CC BY
19
D. A. Erschler
UMass, Amherst
A MARGINAL MODAL FORM IN DIGOR OSSETIC1 1. Introduction
Digor Ossetic, and its close cognate, Iron Ossetic, (Eastern Iranian, the Central Caucasus) possess a rich system of synthetically expressed non-indicative moods and modal copular constructions involving certain non-dedicated non-finite verb forms.
Neither the sketches of Digor Ossetic grammar [Issaev 1966; Ta-kazov 2009], nor the monographic treatments of Ossetic modality [Te-khov 1970; Vydrin 2011], mention a rare analytic modal form in Digor. It is a complex verb whose light verb is the copula, and the nominal part is formed on the basis of the infinitive of the lexical verb by attaching the dedicated suffix -ijaw. ckor-un-ijaw un say-INF-MOD be.INF 'to intend to say/ to be able to say / to be likely to say'. Further on, I will refer to it by the abbreviation DED, the dynamic-epistemic derivative. According to my consultants' judgment, the Iron Ossetic cognate of this suffix cannot combine with infinitives. The form is relatively rare. in my corpus of about 500,000 tokens, there are only about 40 examples of it. However, it still remains fully productive.
The research procedure was as follows. First, I extracted all the examples with -unijaw from my corpus, and then asked my consultants to translate, and comment upon, the examples. I also described a number of real-life situations to the consultants, and asked them to judge the felicity of some constructed sentences with -unijawuttered in such metalinguistic contexts. More examples were produced by the consultants
1 Data for this paper were collected in my field trips to North Ossetia in 2010, 2012, and 2013. The judgments for Digor were kindly provided by Sveta Gatieva, Marina Khamitsaeva, Khasan Maliev, Fedar Takazov, and Sergey Tseboev; and for Iron, by Arbilyana Abaeva, Aslan Guriev, and Elizaveta Kochieva. I greatly appreciate their help. I am grateful to Elizaveta Kochieva and Aslan Guriev for their help with logistics, without which my fieldwork would have been utterly impossible. Furthermore, I thank Sam Featherston and Remus Gergel for useful discussions.
when discussing the form with me. I should note that the intermediary language was Russian, of which all my consultants (and the vast majority of Digor speakers in general) have a native-like command.
The modality-related terminology is fairly standard by now, and hardly needs to be commented upon. To give a specific reference, I use the terminology from [Portner 2009].
This note is organized as follows: in Section 2, I describe the functions of the DED. In Section 3, I address its morphosyntax. In Section 4, I argue that synchronically, the formant -ijaw is indeed an indivisible dedicated exponent of the DED. Section 5 concludes.
2. Semantics
It is admittedly difficult to delineate semantically close functions of any grammatical form. Furthermore, in this particular case it is hard to distinguish true differences in meaning from different pragmatic inferences (e.g. 'X is going to do Y' can be reasonably thought to imply 'X is able to do Y' and 'X is likely to do Y', etc.) In what follows, I go by translations provided by the consultants.
One function expressed by the DED is an estimate or expectation of the evaluator (who in this case is identical to the speaker) 2:
(1a) nur bilgmronmj idard nmbal wun-ijaw dmn
now shore-ABL far no.more be.INF-MOD be.PRS.lSG
ra-mudi kodta zmrond lmg
PRV-thought do.PST.3SG old man
'"It seems that now I am already not far from the shore," thought
the old man'. (Iraf3 2000, 2-3)
(1b) atemmj bere nebal ra-%BSS-un-ijaw
this .NNOM-ABL much no.more PRV-carry-INF -MOD m
be.PRS.3SG
'This (situation), apparently, will not last long'. (Iraf 1997)
I use an IPA-based broad phonological transcription, with a slight
divergence from the IPA notation: s = f; z = j; c = f; c = ts.
3 Irwf is a literary quarterly in Digor appearing in Vladikavkaz. The quotation is from Amurkhan Kibirov's translation of Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. Unprompted use of the DED in a translation confirms the conclusion that the form is still productive.
(1c) tonn-i vrdvg las-un-ijaw vj
ton-OBL half carry-INF-MOD be.PRS.3SG ra-mudi kodta je
PRV-thought do.PST.3SG s/he
'He thought, "It probably should weight half a ton"'. (Iraf 2000, 2-3)
Another function is to express the expectation of the agent.
(2a) svjgvdon-i t'affv-bvl=ba vrtv min som-i
hospital-OBL leaf-SUP=CTR 3 1000 ruble-OBL ra-js-un-ijaw adtvn fal c'asv k'apek=dvr
PRV-take -INF -MOD be.PST.1SG but holey copeck=EMP nv=ra-jston NEG=PRV-take. PST. 1SG
'I had expected to receive 3,000 rubles for the paper from the hospital, but did not get a red cent'. [Aghuzarti 2008]
(2b) womv gvsgv %ast vr-cudvj
it.ALL according.to take.PST.PRT PRV-go.PST.3SG gitleron-t-vn jeci muddag-i Hitlerian-PL-DAT that thing-OBL ka fv-jjamaz ken-un-ijaw who PRV-help do-INF-MOD adtvj woni rvnmv-mv
be.PST.3SG they.OBL row-ALL
'Because of that, he was perceived as one of those who intended to help Nazis'. [Aghuzarti 2008]
Furthermore, the DED can be used in context implying an ability or wish of the agent.
(3a) vma vnv vcvg raCurd-tv and without truthful story-PL wogv=ba jes zvmgv
however=CTR exists REP ba-feers-un-ijaw vj jeske
PRV-ask-INF -MOD be.PRS.3SG someone 'And someone could ask. "However, aren't there any untrue stories?"' [Aghuzarti 2008]
(3b) admjmag-mm wotm kes-un-ijaw person-ALL so look-INF-MOD m cuma aci iskurdiadm
be.PRS.3SG as.if this gift üj professionalon avtor-mn
be.PRS.3SG professional author-DAT m= düsüjmag kiwunugm
POSS.3SG= 10th book
'One could think that this (book) Gift is the tenth book of a professional author'. [Gadati 2008]
(3c) wmxmn farsta=min radt-un-ijaw adtüj
such question=DAT. 1SG give-INF-MOD be.PRS.3SG ka=mm nm=zudtajdm je
who=ACC.1SG NEG=know. SUB .PST.3SG s/he ' Someone who would not know me could ask me such a question'. [Aghuzarti 2008]
Consultants judge the form felicitous only for human evaluators, and feel that using it for animals is tantamount to endowing them with human-like rational capacity. A construction with another nominaliza-tion can be used instead, when the meaning of intent of a non-human is to be expressed:
(4) xalon ba-rimaxsta ckol.dukkag bon=mj
crow PRV-hide.PST.3SG bread second day=ACC.3SG mvmdzi ba-xwerujnag / #ba-xwer-un-ijaw adtmj apparently PRV-eat.MOD PRV-e at-INF -MOD be.PST.3SG 'The crow hid the bread. Apparently, it was going to eat it the next day'.
Despite the fact that the DED can express expectation of the evaluator, it cannot serve as an evidential:
(5 a) Situation: One sees lights in the neigbors' windows and utters #sinxon-te erba-cew-un-ijaw adtmncm neighbor-PL PRV-go-INF-MOD be.PST.3PL Intended reading: 'The neighbors, apparently, arrived'4.
4 The sentence is felicitous if the speaker knows beforehand that the neighbors intended to arrive, so the light in the windows only concurs with their expectation.
(5b) Situation5. One looks at a young boy who has not worked as a shepherd so far, and concludes that the boy is going to become a good shepherd
#aci biccew x^arz fjjaw wun-ijaw vj
this boy good shepherd be.INF-MOD be.PRS.3SG
Intended reading. 'This boy should make a good shepherd'.
To recapitulate, the form is able to express a variety of epistemic and dynamic meanings, a fact not particularly unusual by itself, see e.g. [van der Auwera, Plungian 1998].
When this modal co-occurs with negation, both possible scopes are attested. in (6a) it is the modal that scopes over the negation, and in (6b), the situation is reverse.
(6a) atem-vj berv nvbal ra-xess-un-ijaw
this.NNOM-ABL much no.more PRV-carry-INF -MOD vj
be.PRS.3SG
'This, apparently, will not last long'. (Iraf 1997) * 'It is not apparent that it will last long'.
(6b) awvxvn alvmvt-i silvstvg-i bundor-bvl
such miracle-OBL female.generation-OBL foundation-SUP kvlo dedenvg nv ra-jgur-un-ijaw vj
homely flower NEG PRV-be.born-INF-MOD be.PRS.3SG 'From such a wonderful female generation, there could not be born a homely flower'. [Ikati 2009] *'<...) there could be [not born] (...)'
However, some speakers prefer to place the negation marker immediately near the copula rather preceding the DED form. The reasons for it are unclear.
(7a) nur nv=war-un-ijaw vj
now NEG=rain-INF -MOD be.PRS.3SG
'It is likely that it won't rain now. / It is unlikely that it will rain
now'.
5 There are speakers who allow to use the DED in this type of evidential context. This type of a borderline modal/evidential form was first discovered in [Matthewson et al. 2007].
(7b) nur war-un-ijaw nv=j
now rain-INF-MOD NEG=be.PRS.3SG
'It is likely that it won't rain now. / It is unlikely that it will rain now'.
A non-negated counterpart of (7) is perfectly grammatical:
(8) nur war-un-ijaw vj
now rain-INF-MOD be.PRS.3SG 'It is likely that it will rain now'.
3. Morphosyntax
The DED can only be used together with the copula. The combination of the DED with the copula behaves as a complex verb, and satisfies all linear order constraints relevant for complex verbs, see, e.g. [Erschler 2012]. This derived complex verb preserves the argument structure of the original one:
(9a) Non-derived verb
soslan = vj ra-lasta
Soslan=ACC.3SG PRV-carry.PST.3SG 'Soslan brought it here'.
(9b) Modal construction
soslan = vj ra-las-un-ijaw adtej
Soslan=ACC.3SG PRV-carry-INF-MOD be.PST.3SG 'Soslan was going to bring it here'.
Complex verbs themselves may serve as a basis for the DED, see (2b) for a complex verb with the light verb kvn- 'to do', and (10) for the light verb 'to be':
(10) wordvmv xund adtvj berv advm vma=si
thither call.PST.PRT be.PST.3SG many people and=ABL.3 Kvstag-vj neke ra-ndv wun-ijaw adtvj
insult-ABL nobody PRV-outside be.INF-MOD be.PST.3SG 'Many people were invited there (to a wedding), and she (the person who organized the wedding) intended that no one would leave the wedding insulted'6. [Aghuzarti 2008]
6 For the native speakers I consulted the implication of the sentence was that some nevertheless did leave insulted.
4. Morphology and Diachrony
The DED is based on the infinitive and the suffix -ijaw. Why is it reasonable to treat it as a single dedicated marker? The suffix could in principle be further analyzed as -i-aw oblique-equative. I call oblique the syncretic marker -i of the accusative, genitive and inessive case in nouns. The equative case has meaning 'like X'.
(11) xatir korvg-aw zamta
forgiveness ask.PRS .PRT-EQU say.PST.3SG 'S/he said (something) as if asking for forgiveness'. [^ghuzar-ti 2008]
However, normally the equative case suffix -aw only attaches to the bare stem, and there is no synchronic basis for this further segmentation.
What looks like the same suffix appears in a very small number of adverbs in Digor and Iron [Gabaraev 1977; Erschler 2012]. Iron vrvdzijaw/ Digor vrvgijaw 'finally'; Digor ragi 'early, long ago,' Iron falijaw'far away'; Iron/Digor dvlijaw'high'; Iron/Digor wvlijaw'high'; Iron fvstijaw 'far behind'. However, the suffix is completely unproductive in this context. For two of these adverbs, there still exist counterparts with plain oblique suffix -i/-3. vrvdzs/ vrvgi 'late, lately' vs. vrvdzijaw/vrvgijaw 'finally' and Digor7 ragi 'early, long ago' vs. ragijaw 'early'. This suggests the following derivation history. an adverb with the oblique suffix8 -3/-i was reanalyzed as a noun and then case suffixes were attached to it anew. Normally, case stacking is disallowed in Ossetic.
