow the evidential marker:
ekan-mi.
In Kazakh, this is not allowed: *
eken-be. When the question particle follows the evidential
marker in Uzbek, the preceding item must not be a finite form of the verb; that is, in evidential
and
rhetorical questions, where the past tense -
di may precede the evidential marker, the question
particle must intervene between the past tense marker and the evidential marker:
(232) a.
qil-di-mi-kan? (Uz)
do-
PST
-
Q
-
EVID
‘Did he (apparently) do?’
b.
*qil-di ekan-mi?
do-
PST EVID
-
Q
While the past tense marker -
di is limited to questions in Uzbek, in Kazakh there is a
growing tendency, although still rare, for
the cognate past tense maker -DI to appear in non-
interrogative contexts.
(233)
Täwelšilik el-imiz kel-di eken. (Kaz)
Freedom country-1
PL
come-
PST EVID
‘Freedom has come to our country!’
2
While still rare in independent clauses, the combination of finite (i.e. conditional, past) forms of
the verb with the
eken has become quite common in Kazakh cause-and-effect constructions
formed with the complementizer
deb:
(234)
De-gen-men, dağdarïs kel-di eken dep, qol quwsïr-ïp qara-p otïr-uw-ğa
say-
PRF
-1
SG
crisis come-
PST EVID COMP
arm cross-
CVB
look-
CVB
sit-
INF
-
DAT
bol-ma-y-dï. (Kazakh)
be-
NEG
-
PRES
-3
2
Elemes, Kerim. 2010. “Abay ädebiyetin tanïğanmen, Ibrahimniŋ ädebiyetine boylay almay
žürmiz.” Interfax-Qazaqstan, 6 May. Accessed 6 Oct 2010.
http://www.interfax.kz/?lang=kaz&int_id=quotings_of_the_day&news_id=59
163
‘As I’ve said, because a crisis has apparently come, we can’t sit around
waiting with our
arms crossed.’
3
It remains to be seen whether this pattern will continue to expand beyond this sort of
construction, and whether any semantic change will accompany this morphosyntactic change.
Constructions of this type are not found in Uzbek.
A third difference between Uzbek and Kazakh is the presence in Uzbek of a particle -
dir,
derived from the verb
tur- ‘to stand’. This morpheme is not present in Kazakh, but in Uzbek, it
attaches to non-finite predicates and indicates a high degree of confidence.
(235)
Alloh so’z-i-dan chiroyli so’z yo’q-dir! (Uzbek)
Allah word-3-
ABL
beautiful word
NEG
.
EXIST
-
MOD
‘There is surely no word more beautiful than the word Allah!’
4
Most forms of the verb, and all non-verbal predicates are unmarked for
STATUS
/
MODALITY
, and
therefore can employ -
dir to indicate this. It is especially common for -
dir to be attached to the
perfect -
gan, which is unmarked not only for confirmativity,
but for any form of
STATUS
/
MODALITY
.
(236)
qiynoq-qa sol-ish uchun dunyo-ga kel-gan-dir-miz. (Uzbek)
suffering-
DAT
undergo-
NMLZR
for world-
DAT
come-
PRF
-
MOD
-1
PL
‘Surely, we came into this world in order to suffer.’
5
In Uzbek, then, -
dir can be seen as a sort of complement to
ekan, which likewise attaches to non-
finite predicates.
The fourth and final major difference between Uzbek and Kazakh is the form and
behavior of the modern reflexes of older
*er-miš. The behavior of these forms is fully discussed
in Chapter 5. The Uzbek reflex of this form is
emish, and
it behaves quite similarly to ekan,
3
Arnur, Asqar. 2009. “Ulïqpan Žoldasov: Almatïnï aralamağanïma üš žïl boldï.” Dastan
Studiyasï, 11 Sep. Accessed 6 Oct 2010. http://www.dastan-studio.kz/?p=1904
4
2007. “Allah” Youtube, 3 Sep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpgHtXphPz8
5
2008. Ma’rifat, 9 Jan. Accessed 15 Feb 2011.
old.marifat.uz/uzbl/xalqaro_hayot/oyparastlar_olkasi.mg
164
except that when employed to indicate non-firsthand information source, the only possible
interpretation is one of reportativity, rather than the full range of non-firsthand information
source. Like
ekan,
emish may be employed to express admirativity. These facts indicate that
emish should be considered non-confirmative, so it is perhaps due to
issues of markedness that
emish is somewhat more restricted than
ekan in its possible interpretations.
The Kazakh reflex of
*er-miš is the clitic -
mIs. Unlike Uzbek
emish, -
mIs may appear
essentially anywhere, even after finite or confirmative forms of the verb. Moreover, it is not
employed to express admirativity. Given the morphological promiscuity of this form,
its ability
to co-occur with confirmative forms, and its inability to express admirativity, we must conclude
that Kazakh -
mIs has evolved into a marker of reportativity, and that it does not interact with the
non-confirmativity paradigm outlined in the previous chapters.
Yüklə
Dostları ilə paylaş: