(Udmurt)
NoPfm
NoPfm: No special verb form exists to express the perfect.
| (1) | mikulaš-tolbabaj | jöl-mes | no | ju-em, | pećeńńa-mes | no |
|---|
| Santa_Claus | milk‑1PL.ACC | PCL | drink‑PST2.3SG | biscuit‑1PL.ACC | PCL |
| śi-em! | | | | | |
| eat‑PST2.3SG | | | | | |
| ’Santa Claus drank our milk and ate our biscuit too!’ (Kubitsch 2018: 260) |
| (2) | aźlo | udmurt-jos-len | matriarhat | vyl-em. |
|---|
| long_ago | udmurt‑PL‑GEN | matriarchy | be‑PST2.3SG |
| ’The Udmurt used to be a matriarchy.’ (Kubitsch 2018: 259) |
| (3) | vań | rodńa-my | ľukaśk-em-yn, | stanci-yś | pi-je |
|---|
| every | relative‑1PL | gather‑PTCP.PST‑INE | station‑ELA | boy‑1SG |
| gine | berty-mte(…) | | | |
| only | return‑NEG.PST2.3SG | | | |
| ’All the relatives gathered, only my son did not return from the station (…)’ (Siegl 2004: 140) |
| (4) | mon | miśt-iśk-emyn, | munčo-je | myn-emyn. |
|---|
| I | wash‑REFL‑PTCP.PST | sauna‑ILL | go‑PTCP.PST |
| ‘I washed myself, went to the sauna.’ (Leinonen – Vilkuna 2000: 505) |
| (5) | mon | kynm-iśkem. |
|---|
| I | be_cold‑PST2.1SG |
| ‘I caught a cold.’ (I don’t know when and where.) (Leinonen – Vilkuna 2000: 506) |
| (6) | mon | kynm-emyn. |
|---|
| I | be_cold‑PTCP.PST |
| ‘I have a cold.’ (Leinonen – Vilkuna 2000: 506) |
| (7) | ukno | uśt-emyn. |
|---|
| window | open‑PTCP.PST |
| ‘The window is open.’ (Leinonen – Vilkuna 2000: 505) |
In Udmurt, the second past tense (PST2) is sometimes discussed in the literature as expressing perfect meanings (cf. Csúcs 1990: 50, Winkler 2011: 97–98) due to that property of this past tense form that includes reference to the result of the event (cf. e.g. Serebrennikov 1960: 120, Perevoshchikov et al. 1962: 205–206, Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008: 200, Csúcs 1990: 50, Winkler 2001: 50, Winkler 2011: 98, Bartens 2000: 207, Kozmács 2002a: 86). This tense (PST2), besides having a resultative meaning, the most commonly is used to encode the source of information and expresses non-witness evidentiality, that is, information based on indirect evidence (cf. e.g. Siegl 2004: 130–137, Leinonen – Vilkuna 2000, Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008: 200, Kozmács 2002a: 86, Kubitsch 2018, 2019, Szabó 2019). Evidentiality and perfect meanings often go hand in hand (1), since diachronically the evidential meaning often comes from the perfect. In today’s Udmurt language, however, it became widespread as an evidential marker not necessarily carrying a perfectivizing meaning (2). Yet, according to Siegl, in those cases when the PST2 form has no evidential meaning whatsoever (including mirativity and non-intentional actions), the PST2 form can be regarded as a genuine perfect form: it is assumed that in such cases it is not just the result itself but the whole situation described that affects the present (speech time) (Siegl 2004: 140). From the context of (3) it is clear that the speaker witnessed the event described. Leinonen and Vilkuna claim that while the Komi PST2 forms can express both evidentiality and resultativity, in Udmurt resultativity is expressed by a participle form (the inessive marked form of the -(e)myn, and -(e)m participles) (Leinonen – Vilkuna 2000: 497, see also Siegl 2004: 141). It is argued that in Udmurt the PST2 past tense cannot be used for not uncontrolled or not indirect events in first person; such events can only be expressed using the -(e)myn form (Leinonen – Vilkuna 2000: 503–505). That is, in first person Leinonen és Vilkuna associate the PST2 form only with indirect evidentiality (in this case, rather to express lack of control or wilfulness, see Kubitsch 2019), in other cases the form -(e)myn is used. The examples they discuss are always intransitive verbs in first person singular, other person forms are not considered (5–6). The latter construction (6) is identified in the literature as subjective resultative (or intransitive resultative) (see Siegl 2004: 93, Nedjalkov – Jaxontov 1988: 9) or a case of intransitive passivization (see Asztalos 2010, valamint Alberti 1996). The -(e)myn participle forms can also be used with transitive verbs: the literature calls them objective resultatives (see Siegl 2004: 93, Nedyalkov – Jaxontov 1988: 9) or transitive passivization (Asztalos 2010) (7). Further research is necessary.
References: Kubitsch 2018, 2019, Asztalos 2010, Siegl 2004, Nedjalkov – Jaxontov 1988, Leinonen – Vilkuna 2000, Alberti 1996, Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008, Kozmács 2002, Szabó 2019, Csúcs 1990, Winkler 2011, 2001, Serebrennikov 1960, Perevoshchikov et al. 1962, Winkler 2001, 2011, Bartens 2000
Szerző: Laura Horváth
[🠐 back]