Historically, one could imagine the following scenario. first, the oblique suffix -i, in its capacity of the locative, was attached to an infinitive to yield a meaning 'in the state of X'. It should be noted that the inessive use of the oblique suffix is fairly old, whatever etymology of the oblique is adopted [Cheung 2008. 94]. Then, this form was
7 Iron has a cognate of ragi, with the same meaning. The cognate of ragijaw, *radzijawdoes not seem to exist in the modern language.
8 Regularly, to the Digor i there corresponds the 3 in Iron. However, in the suffix -ijaw the original i is retained because of the presence of the (epenthetic) j, cf. Digor vfsijnv vs. Iron ufsin 'mistress of the house, mother-in-law (for a woman)'.
re-analyzed as a single noun, and the equative suffix was attached to it meaning 'as if in the state of X'. Later on, there evolved the functions described in section 2. Regrettably, there is no synchronic evidence to support or reject this scenario: oblique-marked infinitives are not used on their own in the modern language. Therefore, this scenario remains sheer speculation.
5. Conclusion
It is surprising that Digor, a language with an already rich system of moods (the subjunctive has forms for three tenses), had a need to grammaticalize an additional finite modal form. However, the competition with other means of expression of modality might explain its relative rarity. Given that the dynamic-epistemic derivative has highly Ossetic-specific morphological structure, it hardly makes sense to compare it with anything in the neighboring languages of the Caucasus or in the Iranian languages.
Finally, I hope that, even if only on a modest scale, this note illustrates potential fruitfulness of corpus-assisted fieldwork. As a matter of fact, I discovered the form under discussion for myself when reading a literary text from my corpus.
Abbreviations
abl — ablative; acc — accusative; all — allative; ctr — contras-tive topic; dat — dative; DED — dynamic-epistemic derivative; emp — emphatic clitic; equ — equative; inf — infinitive; mod — the modal suffix -ijaw; neg — negation; nnom — non-nominative stem; obl — oblique; pl — plural; poss — possessive; prs — present; prt — participle; prv — preverb; pst — past; rep — reported speech; sub — subjunctive; sup — superessive.
Sources of Examples
Aghuzarti 2008 — A. Aghuzarti. Zin cardi k'spxsn (Stairs of hard life).
Dzsugighsu: CI NEI RPX, 2008. Aghuzarti 2008 — S. Aghuzarti. Coma (Messenger). Dzsugighsu: CI NEI RPX, 2008.
Gadati 2008 — L. Gadati. Iskurdiads. (Gift). Dzsugighsu: Ir, 2008. Ikati 2009 — A. Ikati. Zelgsdungs (Whirls). Dzsugighsu: Gassiti Viktori nombsl rauaghdadon-poligrafion kustuat, 2009.
References
Cheung 2008 — J. Cheung. The Ossetic case system revisited // Evidence and Counter-Evidence. Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Vol. 1 [SSGL 32]. Amsterdam — New York: Rodopi, 2008. P. 87-105.
Erschler 2012 — D. Erschler. Ossetic // P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, F. Rainer (eds.). Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012, in print.
Gabaraev 1977 — N. Gabaraev. Morfologiceskaja struktura slova i slovoobra-zovanie v sovremennom osetinskom jazyke. Tbilissi: Mecniereba, 1977.
Issaev 1966 — M. Issaev. Digorskij dialekt osetinskogo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka, 1966.
Matthewson et al. 2007 — L. Matthewson, H. Davis, H. Rullmann. Evidentials as Epistemic Modals: Evidence from St'at'imcets // Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7, 2007. P. 201-254.
Portner 2009 — P. Portner. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Takazov 2009 — F. Takazov. Grammaticheskij ocherk osetinskogo (digor-skogo) jazyka. Vladikavkaz: SOGU, 2009.
Tekhov 1970 — F. Tekhov. Vyrazenie modal'nosti v osetinskom jazyke. Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1970.
van der Auwera, Plungian 1998 — J. van der Auwera, V. Plungian. Modality's semantic map // Linguistic Typology 2, 1998. P. 79-124.
Vydrin 2011 — A. Vydrin. Sistema modal'nosti osetinskogo jazyka v sopo-stavitel'nom osvescenii. PhD Thesis. Institute for Linguistic Studies, RAS, St. Petersburg, 2011.
