TAM and evidentials
Abstract Uralic TAM categories, although their markers are often etymologically related, display a wild diversity. Tense systems can be quite simple with just two values (e.g. past and non-past in Northern Mansi) or include also analytic forms with specific temporal or aspectual nuances (in e.g. Fin...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book Part |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Oxford University PressOxford
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0046 https://academic.oup.com/book/chapter-pdf/47098270/oso-9780198767664-chapter-46.pdf |
| Summary: | Abstract Uralic TAM categories, although their markers are often etymologically related, display a wild diversity. Tense systems can be quite simple with just two values (e.g. past and non-past in Northern Mansi) or include also analytic forms with specific temporal or aspectual nuances (in e.g. Finnish). In some languages evidential oppositions are built in only in the past-tense indicative (e.g. direct vs indirect perception in Udmurt), in others they build a separate subsystem (e.g. evidential tenses in Northern Mansi, coded by the finite use of non-finite forms) or interact in a specific way with separate forms of epistemic modality (in e.g. Nenets). Aspect as a systematic morpholexical category is typically not present in Uralic, but morphological means (either suffixes traditionally described as part of word formation, or prefixes/preverbs as an innovation in some Uralic languages) are used to express actionality, in ways which have not yet been systematically described. |
|---|