(Komi-Permyak)
SuffT & PerifT / SyntT
SuffT: Tense is expressed through the use of a special suffix.
PerifT: Tense is expressed periphrastically.
SyntT: Tense is expressed through the use of a polyexponential synthetic affix.
| (1) | talun | irina | verd-ö | mös-sö. |
|---|
| today | Irina | feed‑PRS.3SG | cow‑ACC.3SG |
| ’Irina feeds the/her cow today.’ (L. P.) |
| (2) | talun | irina | verd-i-s | mös-sö. |
|---|
| today | Irina | feed‑PST‑3SG | cow‑ACC.3SG |
| ’Irina fed the/her cow today.’ (L. P.) |
| (3) | talun | irina | verd-öm | mös-sö. |
|---|
| today | Irina | feed‑PST2.3SG | cow‑ACC.3SG |
| ’(They say that) Irina fed the/her cow today.’ (L. P.) |
| (4) | talun | irina | verd-a-s | mös-sö. |
|---|
| today | Irina | feed‑FUT‑3SG | cow‑ACC.3SG |
| ’Irina will feed the/her cow today.’ (L. P.) |
| (5) | talun | irina | verd-ö | völ-i | mös-sö | i |
|---|
| today | Irina | feed‑PRS.3SG | be‑PST.3SG | cow‑ACC.3SG | and |
| sek | setćö | pyr-i-s | tańa. | | |
| then | there | enter‑PST‑3SG | Tanya | | |
| ’Irina was feeding the/her cow today and then Tanya entered.’ (L. P.) | |
| (6) | irina | verd-öm | völ-i | mös-sö. |
|---|
| Irina | feed‑PST2.3SG | be‑PST.3SG | cow‑ACC.3SG |
| ’Irina has fed the/her cow today.’ (L. P.) |
| (7) | irina | verd-öm | völ-öm | mös-sö. |
|---|
| Irina | feed‑PST2.3SG | be‑PST2.3SG | cow‑ACC.3SG |
| ’(They say that) Irina has fed the/her cow today.’ (L. P.) |
| (8) | talun | irina | pond-a-s | verd-ny | mös-sö. |
|---|
| today | Irina | start‑FUT‑3SG | feed‑INF | cow‑ACC.3SG |
| ’Irina will feed the/her cow today.’ (L. P.) |
Tense markers are either suffixes (1)–(4) or compound verb forms (5)–(8) in Komi-Permyak (cf. Ponomareva 2010). The paradigms for present tense (3) and the simple future form (4) differ only in third person. 3rd person singular (1) and plural forms in the present tense also express the tense. The difference between synthetic past forms is based on evidentiality according to Bartens (2000), since the first past forms (2) refer to witnessed whereas the second past forms (3) to non-witnessed events. On the other hand, Batalova (2002) distinguishes between imperfective (2) and perfective (3) forms. There are several complex past tense forms in the language (5)–(7), among which forms containing the auxiliary völöm is assumed to express non-witnessed events. However, this form is rarely used in the contemporary language (L. P.). Moreover, future reference can also be expressed using periphrastic means (8) (Bartens 2000: 179–215, L. P.).
Author: Nikolett F. Gulyás
[🠐 back]
