7 The niceties of phonetic developments in the individual Turkic varieties as well as the morphophonological variation that is triggered by stem features will generally be ignored in this paper except where relevant to the present topic.
languages, including Tatar and Kazakh, from which ex. (16) is cited.8 -A bašla- occurs in the Kipchak group (e.g. Tatar, Bashkir, Kazakh and Kirghiz) as well as in Uzbek (the Karluk-Uyghur group). Example (17) is from Uzbek. Besides these combinations, which continue an old type of formation, *-(y)V has been a very productive linking device in various auxiliary constructions, especially actionality operators (Aktionsarten), some of which evolved further into aspect markers (see e.g. Johanson 1995), but it occurs in some innovative modal constructions as well, especially in the highly prolific possibility marker -A al-, the auxiliary segment of which originally denoted ‘to take’ (Clauson 1972: 124). The first attestations of -A al- are found in the Codex Cumanicus (Kipchak Turkic, early 14th c., see ex. 18). This marker was also very common in Chaghatay Turkic (15th–19th c.). Today it is the general marker of possibility in Southeast Turkic and a large number of Kipchak languages (see ex. 16 for a Kazakh example). A very marginal appearance of -(y)A in a volitive construction is found in a Middle Azerbaijani transcription text from Isfahan (17th c.), where it combines with the verb iste- ‘to seek’ as auxiliary (19).
(14) Bu aptobus-qa oltur-idiγan-lar nahayiti köp, öčret-te DEM bus-DAT sit.down-PTCP-PL extremely many row-LOC tur-mi-sa bėlit-i-ni al-γili bol-ma-ydu tėxi.
stand-NEG-COND ticket-POSS.3-ACC take-CV become-NEG-ASP.3 even
‘Those who want to travel on this coach are extremely numerous; one cannot even obtain a ticket without standing in line.’
(Modern Uyghur, Šal 2006: 51)
(15) Eti-si u-lar mėn-i yene soraq qil-γili bašli-di.
next.day-POSS.3 DEM-PL I-ACC again question do-CV begin-ASP
‘The next day, they started interrogating me again.’
(Modern Uyghur, web-1)
8 In Tatar and Kazakh, this marker denotes participant-internal possibility, while in Western Oghuz it covers participant-internal, participant-external, deontic and (in specific constellations) even epistemic modality.
(16) “Sawat-ïŋ bar ma?” dep sura-ydï. “Žaz-a literacy-POSS.2.SG existent Q QUOT ask-ASP.3 write-CV
bil-e-siŋ be?” “Sawat-ïm bar, žaz-a
known-ASP-2.SG Q literacy-POSS.1.SG existent write-CV
bil-e-min,” de-ydi Bäkir. Öz-i orta mektep-te know-ASP-1.SG say-ASP.3 NP self-POSS.3 middle school-LOC sabaq ber-etin muγalim eken. “Orïsša ma, qazaqša ma?”
class give-PTCP teacher evid Russian Q Kazakh Q
“Azdap orïsša da žaz-a al-a-mïn.”
a.little Russian too write-CV take-ASP-1.SG
‘“Are you literate?”, he asks. “Can you write?” “I am literate, I can write”, says Bäkir. He is a middle school teacher. “Russian or Kazakh?” “I can also write a little Russian.”’
(Kazakh, web-2)
(17) Hali yigirma-ga ham bor-ma-g‘an=dir, mo‘ylab-i yet 20-DAT too go-NEG-ASP=EPIST moustache-POSS.3 ham endi-gina chiq-a boshla-g‘an.
too now-just come.out-CV begin-ASP
‘He will not even be twenty; his moustache has just begun to grow.’
(Uzbek, Qodiriy 1926 [1994]: 32)
(18) Ol ilan boy-na iamanlich et-se, DEM serpent body-POSS.3.DAT evil do-COND ǵan-ina et-e al-mas.
soul-POSS.3.DAT do-CV take-ASP
‘Even if the serpent does harm to the body, it cannot do harm to the soul.’
(Middle Kipchak, Codex Cumanicus 125; Kuun 1880: 168)
(19) Gandi giouab et-oub dee-di gud-é iste-menem s/he answer do-CV say-ASP go-CV want-NEG.ASP.1.SG on-dan sonra puchman ol-oub gueti.
dem-ABL after repentent become-CV go.ASP
‘He answered: I do not want to go. Later, he repented and went.’
(Middle Azerbaijani, AZR 94, 14–15; Mt 21.29)
Besides the two converbs mentioned so far, some other converbs play a role as linking devices in modal auxiliary constructions, particularly the converb in -(V)p, which combines with bil- ‘to know’ (Turkmen), bol- ‘to become’ (Chaghatay and a large number of modern languages) and al- ‘to take’ (Shor) to designate various types of possibility, with iste- ‘to seek’ (rarely in Chaghatay) to designate willingness and with bašla- ‘to begin’ (Noghay) to mark inception.
Also, the conditional (Old Turkic -sAr, most later Turkic varieties -sA) is involved in some modal constructions, e.g. together with bol- ‘to become’, as a marker of participant-external and deontic possibility.
Auxiliary constructions with -(V)p and -sA become increasingly popular from the Middle Turkic period onward, although some even occur in Old Turkic (see Section 8).
In the Middle Turkic era, a new type of modal construction emerges in which the modal value materializes in a matrix clause while the action to be modified by the modal value appears in a subordinate clause. The verb in the subordinate clause takes a mood suffix, typically optative, voluntative or conditional,9 which functions as a subjunctive. The modal value of the matrix clause is either encoded by nominal elements, such as mumkin ‘possible’, imkān
‘possibility’ (both borrowed from Arabic) or *kergek ‘necessary, necessity’, or by verbal elements, such as tile- or iste- ‘to want’.
Example (20) is cited from Chaghatay, example (21) from Anatolian Oghuz (both texts from the 16th c.). The underlying structure of both examples is completely identical, with a finite form of the verb tile- in the matrix clause, a complementizer ki(m)10 and an optative form with the subjunctive function in the subordinate clause.11 It was partly
9 Examples (from the Chaghatay Baburnama) for different mood forms: optative:
Mumkin ėmes ėdi kim alarγa bėril-gey ‘It could not be given to them’ (51b10–11);
voluntative: Kėrek kim ... čiq-sun-lar ‘They must set out’ (360b1–2); and conditional:
Kėrek kim ... kėl-se-ler ėdi ‘They should have come’ (185b14).
10 Ki is formally identical to the Persian complementizer, while kim has been grammaticalized from the Turkic interrogative word ‘who’. In some Middle Turkic texts, such as the Dede Qorqud Oγuznameleri (from which ex. 21 is cited), kim and ki are interchangeable.
11 The same construction exists with the auxiliary iste- as well (although not with identical geographic distribution), e.g. Dirse Xān iste-d-i kim oγlanǰuγ-ï-nuŋ üst-ine güvle-yüp düš-e-ydi ‘Dirse Khan wanted to cast himself upon his little son’ (Middle Oghuz, Dede Qorqud 13b3–4; Tezcan & Boeschoten 2001: 41) from the same source as ex. (21).
contact with Persian, which possesses similar structures, that gave rise to this type of construction (on other factors see Section 8).
(20) Tile-dük kim bu qiš ‘āriyat-i bėr-gey.
wish-ASP.1.PL COMP DEM winter loan-POSS.3 give-OPT.3
‘We wished that he would lend it to us for this winter.’
(Chaghatay, Baburnama 59a4–5)
(21) Deli beg dile-d-i ki Dede-yi depe-re čal-a.
lunatic nobleman wish-ASP-3 COMP np-ACC head-DIR hit-OPT.3
‘The lunatic nobleman wanted to hit Dede Qorqud on the head.’
(Middle Oghuz, Dede Qorqud 44a9–10; Tezcan & Boeschoten 2001: 75) In this sort of construction, the subject of the wish-verb need not be identical to the subject of the subordinate verb (in ex. 20 it is different, in ex. 21 it is identical). Consequently, it encompasses not only the relation expressed by the English construction to want to, but a more broad volitive relation Si wants Si/j to X.
While this construction type survives in areas with intensive Turkic-Iranian contact (Kıral 2001; Stein 2010), there is also a structure that displays a stronger degree of integration and involves other auxiliary verbs besides tile- and iste-. This structure dispenses with the complementizer ki(m) and features an auxiliary verb in a finite form and a full verb in a mood form, which serves as a subjunctive. This type of construction is typical of Turkic varieties in the Balkans and adjacent areas (Johanson in print),12 e.g. Gagauz and the Western Rumelian Turkish dialect of the city of Vidin in Bulgaria (henceforward Vidin Turkish), from which examples (22) to (24) are cited.13 The subvariant with iste- (in which the semantics of the auxiliary and the linking segment are most easily reconcilable) has also made its way into the less formal registers of Standard Turkish, where the auxiliary segment always follows the main verb, while in
12 The loss of the complementizer is also frequent in the Turkic varieties of Iran, but the range of auxiliaries does not seem to have expanded (cf. Kıral 2001; Stein 2010).
13 The text was recorded between 1931 and 1938 (Németh 1965: 11).
Vidin Turkish the word order is flexible.14 While the subjunctive function in the periphrastic constructions with a complementizer could be performed by various mood forms (see above), the Balkan structure developed paradigms with predictable mood forms in the individual persons (e.g. 1st and 3rd person: voluntative, 2nd person: optative in the Standard Turkish paradigm; see Rentzsch 2010: 218).
(22) Ben yi-yeyim sen-i iste-y-im.
I eat-VOL.1.SG you-ACC want-ASP-1.SG
‘I want to eat you.’
(Vidin Turkish, Németh 1965: 251)
(23) Bu hayvan-nar oqu-sun bil-ir=mi?
DEM animal-PL read-VOL.3 know-ASP=Q
‘Can these animals read?’
(Vidin Turkish, Németh 1965: 185).
(24) Qïs bašla-r aγla-sïn.
girl begin-ASP cry-VOL.3
‘The girl starts to cry.’
(Vidin Turkish, Németh 1965: 144)
A completely different strategy of linking main verb and auxiliary involves verbal nouns. Verbal nouns have been common derivational tools during all documented stages of Turkic. Word forms that consist of a verb stem and a verbal noun suffix can fill any syntactic slot that is suitable for nouns. Verb stems usually preserve their argument structure, with the common exception that subjects frequently appear in the genitive instead of the unmarked case. (In this case, the verbal noun phrase is re-analyzed as a nominal phrase with its double marking [dependent→genitive, head→possessive] features.) Given that verbal nouns are suitable for any nominal slot, they qualify for all kinds of arbitrary and conventionalized constructions, including modal ones. Strikingly, in Old Turkic, verbal nouns are hardly ever
14 Original Turkic word order principles prefer the auxiliary segment to follow the main verb. This tendency is often violated in varieties under strong contact influence, an issue that is irrelevant to the present discussion.
used in modal constructions with verbal auxiliaries. They frequently occur, however, in constructions with nominal auxiliaries such as kergek ‘necessary, necessity’ (25), where a selection of four different verbal nouns can be found in Old Uyghur alone, namely -mAK, -sVK, -GU and -mIš (Erdal 2004: 526–527). In terms of syntactic function, the verbal noun phrase acts as the subject and the nominal auxiliary as a predicate, thus reflecting a perfectly normal Turkic sentence structure without any formal change.
(25) Bir ay čaxšapat tut-maq kergek erti.
one month commandment keep-VN necessary PST
‘It was necessary to observe the One-Month Commandment.’
(Old Uyghur, Xwāstvānift L 274–275)
Although virtually unattested in Old Turkic, employing verbal nouns as a linking device between main and auxiliary verb is a most natural choice, which is actually extremely common almost everywhere in the Turkic world since early Middle Turkic times. Very often, the verbal noun phrase is integrated into the matrix structure according to the original government features of the auxiliary. Although deviations can be observed very early (see below), it is very likely that this is the initial stage of the linking strategy that uses verbal nouns. Example (26) from Middle Oghuz instantiates a possibility marker comprising the verbal noun -mAK in the unmarked case and the auxiliary verb ol- (<*bol-) ‘to become’, which can roughly be rendered ‘X-ing is (not) possible’.15 The verbal noun phrase occupies the subject slot in this construction, thus complying with the usual argument structure of (b)ol-.
(26) Oγul, ṣabāḥ var-ub öylen gel-mek ol-maz,
son morning go-CV noon come-VN become-NEG.ASP.3 öylen var-ub axšam gel-mek ol-maz.
noon go-CV evening come-VN become-NEG.ASP.3
15 Whether or not the auxiliary verb is negated is irrelevant to the present study, although it may become structurally relevant in some constructions. (In some languages, for instance, -(V)p bol- exists only in negated form and *-(y)V u- survives in Turkish only as a marker of negative possibility.)
‘Son, one cannot simply leave in the morning and return at noon, or leave at noon and return in the evening.’
(Middle Oghuz, Dede Qorqud 88a4–5; Tezcan & Boeschoten 2001:
124)
Except bol-, all the full verbs mentioned here that grammaticalized to auxiliaries originally governed the accusative, and most of them (except u-, which is almost completely obsolete) appear in auxiliary constructions with a verbal noun in the accusative as well. In Uzbek and Turkish, for instance, there are markers of possibility of the type
acc+bil-> (ex. 27–28) and volitive markers of the type <vn-acc+wish-verb> (ex. 29–30).16 Bašla- ‘to begin’ is occasionally attested with a verbal noun in the accusative as well (see ex. (31) from Kazakh). In volitive constructions the pattern can be slightly varied in order to express the wish that the action be performed by a different subject (Si wants Sj to X). This is realized by expressing the subject of the action (i.e. Sj) with possessive suffixes, which are inserted between the verbal noun and the accusative suffix: <vn-poss-acc+wish-verb>. This is a very widespread strategy. Occasionally, this structure is also employed in same-subject wishes (Si wants Si to X = Si wants to X); see ex. (32) from Yakut (with another auxiliary baγar-). Here, the double marking of the personal referent renders a redundancy on the one hand but unifies the patterns for same-subject and different-subject wishes (Si wants Si/j to X) on the other, thus covering the same broad volitive relation as the subjunctive pattern (cf. ex. 20–22 above). The pattern <vn-poss-acc+wish-verb> can serve as the starting point for further grammaticalization as in the Tuvan same-subject volitive construction shown in ex. (33), which contains a fossilized third person possessive marker irrespective of the person of the auxiliary. (The auxiliary küze- in this construction is etymologically identical to the wish-verb küse- already familiar from Old Turkic and preserves its original government pattern.)
(27) Ana, o‘g‘l-im, biz-ning xalq-ning hol-i-ga
behold son-POSS.1.SG our people-GEN condition-POSS.3-DAT
16 The semantic niceties that distinguish these markers from other, more frequently used markers of the same modal umbrella categories will be commented on below (Section 8).
yig‘la-sh-ni ham bil-ma-y-san, kul-ish-ni ham!
cry-VN-ACC too know-NEG-ASP-2.SG laugh-VN-ACC too
‘Behold, my son, you can neither cry about the state of our people nor laugh!’
(Uzbek, Qodiriy 1926 [1994]: 37)
(28) Tek gerek-en bekle-me-yi bil-mek.
single be.necessary-PTCP wait-VN-ACC know-VN
‘The only necessary thing is to be able to wait.’
(Turkish, Şafak 2009: 226)
(29) Kumushbibi shu choq-g‘a-cha qara-ma-g‘an va
NP DEM time-DAT-LIM look-NEG-ASP and
qara-sh-ni ham tila-ma-gan edi.
look-VN-ACC too wish-NEG-ASP PST
‘Kumushbibi had not looked at him until now and had not wanted to do so.’
(Uzbek, Qodiriy 1926 [1994]: 60)
(30) Ne-ler ol-acağ-ın-ı bil-meden ve bil-me-yi what-PL become-VN-POSS.3-ACC know-NEG.CV and know-VN-ACC iste-meden var güc-üm=le ilerle-d-im.
want-NEG.CV available power-POSS.1.SG=with move.on-ASP-1.SG
‘I moved on with all the power I had, not knowing what would happen and not wanting to know.’
(Turkish, Şafak 2009: 118)
(31) Antropov gol soγ-uw-dï basta-d-ï.
NP goal shoot-VN-ACC begin-ASP-3
‘Antropov has started to score.’
(Kazakh, web-3)
(32) Aččïk ïït-alïax-pïn baγar-bap-pïn.
hungry send-ITER.VN-POSS.1.ACC want-NEG.INTRA-1.SG
‘I do not want to send them away hungry.’
(Yakut, Matthew 15.32)
(33) Ekiriir-in küze-p=tur sen be?
recover.VN-POSS.3.ACC want-INTRA 2.SG Q
‘Do you want to recover?’
(Tuvan, John 5.6)
A variant of this strategy that seems to be particular to volitive expressions displays the verbal noun not in the accusative, but in the unmarked case. This variant conforms to a Turkic syntactic rule that assigns the unmarked case to unspecific direct objects (cf. Johanson 1977). Some of the verbal nouns that are part of this construction are frequently labeled “infinitive” in the Turcology literature (especially -mAK: Brockelmann 1954: 254; Clauson 1972: XLIV), but they lack the modal semantic component of what Haspelmath calls the infinitive (cf. Haspelmath 1989: 288). -mAK, an item that is attested since the Old Turkic stage, is a pure nominalizer (sometimes also said to form
“abstract” nouns: von Gabain 1941 [31974]: 73). The other verbal noun found in such constructions, -(V)r, originally denoted the intraterminal aspect (“imperfectivity”, “present tense”, “aorist” etc.;
cf. von Gabain 1941 [31974]: 74, 111–112) and is roughly comparable in meaning and function to the English gerund in -ing. Example (34) from 16th-century Western Oghuz displays the verbal noun in -mAK with the auxiliary iste- (originally ‘to seek’), while example (35) from Tuvan shows the verbal noun in -(V)r with the auxiliary boda- (‘to think’, a borrowing from Mongolic). Although traceable in Turkic varieties of very remote geographic areas and of different genetic branches, this type of volitive construction is only rarely grammaticalized in the Turkic languages.
(34) Qarγa quzγun qan gör-üp oγlan-uŋ üstine
crow raven blood see-CV boy-GEN on
qon-maq iste-r-idi.
settle-VN want-ASP-PST
‘The crows and ravens saw blood and wanted to land on the boy.’
(Middle Oghuz, Dede Qorqud 15a9; Tezcan & Boeschoten 2001: 43)
(35) Olar Ooŋ-bile čuγaala-ž-ïr bodaan čüve-dir.
they s/he-GEN-with speak-COOP-VN think.PTCP PTCL-PTCL
‘They wanted to speak to him.’
(Tuvan, Matthew 12.46)