Typological Database of the Volga-Kama Finno-Ugric Languages

(Komi-Permyak)

NoRepDMark & RepdWV2

NoRepDMark: Although indirect reported clauses exist, they are not indicated by any specific grammatical marker or other morphological strategy.

RepdWV2: Reportativity is marked by the use of a dedicated word that appears in the reported clause.

(1)	peťa	šu-ö,	maša	lokt-i-s	gort-ö.
	Petya	say‑prs.3sg	Masha	come‑pst‑3sg	home‑ill
	’Petya says Masha came home.’ (L. P.)

(2)	peťa	šu-ö,	što	maša	lokt-i-s	gort-ö.
	Petya	say‑prs.3sg	that	Masha	come‑pst‑3sg	home‑ill
	’Petya says that Masha came home.’ (L. P.)

(3)	peťa	šu-ö,	maša	pö	lokt-i-s	gort-ö.
	Petya	say‑prs.3sg	Masha	pcl	come‑pst‑3sg	home‑ill
	’Petya says that Masha came home.’ (L. P.)

(4)	peťa	šu-ö,	što	maša	pö	lokt-i-s	gort-ö.
	Petya	say‑prs.3sg	that	Masha	pcl	come‑pst‑3sg	home‑ill
	’Petya says that Masha came home.’ (L. P.)

In Komi-Permyak reporting does not have to be indicated using an overt reference marker (1). The reported clause may optionally contain the complementiser što ’that’ of Russian origin (2) or the particle pö (3). The combination of the two is also attested (4) (cf. Ponomareva 2010: 96).

Author: Nikolett F. Gulyás

[🠐 back]