(Udmurt)

EvidParad & EvidPart

EvidParad: Evidentiality is a feature of the verbal paradigm.

EvidPart: Evidentiality is marked by the use of specific particles.

(1) vumurt nomyr vaźy-mte, vu
vumurt nothing answer‑pst2.neg.3sg water
pydes-y vaśk-em.
bottom‑ill sink‑pst2.3sg
‘The vumurt [the water spirit] did not answer, it sank to the bottom of the water.’ (Samarova – Strelkova 2013: 153)

(2) so śi-jem no keľt-em pyry-os-ty.
(s)he eat‑pst2.3sg and leave‑pst2.3sg crumb‑pl‑acc
‘(S)he ate and left the crumbs.’ (E. A.)

(3) ta vyľľem jubo sankt-peťerburg-yn gine kyldyt-emyn, pe.
this similar column Saint_Petersburg‑ine only build‑ptcp.pass pcl
‘They say that such a column was only built in Saint Petersburg.’ (Udmurt corpus)

(4) pinal-jos tunne övöl koški-ľľam, avtobus-e vui-ľľamte.
child‑pl todayneg leave‑pst2.3pl bus‑ill arrive‑pst2.3pl.neg
‘(I've heard that) the children haven’t left today, they did not catch the bus.’ (Nazarova 2014: 235)

(5) malpa-śko buskeľ-ez maď-i-z dyr so-ly
think‑prs.1sg neighbour‑det tell‑pst‑3sg maybe (s)he‑dat
kyźy kylśaryś so-len pi-jez ma_ke no
how for_example (s)he‑gen boy‑3sg something pcl
urod-ze daurt-i-z kylśaryś bakča-yn ubo-os
bad‑3sg.acc hurry‑pst‑3sg for_example vegeteable‑ine seedbed‑pl
ul-ti vetl-i-zy.
under‑prol go‑pst‑3pl
’I think the neighbour might have told him [the father] that his son, for example, was up to no good, in particular, they trod on the vegetable beds.’ (K. Kh.)

In Udmurt indirect evidentiality can be expressed as part of the tense system: the second past among others encodes the source of information (1)–(2). There is no independent marking for evidentiality in Udmurt, there are only evidential strategies (Aikhenvald 2018), since the second past tense, besides encoding the source of information, also expresses mirativity, past perfect, lack of control (Siegl 2004), and different aspectual functions as well (Horváth 2018: 98). The source of information can be encoded using either the synthetic or the analytic forms of the second past tense, the latter formed with the help of an auxiliary (inflected main verb + vylem (the second past tense form of the copula) or the inflected second past tense form of the main verb + val (the first past tense form of the copula)). The negated forms of these tenses also have synthetic and analytical versions (1)–(2), (4). Apart from these, indirect evidentiality can also be expressed using the particle pe (3). Direct evidentiality can be expressed with the first past tense, however, this is somewhat controversial. Though some sources refer to this tense as the “witnessed” past tense (Nazarova 2014: 236-237; Leinonen – Vilkuna 2000: 497), in real-life language use there is no genuine evidential contrast between the two past tenses. The first past tense is becoming more and more bleached with respect to evidentiality, but it cannot yet be regarded as being completely neutral (Kubitsch 2019: 88) (5).

Author: Ditta Szabó


[🠐 back]