Skip to main content

Presented to you through Paradigm Publishing Services

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Visit our Partner Page See all our books

Chapter

Chapter 10. A Yakut copy of a Tungusic viewpoint aspect paradigm

Abstract

The North Siberian Turkic language Yakut has two imperfect paradigms. One is “analytic”, composed of a so-called aorist and the past tense of a copula inflected for person, e.g. Min bar-ar ä-ti-m [I go-aor be-pret-agr.poss.1sg] ‘I was going away’. The other is a “synthetic” imperfect based on the aorist and with person markers of the so-called possessive type, e.g. Min bar-ar-ïm [I go-aor-agr.poss.1sg] ‘I was going away’. The basic element, the aorist, is a formal verbal category which seems to be common to the Transeurasian (Altaic) languages. In both cases studied here, the aorist has an intraterminal viewpoint aspect meaning. The “synthetic” paradigm lacks a past marker, which is highly remarkable for a Turkic language. It cannot have emerged through contraction of the “analytic” one. The paper discusses possible explanations of this phenomenon and suggests that the “synthetic” paradigm has been selectively copied in its entirety from a Tungusic language, probably Even. The paradigm would thus be the result of copying a Tungusic combinational pattern consisting of an aorist + possessive suffixes, which is a viewpoint aspect construction unparalleled in other Turkic languages. This would be an example of “carry-over influence”, which means that speakers of Tungusic have copied the paradigm into their own variety of the superstrate language Yakut. The paper also raises the question why the pattern was copied at all, given the possibility to express the imperfect meaning “analytically”.

You are currently not able to access this content.

Abstract

The North Siberian Turkic language Yakut has two imperfect paradigms. One is “analytic”, composed of a so-called aorist and the past tense of a copula inflected for person, e.g. Min bar-ar ä-ti-m [I go-aor be-pret-agr.poss.1sg] ‘I was going away’. The other is a “synthetic” imperfect based on the aorist and with person markers of the so-called possessive type, e.g. Min bar-ar-ïm [I go-aor-agr.poss.1sg] ‘I was going away’. The basic element, the aorist, is a formal verbal category which seems to be common to the Transeurasian (Altaic) languages. In both cases studied here, the aorist has an intraterminal viewpoint aspect meaning. The “synthetic” paradigm lacks a past marker, which is highly remarkable for a Turkic language. It cannot have emerged through contraction of the “analytic” one. The paper discusses possible explanations of this phenomenon and suggests that the “synthetic” paradigm has been selectively copied in its entirety from a Tungusic language, probably Even. The paradigm would thus be the result of copying a Tungusic combinational pattern consisting of an aorist + possessive suffixes, which is a viewpoint aspect construction unparalleled in other Turkic languages. This would be an example of “carry-over influence”, which means that speakers of Tungusic have copied the paradigm into their own variety of the superstrate language Yakut. The paper also raises the question why the pattern was copied at all, given the possibility to express the imperfect meaning “analytically”.

You are currently not able to access this content.

Chapters in this book

Prelim pages i
Table of contents v
List of tables ix
List of figures xv
List of contributors xvii
Acknowledgements xix
Chapter 1. When paradigms change 1
Part I. Paradigm change
Chapter 2. On the strength of morphological paradigms 23
Chapter 3. Derivational paradigms in diachrony and comparison 61
Chapter 4. On arguing from diachrony for paradigms 89
Chapter 5. Reconstructing the Niger-Congo Verb Extension Paradigm 103
Part II. The continuation of paradigms
Chapter 6. Perceived formal and functional equivalence 129
Chapter 7. Comparative consequences of the tongue root harmony analysis for proto-Tungusic, proto-Mongolic, and proto-Korean 141
Chapter 8. Old Japanese bigrade paradigms and Korean passives and causatives 177
Chapter 9. The Japanese inflectional paradigm in a Transeurasian perspective 197
Part III. The innovation of paradigms
Chapter 10. A Yakut copy of a Tungusic viewpoint aspect paradigm 235
Chapter 11. Amdo Altaic directives and comparatives based on the verb ‘to see’ 243
Chapter 12. Innovations and archaisms in Siberian Turkic spatial case paradigms 257
Chapter 13. Paradigm copying in Tungusic 287
Chapter 14. Ural-Altaic 311
Language index 337
Subject index 343

Paradigm Change

This chapter is in the book Paradigm Change

https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.161.17joh

Chapters in this book

Prelim pages i
Table of contents v
List of tables ix
List of figures xv
List of contributors xvii
Acknowledgements xix
Chapter 1. When paradigms change 1
Part I. Paradigm change
Chapter 2. On the strength of morphological paradigms 23
Chapter 3. Derivational paradigms in diachrony and comparison 61
Chapter 4. On arguing from diachrony for paradigms 89
Chapter 5. Reconstructing the Niger-Congo Verb Extension Paradigm 103
Part II. The continuation of paradigms
Chapter 6. Perceived formal and functional equivalence 129
Chapter 7. Comparative consequences of the tongue root harmony analysis for proto-Tungusic, proto-Mongolic, and proto-Korean 141
Chapter 8. Old Japanese bigrade paradigms and Korean passives and causatives 177
Chapter 9. The Japanese inflectional paradigm in a Transeurasian perspective 197
Part III. The innovation of paradigms
Chapter 10. A Yakut copy of a Tungusic viewpoint aspect paradigm 235
Chapter 11. Amdo Altaic directives and comparatives based on the verb ‘to see’ 243
Chapter 12. Innovations and archaisms in Siberian Turkic spatial case paradigms 257
Chapter 13. Paradigm copying in Tungusic 287
Chapter 14. Ural-Altaic 311
Language index 337
Subject index 343

Downloaded on 19.4.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/slcs.161.17joh/html