Estonia Department of Finno-Ugric Studies, Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Tartu
Vol.2 No.1 (Serial No.2) 2008
164-172
2008-10-01
There are too few devices in Samoyedic languages to express a completed/ accomplished action, so one of the ways to do it is just the use of perfect and pluperfect. Samoyedic languages have no common markers for moods and tenses, only a few of them occur in most of the languages mentioned. The Samoyedic system of conjugation is mainly based on verbal nouns, its mood and temporal markers mostly coincide with participle and gerund markers. The Tundra Nenets perfect is formed by means of the participle markers -βi̮ (-mi̮), the pluperfect – by means of the compound marker -βi̮ (-mi̮) ... -ś. In Enets the marker -bi as indicates an earlier meaning of the perfective participle that has disappeared by now, the pluperfect is formed by means of the compound suffixes -b̍i (-ṕi) ... -ś (-śĭ). In Nganasan the marker -ᵓV- expresses the past, more exactly the perfective preterit. The perfect has the compound marker -bV (-hV) + -tV (-δV). Both perfect and pluperfect are used widely in the languages under observation, particularly in folkloristic texts. The formation and the use of perfect and pluperfect are mostly similar. As far as the Samoyedic participle marker -bV is concernd, then G. J. Ramstedt (1952) refers to the Turkic perfect-gerund marker -p (-yp, -up) and to the Mongol preterit perfect marker -bai, -bei, -ba, -be.
North Samoyedic languages, perfect, pluperfect
doi:10.26478/ja2008.2.2.10
Bybee, J., R. Perkins, W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. [M]
Castrén, M. A. 1854. Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. [M]
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. [M]
Kjunnap, A. 1976. K probleme proishoždenija pokazatelej naklonenij i vremen v ural’skih jazykah. [J] Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie. No. 3.
Klesment, P. 2002. Indikatiivi aegadest lõunasamojeedis võrrelduna mõnede mitteuurali lähinaaberkeeletega. [J] Fenno-Ugristica.Vol. 24.
Klesment, P. 2004. On the Incidence and Mode of Use of the Perfect Tense in South Samoyed Languages in Comparison to Altaic Languages. [J] Fenno-Ugristica.Vol. 26.
Kuznecova, N. G.. 1995. Grammatičeskie kategorii južnosel’kupskogo glagola. [M]
Künnap, A. 1978. System und Ursprung der kamassischen Flexionssuffixe II. Verbalflexion und Verbalnomina. [J] Mémoires de
Künnap, A. 1994. On the use of the verbal noun *V-śV ‘being’ in Samoyed languages. [J] Linguistica Uralica. No.2.
Künnap, A. 2002. Main Language Shifts in the Uralic Langauge Group. [M] LINCOM Studies in Asian Linguistics Vol.45. München.
Labanauskas, K. 1974. Neneckij perfekt. [J] Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie.10.
Labanauskas, K. 1975. Prošedšee vremja soveršennogo dejstvija v nganassanskom jazyke. [J] Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie 11.
Labanauskas, K. 1982. K izučeniju prošedših vremen neneckogo i èneckogo jazykov. [J] Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie. 18.
Lindstedt, J. 2000. The perfect – aspectual, temporal and evidential. [A] In Ö. Dahl (ed.): Tense and aspect in the langauages of
Ramstedt, G. J. 1952. Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft II. Formenlehre. [J] Mémoires de
Salminen, T. 1997. Tundra Nenets Inflection. [J] Mémoires de
Sasse, H.-J. 2002. Recent activity in the theory of aspect: Accomplishments, achievements, or just non-progressive state? [J] Linguistic Typology. Vol. 6(2).
Sorokina,
Tereščenko, N. M. 1979. Nganassanskij jazyk. [M] Leningrad.
link: