165
It is hoped is that future analyses of Central Asian languages may take as their starting
point the framework that has been adduced here for Uzbek and Kazakh. As outlined in 6.1.1, we
anticipate that certain features may be present in other Central Asian languages:
i. a distinction between finite and non-finite verb forms that corresponds with the
distribution of copular forms of the verb
ii. a number of past tense forms that differ mainly in markedness for confirmativity
iii. non-confirmative forms of the copula, likely
originating in the perfect, a
secondary past tense, or a non-finite past tense marker, which may variously
express:
a. non-firsthand
information source
b. admirativity
c. rhetorical questions
In
Turkic languages, we might also expect a distinction between copular forms based on
*er-
GAn and the now largely obsolete
*er-mIš.
Uzbek and Kazakh ekan/eken, in their evidential
usage, are not restricted in the sort of non-firsthand information source that they express,
whereas
emish/-mIs strictly expresses reportativity.
Yüklə
Dostları ilə paylaş: