(Udmurt)
ShareNomLoc + Cmnt
ShareNomLoc: Nominal and locational predicates are coded the same way.
+Cmnt: Although the language displays the features of some other value, additional information is needed to clarify its type.
| (1) | ńules | badźym. |
|---|
| forest | big |
| ’The forest is big.’ (Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008: 33) |
| (2) | šur | otyn. |
|---|
| river | there |
| ’The river is there.’ (Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008: 33) |
| (3) | ńules | pići | övöl. |
|---|
| forest | small | COP.NEG.PRS |
| ’The forest is not small.’ (Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008: 34) |
| (4) | šur | otyn | övöl. |
|---|
| river | there | COP.NEG.PRS |
| ’The river is not there.’ (Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008: 33) |
| (5) | ńules | badźym | vylem. |
|---|
| forest | big | COP.PST2.3SG |
| ’The forest was allegedly big. (Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008: 34) |
| (6) | so | tatyn | vylem. |
|---|
| (s)he | here | COP.PST2.3SG |
| ’They say (s)he was here.’ (Y. S .) |
| (7) | so | badźym | luy-sal | ke, (…) |
|---|
| (s)he | big | COP‑COND | if |
| ’If (s)he were big (= an adult), (…) (Y. S.) |
| (8) | so | tatyn | luy-sal | ke (…) |
|---|
| (s)he | here | COP‑COND | if |
| ’If (s)he were here, (…) (Y. S.) |
| (9) | so | tatyn | med | lu-o-z |
|---|
| (s)he | here | let | will_be‑FUT‑3SG |
| ‘Let him/her be here’ (Y. S.) |
In Udmurt, nominal and local predicates in their base form (stative sentences in indicative mood, present tense, third person singular) are encoded the same way, without using an auxiliary (1)–(2). In constructions different from this, such as negative sentences (3)–(4), past (5)–(6) and future tense (see Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008: 33–34), conditional (7)–(8) and imperative/optative mood (9) the copula is obligatory both in nominal and locative predication. In this latter case the copula is the same in nominal and locative predicative sentences with the same function (3)–(8).
Author: Laura Horváth
[🠐 back]
