Dedicated non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions1
Arseniy Vydrin*
1. TERMINOLOGY Modality and its types are understood in typological studies in different ways, but I will not discuss this matter here (see Nuyts 2005; 2006). In the paper, I will use the terminology proposed by Johan van der Auwera and Vladimir Plungian (1998: 80-81). van der Auwera and Plungian define modality as a large semantic domain with two main meanings, viz. possibility and necessity. Both of the meanings can be epistemic (judgment of the speaker) or non-epistemic (participant oriented modality). The latter has sub-meanings of participant- internal modality and participant-external modality. As this article deals with possibility, I will not define the necessity sub-meanings. Participant-internal possibility is understood as “possibility internal to a participant engaged in the state of affairs” or participant’s ability / capacity (e.g. Boris can get by with sleeping five hours a night) (van der Auwera and Plungian 1998: 80). Participant-external possibility “refers to circumstances that are external to the participant, if any, engaged in the state of affairs” (ibid.) and that make this state of affairs possible (e.g. To get to the station, you can take bus 66). Deontic possibility is a special case of participant-external possibility which “identifies the enabling or compelling circumstances external to the participant as some person(s), often the speaker, and/or as some social or ethical norm(s) permitting… the participant to engage in the state of affairs” (ibid.: 81) (You may come in). van der Auwera and Plungian offer a semantic map of modality which shows the grammaticalization paths of possibility and necessity, cf. Figure 1.
* Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia: [email protected], www.ossetic-studies.org/en. 1 This research is carried out with the financial support of the fellowship of the President of the Russian Federation (MK-1920.2014.6), the program of fundamental studies of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Corpus linguistics” and the financial support of the RFBR grant 11-06-00512, the RFH grant 13-04-00342 and the grant of the Russian Institute for Advanced Study in Humanities and Technology. I thank Vladimir Plungian, Yury Lander, Corey Miller and the independent reviewers for their critics. I appreciate the patience of my consultants – Ossetic native speakers living in the village Dargarvs, Prigorodnyj region of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Russia.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 94 Arseniy Vydrin
Figure 1. Semantic map of modality by van der Auwera and Plungian (1998).
As shown in the map, the modal meanings of possibility can be derived out of the following premodal meanings: ‘be strong’, ‘know’, ‘arrive at’, ‘finish’, suffice’, ‘be permitted’, ‘dare’, ‘be’, ‘become’, ‘happen’, ‘befall’, ‘stand’, ‘I don’t know’ and ‘like’. Among the postmodal meanings of possibility the map mentions future, condition, concession and complementation. One can see a hierarchy of the possibility meanings: participant-internal possibility can be grammaticalized to participant-external possibility, which can turn to deontic or epistemic possibility. The sources of necessity are the following: future, ‘if it becomes’, ‘perfect’, ‘owe’, ‘duty’, ‘belong’, ‘be good/proper’, ‘have’, ‘be supposed’, ‘need’. Necessity can grammaticalize to the markers of future, condition, concession, complementation and imperative. Note that necessity and possibility share most of the postmodal meanings. van der Auwera and Plungian mention an interaction between possibility and necessity: deontic necessity can develop out of deontic possibility and, vice versa, deontic necessity can turn to deontic possibility. There are also some other observations of van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) on grammaticalization paths of possibility and necessity which are important for the typology of modality; however, they are not relevant for this paper. There were some updates to the semantic map of modality by van der Auwera and Plungian, e.g. van der Auwera, Kehayov, Vittrant 2009. However, the discussion of it is beyond the scope of the paper.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 95
2. NON-EPISTEMIC POSSIBILITY OPPOSITIONS This paper aims to study dedicated oppositions of participant-external possibility and participant-internal possibility. The dedicated opposition is a kind of opposition when participant-external possibility and participant-internal possibility are expressed in a language by different markers (or constructions, or lexemes) and the markers concerned convey nothing but the intended meaning. Such markers, constructions or lexemes I will call dedicated ones. A dedicated marker or construction does not mean that the marker or the construction is the only way to express the intended meaning. Though the grammaticalization paths of participant-external possibility and participant-internal possibility are well-studied (Bybee, Perkins, Pagliuca 1994; van der Auwera and Plungian 1998; Palmer 2001; Traugott 2006, van der Auwera, Kehayov and Vittrant 2009 among others), there are no special studies of the manifestation of dedicated oppositions of the two possibilities in a language. When we speak about dedicated oppositions of participant-internal possibility and participant-external possibility, logically, there can only be four options, viz. to oppose the non-epistemic possibilities a) only lexically, b) lexico- grammatically c) no opposition d) only grammatically. A language is not obligatorily restricted to one of the oppositions. From a logical point of view a language can have the following opposition combinations: 1. (a) and (b); 2. (a) and (d); 3. (a), (b) and (d); 4. (b) and (d). The only opposition which cannot be combined is the opposition (c). In what follows, each of the oppositions will be examined.
2.1. Lexical strategy
Bybee, Perkins, Pagliuca argue that agent-oriented modality (to which participant-external and participant-internal possibilities belong) “tend to have non-bound, periphrastic expression” (1994: 241). Lexical opposition seems to be the most typical one. In Indo-European languages, participant-external and participant-internal possibilities are often conveyed by different modal verbs or modal expressions. However, usually modal verbs either express both possibility meanings or more broadly, both non-epistemic and epistemic possibilities; cf. the English verb can, which expresses both participant-internal and participant- external possibilities; it also can convey epistemic possibility. As it was noted by van der Auwera, Ammann and Kindt (2005), non-epistemic vs. epistemic polyfunctionality is typical for Standard Average European. In some languages, there are two modal verbs, one used only for participant- internal possibility, another one - for participant-external possibility, but one or both of the verbs have other, non-modal meanings and thus cannot be considered dedicated lexical markers of non-epistemic modality. E.g., in Ossetic (East Iranian), the verb fɜražǝn conveys the modal meaning of participant-internal possibility and has other, non-modal meanings (‘bear’, ‘stand’, ‘endure’), cf. (1)-
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 96 Arseniy Vydrin
(2). The modal verb ɜmbɜlǝn is a dedicated verb for deontic modality, both deontic possibility and necessity, (3)-(4) (Vydrin 2011)2.
(1) šabi-tɜ sɜw-ǝn nal fɜrɜžt-oj child-PL.NOM go.PRS-INF no.more be.able.PST-TR.PST.3PL ‘The kids couldn’t walk any more’ (e.g. they were very tired) (Tekhov 1970: 67).
(2) bronežilet qwamɜ fɜraž-a aχɜm ɜχšt-ɜn bullet.proof.vest need bear.PRS-CONJ.3SG such shot-DAT ‘The bullet-proof vest must protect you against this shot’.
(3) mɜnɜn ɜmbɜl-ǝ ba-sɜw-ǝn? I.DAT may.PRS-PRS.3SG PREF-go.PRS-INF ‘May I come in?’
(4) dɜwɜn ɜmbɜl-ǝ a-sɜw-ǝn you.DAT have.to.PRS-PRS.3SG PREF-go.PRS-INF ‘You have to leave’.
As a matter of fact, if we concentrate on modal verbs only, in Indo-European languages, it is difficult to find a dedicated possibility opposition of this type; namely, a language with two dedicated modal verbs, one conveying participant- internal possibility and another, participant-external possibility. Many Indo- European languages oppose non-epistemic possibilities not by modal verbs but by different weakly grammaticalized modal expressions, consisting of a nominal constituent and a copula. E.g. English distinguishes between be able to (participant-internal possibility) and be allowed to (participant-external possibility). The modal expressions of this type can be considered dedicated lexical markers of the opposition (a).
2.2. Lexico-grammatical strategy
Some languages can express one of the possibilities under discussion by a dedicated modal verb and another one by a dedicated morphological marker. This strategy is a bit more complicated than the strategy (a). It is located in two different levels of grammar: lexicon and grammar. E.g., in Hungarian, the modal
2 Abbreviations : A — agent or the argument of the transitive construction that correlates most closely with agent; ABS — absolutive; ALL — allative; BEN — benefactive; BNC — British National Corpus; CIT — citative; COM — comitative; CONJ — conjunctive; CONTR — contrastive; DAT — dative; EMPH — emphatic; ENCL — enclitic; EXT — existential; F — feminine; FOC — focus; FUT — future; GEN — genitive; IMP — imperative; IMPERF — imperfective aspect; INESS — inessive; INF — infinitive; IO — indirect object; IRR.2 — irrealis 2; IZF — izafe; NEG — negation; NMLZ — nominalization; NOM — nominative; OBL — oblique; ONC — Ossetic National Corpus; OPT — optative; PART — participle; PERF — perfective aspect; PL — plural; POSS — possessive; POST — postposition; POT — potential affix; PREF — prefix; PREP — preposition; PRS — present; PRTCL — particle; PST — past; RE — reversive/refactive; RFL — reflexive; S — intransitive subject; SG — singular; SUBJ — subjunctive; SUPER — superessive; TR — transitive.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 97 verb tud ‘know’, ‘be able to’ basically conveys participant-internal possibility (5) and the verbal potential suffix -hat / -het expresses participant-external possibility (6) (Kiefer 1981; 1988)3.
(5) Anna tud zongorázni Ann be.able.to play.the.piano ‘Ann can play the piano’ (Kiefer 1988: 393).
(6) Anna zongoráz-hat Ann play.the.piano-POT ‘Ann may play the piano’ (Kiefer 1988: 393).
2.3. Lack of the opposition In some languages, both types of possibilities are expressed by the same lexical or (more rarely) grammatical marker (or by a special construction). These languages lack a dedicated possibility opposition. E.g. Sogdian (Eastern Iranian, extinct) does not have a modal verb of possibility (Benveniste 1954: 66), or, at least, such a modal verb has not been attested yet. Different possibility meanings are conveyed in Sogdian by the so-called ‘potentialis’ - a special construction which is formed by a combination of a verbal past stem and the auxiliary kwn- / wn ‘to do’ (if active) or βw- ‘to become, to be’ (if passive or intransitive). The auxiliary agrees with the subject and has person, number, tense and mood paradigms (Gershevitch 1961: 130-135). In the potentialis, so-called “light stems” were marked by the suffix -’ or -w, while “heavy stems”4 usually remained unmarked (Livšic, Khromov 1981: 499-500); cf. the examples below where the potentialis expresses participant-internal possibility (7) and participant-external possibility (8). In Sogdian, the distinction between participant-internal and participant-external possibilities is made by the context.
(7) L’ ’nx’št L’ ZY nvst-w β-’m NEG get.up.PST NEG and sit.PST-POT be.PRS-PRS.1SG ‘I can neither get up nor sit down’ (Sims-Williams 2007: 378).
(8) ’rty ’yw w’tδ’r w’n’kw L’ βyrt β-’y ZKZY and one breathing such NEG found.PST be.PRS-PRS.3SG which γnδ’nyw m’twh ’WZY ’By’ L’ wm’t-’y another mother or father NEG be-IRR.2.3SG ‘and such beings are not to be found, who were not mothers or fathers (etc.) to someone else’ (Gershevitch 1961: 123).
3 However, it should be mentioned that the Hungarian potential suffix -hat/-het sometimes can express epistemic possibility. For more details see (Kiefer 1981). 4 The distinction of heavy and light stems grounds on a rhythmic law. With some remarks, which the reader can find in the Sogdian grammar (Gershevitch 1954, 1961), the rhythmic law can be formulated as follows: “stems with not more than one brief vowel (not counting prothetic or svarabhakti vowels) are light, except when this vowel is in positione, viz. followed by mb, xw, or by a group of consonants beginning with n or r; all other stems are heavy” (Gershevitch 1954: 72).
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 98 Arseniy Vydrin
Though examples of the dedicated oppositions (a)-(c) can be obtained from the reference grammars of the European and the Indo-European languages or from typological studies of modality, the next opposition is apparently a rarer case.
2.4. Grammatical strategy The last logical option is to oppose participant-external and participant- internal possibilities grammatically: each meaning is conveyed by a dedicated morphological marker or by a dedicated construction. As I have mentioned above, the manifestation of dedicated non-epistemic possibility oppositions in language has never been studied. According to typological studies of modality, there are languages which oppose the main meanings of non-epistemic modality grammatically, but the markers or constructions they use usually are not dedicated ones. For example, Korean has two different modal constructions conveying participant-internal and participant-external possibilities (Ammann & van der Auwera 2002). However, the participant-internal possibility construction can also express epistemic semantics and thus is not a dedicated one. The participant-external construction is restricted to the expression of deontic modality. In the typological literature on modality, there are no good examples of the grammatical strategy of participant-external and participant-internal possibility opposition. In the paper, I will argue that the grammatical strategy does exist in a language, namely in the Ossetic language (Eastern Iranian). Ossetic has two dedicated constructions of possibility: the participant-external possibility construction and the participant-internal possibility construction. I will not touch the question about the rarity of the strategy (d) cross- linguistically. It requires a separate study with a large language sample. However, it seems that the rarity of this kind of opposition is in some way natural: non- epistemic modality tends to be expressed by lexical means (e.g. Bybee, Perkins, Pagliuca 1994: 241). Before I start to examine the Ossetic dedicated participant-external and participant-internal possibility constructions I will give general sociolinguistic information about the Ossetic language and briefly describe the Ossetic modal system.
3. GENERAL NOTES ABOUT OSSETIC AND OSSETIC MODALITY Ossetic is an Eastern Iranian language of Indo-European language family, which is mainly spoken in the Caucasus, in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Russia, and in the Republic of South Ossetia. The total number of the Ossetic native speakers in the world is 580000 (Ethnologue). Ossetians living in Russia are usually bilingual (Russian and Ossetic). Ossetic has two main dialects: Iron and Digor. The literal Ossetic is based on Iron dialect. In the paper, I will examine only Iron Ossetic. Ossetic has a number of non-dedicated ways to express modality: different moods, future tense, modal verbs and modal expressions. Epistemic modality is
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 99 conveyed in Ossetic by the the future tense, the conjunctive mood, the counterfactive mood, the construction of inevitability and by some lexical means. The construction of inevitability expresses epistemic and non-epistemic necessity. It consists of the participle in -gɜ with the nominal negation particle ɜnɜ ‘without’ and an auxiliary with verbal negation (usually wɜvǝn ‘to be’, or the existential copula i / iš / -j); A or S are marked by the dative. In the present indicative and future, the construction conveys epistemic necessity, cf.:
(9) wǝmɜn ɜnɜ šɜf-gɜ nɜ-j he.DAT without die.PRS-PART NEG-EXT ‘He can’t escape / He will definitely die’ (lit. ‘for him without death doesn’t exist’).
It should be noted that Ossetic does not have grammatical dedicated markers or constructions to express epistemic modality. However, there is a number of modal expressions and particles with epistemic semantics. Non-epistemic modality is conveyed in Ossetic by modal verbs, modal expressions, different moods and constructions. In contrast with epistemic modality, non-epistemic modality has many dedicated constructions expressing non-epistemic possibility or non-epistemic necessity. Namely, the modal passive construction of participant-external necessity, the deontic necessity construction, the participant- internal possibility construction and the participant-external possibility construction. All the named constructions consist of different verbal derivatives and the auxiliary wɜvǝn ‘to be’. The constructions were described by A. Vydrin (2011).
In this paper, I will examine only the participant-external possibility construction and the participant-internal possibility construction. Section 4 discusses the morphological and syntactic peculiarities of the constructions. In section 5, I compare the Ossetic possibility constructions and the Russian so- called ‘dative-infinitive’ construction. In section 6, I show that the Ossetic dedicated possibility constructions are unique in the Irano-Caucasian language area. None of other Iranian or geographically close to Ossetic Caucasian languages show a dedicated grammatical opposition of participant-internaland participant-external possibilities. Section 7 is devoted to the origin of the two Ossetic modal constructions and section 8 contains the conclusions. The Ossetic examples cited in the paper are borrowed from three sources: Ossetic National Corpus, Ossetic oral texts and my field data. Ossetic National Corpus (ONC) is available online (www.corpus.ossetic-studies.org/en) and consists of contemporary texts from fiction and literary journals published in North Ossetia in 2000-2012. All the texts are automatically annotated in English and Russian. By the time of submission ONC had about 5 million tokens. The examples from the Ossetic National Corpus are marked ONC and have a reference to the source. The oral texts are also available online (http://www.ossetic-studies.org/en/texts/iron) and consist of Iron dialect texts recorded in different parts of North Ossetia in 2007-2012. All the texts are transcribed, translated and interlinearized in English and Russian. By the time of
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 100 Arseniy Vydrin submission, the oral texts had about 50000 words. The examples from the oral texts are marked Oral texts and have the name of the text and the sentence’s number. My field data were collected in North Ossetia in 2008-2010, mainly in Dargavs village (Prigorodnyj region of North Ossetia). Examples from the field data are left without a reference.
4. OSSETIC NON-EPISTEMIC POSSIBILITY CONSTRUCTIONS 4.1. Formation and general information 4.1.1. The participant-external possibility construction consists of a verbal derivative in -ɜn and an auxiliary in 3SG (the verb wɜvən ‘to be’ or the present habitual verb of being vɜjjǝn; in the present indicative, the existential copula i / iš / -j is used); A or S are marked by the dative. The construction conveys only participant-external possibility (10), together with its submeaning of deontic possibility (11); cf. the examples below where the construction is formed both from intransitive (10)-(11) and transitive predicates (12). The construction can be used in all tenses (present, past, future) and moods (indicative, conjunctive, optative and counterfactive), besides imperative5.
(10) wərdɜm mɜnɜn kwədɜj ba-χaw-ɜn iš that.way I.DAT how PREF-fall.down.PRS-NMLZ EXT ‘How can I get there?’
(11) ɜmɜ dam dǝn nɜ-j a-sɜw-ɜn, don dam and CIT 2SG.ENCL.DAT NEG-EXT PREF-go.PRS-NMLZ water CIT ɜr-kald-t-aj PREF-spill.PST-TR-PST.2SG ‘Well, you can’t go away, you have spilled the water’ (Oral text. Tale about love. 17).
(12) ɜmɜ n ɜ-j mǝn ɜj wǝj žɜγ-ɜn, ɜrtɜkkɜ and NEG-EXT 1SG.ENCL.DAT 3SG.ENCL.GEN 3SG say.PRS-NMLZ at.once dɜ nǝχaš-ɜn ɜž otvet ratt-in, fɜlɜ mǝn POSS.2SG speech-DAT I answer give.PRS-OPT.1SG but 1SG.ENCL.DAT wǝj žɜγ-ɜn nɜ-j 3SG s a y . PRS-NMLZ NEG-EXT ‘I can't tell you that, or else I would answer you (lit. I would answer to your talks), but I can't tell that’ (Oral text. Kočieva, Karaeva. 38.1).
In ONC, the construction tends to be used with negation. However, examples of the construction used in affirmative contexts are also found (e.g. (20)). The participant-external possibility construction is frequently used both in written and oral Ossetic. It can be found in both main Ossetic dialects – Iron and Digor. Here
5 This restriction is also relevant for Ossetic modal predicates conveying deontic modality; cf. the modal verb ɜmbɜlǝn, discussed above in section 2, which also cannot be used in imperative.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 101
I will examine only Iron Ossetic; Digor examples can be found in Tekhov (1970: 81-82). The verbal derivative in -ɜn, which is used in the construction of participant- external possibility, is formed from the present stem of a verb with the verbal suffix -ɜn. In the examples, for convenience I will interlinearize the suffix -ɜn as NMLZ (nominalization), however, the nominalization function of the suffix needs a separate study. The suffix most probably originates from the Indo-Iranian verbal suffix -anā (Takazov 1992: 108-137; Cheung 2002). The suffix -ɜn is homonymous to the dative case marker -ɜn, however, their origin and functions are different (see 4.1.4.). Semantically, the verbal derivative in -ɜn usually conveys the place of the action (mar-ɜn kill.PRS-NMLZ ‘place of murder’) or the ? instrument which is used to fulfill the action kaχ-ɜn (dig.PRS-NMLZ ‘pick, pickaxe’); it can also express the action itself (kuš-ɜn work.PRS-NMLZ ‘work’). The verbal derivative in -ɜn can be used as a head of NP (χiž-ɜn graze.PRS- NMLZ ‘pasture’) or an attribute (fəšš-ɜn zauma-tɜ write.PRS-NMLZ thing-PL.NOM ‘writing-materials’). Besides the construction of participant-external possibility, the derivative can be used only in the so-called ‘facilitive and difficilitive constructions’ (from Lat. facilis ‘easy’ and difficilis ‘hard’) – dedicated constructions meaning ‘easy to accomplish’ and ‘difficult to accomplish’ respectively6. Both constructions are formed by the verbal form in -ɜn, the auxiliary wɜvǝn ‘to be’ or the habitual verb of being vɜjjǝn and the adjective ɜnson ‘easy’ or žən ‘hard’7. When formed from a transitive verb, the auxiliary agrees in person and number with the patient-like participant and A is marked by the dative. In case of intransitive verbs, the auxiliary is used in 3SG and S is marked by the dative (for details see Vydrin 2015), e.g. (difficilitive construction):
(13) asə fəš-tɜ nən žən ɜrs-aχš-ɜn this sheep-PL.NOM 1PL.ENCL.DAT difficult PREF-catch.PRS-NMLZ štə be.PRS.3PL ‘It is difficult for us to catch these sheep’ (lit. ‘these sheep are difficult for catching by us’).
The origin of the participant-external possibility construction will be examined in detail in section 7. Here it is worth pointing out that though the facilitive / difficilitive constructions and the participant-external possibility construction have something in common (verbal derivative in -ɜn, the dative marking of A and S), they differ morphologically and syntactically. First of all, the auxiliary agrees with the patient-like participant in person and number in the former, while it is obligatory in 3SG in the latter. It seems unlikely that the facilitive / difficilitive constructions and the participant-external possibility construction could originate from each other.
6 The construction cannot convey participant-internal possibility or any other modal meanings. 7 Note that other adjectives cannot be used.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 102 Arseniy Vydrin
4.1.2. The participant-internal possibility construction consists of an infinitive marked by the dative and the auxiliary wɜvən ‘to be’, which agrees in person and number with the subject8. As with the previous construction it also can be formed from both intransitive and transitive verbs. The construction expresses only participant-internal possibility. It can be used in all tenses and moods including imperative, cf. the example below with the auxiliary in imperative.
(14) wɜ bɜštɜ-yɜn lɜggad kɜn-ən-ɜn ut POSS.2PL country-DAT service do.PRS-INF-DAT be.IMP.2PL ‘You should be able to serve your country!’ lit. ‘Be able to serve your country!’ (ONC. Makh dug, 2002, 1, p. 99).
The infinitive is formed from the present stem of a verb by the suffix -ǝn. The infinitive form coincides with the present indicative first person singular (e.g. sɜwǝn ‘to go’, ‘I go’). Besides the participant-internal possibility construction, the infinitive is used in the causative construction (analytical causative formed by the auxiliary kɜnǝn ‘to do’ (15); see also section 4.2. and the example (19)), after some verbs like idajǝn ‘begin’, ɜmbɜlǝn ‘may’, ‘have to’ (3)-(4) and in purpose sentences depicting two situations with co-referent subjects. Used in the purpose sentences, the infinitive is obligatorily marked by the dative (18) or the allative.
(15) wɜd ta sɜ mɜnɜ addejǝ a-bad-ǝn then CONTR 3PL.ENGL.GEN here outside PREF-sit.PRS-INF kɜn-ɜm do.PRS-IMP.1PL ‘Then let’s ask them to sit outside’ (Ahvlediani 1963: 265)9.
The participant-internal possibility construction is found only in Iron Ossetic. According to the corpora and my field data, the construction is not frequent in the modern language. While the older generation has no difficulty in generating sentences with participant-internal possibility construction, some native speakers of the younger generation are not familiar with it. Very few examples of the construction were found in ONC. In the paper, when considering participant- internal possibility construction, I will mainly rely on my field data collected in the village Dargarvs in 2008-2010, Prigorodnyj region, Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Russia. Data from other subdialects of Iron dialect can differ from the examples cited here. 4.1.3. The possibility constructions under discussion are not mentioned in the Ossetic standard grammars. However, the grammars note that the derivative in -ɜn has the possibility meaning, cf. a-sɜw-ǝn ‘possibility to pass’ (PREF-go.PRS- NMLZ) (Abaev 1959: 111-112), also see (Thordarson 2009: 145). The construction of participant-internal possibility is mentioned in the master’s thesis
8 Note that the
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 103 by B. Hettich (2002: 68-69). The only study that mentions both possibility constructions is the monograph by Tekhov (1970: 80-83). However, their syntactic peculiarities, semantics and origin have not been the subject of a study yet. Before I start to discuss the peculiarities of the constructions, I will briefly examine the use of the dative and the auxiliary wɜvǝn ‘to be’ in modern Ossetic (which are used in both constructions). 4.1.4. In accordance with standard grammars (Abaev 1959, 1964, Gagkaev 1952, Benveniste 1959, Ahvlediani 1963, 1969, Bagaev 1965, 1982) and grammatical studies (the latest is Thordarson 2009), the Ossetic dative marks Addressee, Causee when the causative is formed from a transitive predicate, w Possessor in the external possessor construction (e.g. lɜg-ɜn jɜ k ǝšt man-DAT POSS.3SG work ‘man’s work’) and Possessor in the construction of inalienable possession (Belyaev 2010: 315), cf.10:
(16) mɜ mad-ə mad-ɜn birɜ šabi-tɜ wədi POSS.1SG mother-GEN mother-DAT many child-PL.NOM be.PST.3SG ‘My grandmother had many children’ (ibid.).
It is worth pointing out that the construction of inalienable possession is connected to the origin of the participant-external possibility construction (see section 7). The construction of inalienable possession consists of Possessor in the dative (the allative is used in case of alienable possession), Possessum in the nominative and the auxiliary wɜvǝn ‘to be’, which can agree in person and number with Possessum. In the present indicative, instead of the auxiliary wɜvǝn the construction uses existential copular i / iš / -j, cf.:
(17) šǝmaχ ma mǝn wǝdǝštut, nǝr ta mǝn you.PL EMPH 1SG.ENCL.DAT be.PST.2PL now CONTR 1SG.ENCL.DAT niči-wal i nobody-more EXT ‘I had only you, now I have nobody’.
The dative of the infinitive marks purpose in the sentence depicting two situations with co-referent subjects, cf.:
(18) lɜγštɜ kɜn-ǝn-ɜn ɜgɜr fɜ-kardžǝn dɜ entreaty do.PRS-INF-DAT too PREF-old be.PRS.2SG ‘You are too old to beg’ (ONC. Degoeva S. M. Pogasšyj luč solnca. Vladikavkaz: Ir, 2002. P. 219).
The dative is used in a distributive meaning, e.g.: lɜg-ɜn žiranka nɜm χaud-iš (man-DAT pound 1PL.ENCL.ALL fall.PST-PST.3SG) ‘We got one pound per person’ (Ahvlediani 1963: 97). The dative marker -ɜn most probably originates to the postposition *ana/u (Cheung 2008: 91; Belyaev 2010). In the participant-internal possibility construction, the dative has purposive semantics. In the participant-external possibility construction, the dative marks A
10 The transliteration and interlinearization are mine.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 104 Arseniy Vydrin or S; however, as will be discussed in section 7, originally the dative functioned in this construction as the Possessor marker.
The auxiliary wɜvən ‘to be’ used in the possibility constructions can function either independently or in other constructions with a verbal derivative: the facilitive and difficilitive constructions (13), the prospective intention construction, passive constructions and modal-passive constructions. It also used to form impersonal verbs (Vydrin 2014). The constructions are briefly described by A. Vydrin (2011).
4.2. The peculiarities of the constructions The two constructions under discussion differ from each other in the following: a. Different strategies of A and S marking (the dative in the participant- external possibility construction and the nominative in the participant-internal possibility construction). b. Different non-finite forms of the main verb (the derivative in -ɜn in the participant-external possibility construction and the infinitive marked by the dative in the participant-internal possibility construction). c. Different features of the auxiliary wɜvǝn ‘to be’. Firstly, the invariable 3SG form is used in the participant-external possibility construction, while, in the participant-internal possibility construction, the auxiliary varies by person and number. Secondly, in the present indicative, different auxiliaries are used: the construction of participant-external possibility uses the existential copular i / iš / -j (e.g. 22), while, in the construction of participant-internal possibility, the finite verb wɜvǝn ‘to be’ is used (e.g. 23). Finally, in the participant-external construction, the auxiliary cannot be used in the imperative. d. The participant-internal possibility construction cannot be formed from causatives; cf. English I had not the first notion of mechanics, but you with your capable hands worked on the machine until, after running with it, pushing it along, we were able to make the engine tick over again (BNC, Kirkup, James. A poet could not but be gay. London: Peter Owen Publishers, 1991). Conversely, causatives cannot be formed from the construction (Anyway, having experienced these things made him able to appreciate times like the present. BNC, Pickernell, Ray. Yanto's summer. Wotton-under-Edge: Morgans Technical Books Ltd, 1988). The participant-external possibility construction can be used with causative verbs. Causatives are formed in Ossetic with the auxiliary kɜnǝn ‘to do’ used together with the infinitive of the lexical verb. When a causative is being used in participant-external possibility construction, the lexical verb remains in the infinitive and causative auxiliary kɜnǝn ‘to do’ is marked by the suffix -ɜn, cf.:
(19) adɜjmadž-ə a-tɜχ-ən kɜn-ɜn nɜ-j man-GEN PREF-fly.PRS-INF do.PRS-NMLZ NEG-EXT lit. ‘it is impossible to cause a man to fly’.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 105
The constructions under discussion share the following peculiarities: a. Both constructions cannot be used with the potential suffix11 -qom — a dedicated marker of participant-internal possibility. b. Both constructions can be used in all tenses and all moods, besides imperative. c. Both constructions can be used in different types of complex sentences, e.g. in purpose sentences, cf. the examples below.
Participant-external possibility construction (20) sɜmɜj bɜlaš-mɜ š-χiž-ɜn wa wəj for tree-ALL PREF-clamber.PRS-NMLZ be.CONJ.3SG 3SG.GEN təχχɜj qɜw-ə ašin POST need.PRS-PRS.3SG ladder ‘One needs a ladder to climb the tree’ (lit. ‘One needs a ladder to make climbing the tree possible’).
Participant-internal possibility construction (21) sɜmɜj bɜlaš-mɜ š-χiž-ən-ɜn waj wəj təχχɜj for tree-ALL PREF-clamber-INF-DAT be.CONJ.2SG 3SG.GEN POST qwamɜ waj qɜddəχ ɜmɜ š ɜrɜn need be.CONJ.2SG strong and skillful ‘You need to be strong and skillful to be able to climb the tree’.
The possibility constructions occur in affirmative (cf. the examples above) and interrogative sentences, both with yes/no questions (22)-(23) and with constituent questions (24)-(25).
Participant-external possibility construction (22) demɜ a-nəχaš kɜn-ɜn iš? you.COM PREF-word do.PRS-NMLZ EXT ‘May [I] talk to you?’ (ONC. Kajtov S. Osetinskaya melodiya. Vladikavkaz, 2006, p. 352).
Participant-internal possibility construction (23) də š-iš-ən-ɜn dɜ fɜnzaj kilogramm-ə? you PREF-take.PRS-INF-DAT be.PRS.2SG fifty kilogram-GEN ‘Can you lift fifty kilograms?’
11 The suffix is not mentioned in standard grammars. Tekhov (1970) considers it to be a part of a complex verb with the auxiliary wɜvǝn ‘to be’ (sɜw-ǝn-qom dɜn (go-INF-POT be.PRS.1SG) ‘I can walk’). However, my data argue that qom functions as a suffix: it cannot be used independently (not a lexeme), it can have an accent (not a clitic), it can be separated from the auxiliary, for example, by negation particles (thus it is not a part of a complex verb which do not allow the insertion of negation particles (Vydrin 2014a)). The suffix -qom can be attached to pronominals, nouns and verbs (cf. the example above) conveying participant-internal possibility, cf. the following examples with -qom used with a pronominal and with a noun (marked in bold): Azɜbɜχ dɜ kɜn-ɜd ɜppɜt-qom χwǝcau healthy 2SG.ENCL.GEN do.PRS-IMP.3SG all-POT God ‘I wish God the Almighty will heal you’ (ONC. Makh dug 2001, 5, p. 121); Am wɜlǝgɜš-qom i (here lamb.shepherd-POT EXT) ‘There is (somebody) who can graze sheep’.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 106 Arseniy Vydrin
Participant-external possibility construction (24) … sə žɜγ-ɜn iš? what say.PRS-NMLZ EXT ‘…what can be said [about the tree with heavy foliage]?’ (ONC. Makh dug, 2004, 8, p. 126).
Participant-internal possibility construction (25) saš kilogramm-ə š-iš-ən-ɜn u? how.much kilogram-GEN PREF-lift.PRS-INF-DAT be.PRS.3SG ‘How many kilograms can he lift?’
The participant-internal and participant-external possibility construction can be used in a contrastive clause, cf.:
Participant-internal possibility construction (26) Sašɜ bɜlaš-mɜ š-bər-ən-ɜn u Zalinɜ ta Sasha tree-ALL PREF-climb-INF-DAT be.PRS.3SG Zalina CONTR nɜ-u NEG-be.PRS.3SG ‘Sasha can climb the tree and Zalina can’t’.
Participant-external possibility construction (27) wəmɜn iš dəm-ɜn, dɜwɜn tа nɜ-j he.DAT EXT s m o k e . PRS-NMLZ you.DAT CONTR NEG-EXT ‘He is allowed to smoke and you are not’.
Both constructions occur with (27)-(28) or without negation (28) and (30).
Participant-internal possibility construction (28) jɜ-χi nə-χš-ən-ɜn, POSS.3SG-RFL PREF-wash.PRS-INF-DAT jɜ-χi nəš-šəγdɜg kɜn-ən-ɜn dɜr nɜ-u POSS.3SG-RFL PREF-clean do.PRS-INF-DAT FOC NEG-be.PRS.3SG ‘He is able to wash himself, however, he is not able to clean himself’ (a proverb) (ONC. Ajlarov I., Gadžinova R., Kcoeva R. Poslovicy. Vladikavkaz, 2005, p. 138).
Both constructions allow omission of some of the constituents. In the participant-internal possibility construction, any of the constituents can be omitted, while the participant-external possibility construction disallows the omission of the auxiliary only. The examples (26)-(27) show the omission of the main verb in the participant-internal and participant-external possibility constructions. The example (29) below demonstrate the omission of the auxiliary in the construction of participant-internal possibility.
(29) ɜmɜ w əsə ɜrduž-ə tа duγəšəf arɜχ u, qɜdgom and that lawn-INESS CONTR ribwort a.lot.of be.PRS.3SG wound š-šəγdɜg kɜn-ən-ɜn diššag, mɜ-χiwəl ɜj PREF-clean do.PRS-INF-DAT wonderful POSS.1SG-RFL.SUPER 3SG.ENCL.GEN ba-fɜlvɜrd-t-on PREF-test.PST-TR-PST.1SG
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 107
‘There is a lot of ribwort in that lawn, it can perfectly clean wounds (lit. ‘it is perfectly created for cleaning wounds’), I have tested it on myself’ (ONC. Džusojty N. G. Slezy Syrdona. Vladikavkaz, 2004, p. 105).
4.3. Semantics of the constructions under discussion There are no grammatical peculiarities in Ossetic which enable distinguishing different meanings of non-epistemic possibility. However, the examples from ONC and the elicitation data argue that the participant-external possibility construction conveys nothing but participant-external possibility (30) or its submeaning of deontic possibility (31). Also see many other examples given above.
(30) wərdɜm mɜnɜn kwədɜj ba-χaw-ɜn iš? there I.DAT how PREF-fall.down.PRS-NMLZ EXT ‘How can I get there?’
(31) ardɜm sɜw-ɜn nɜ-j here go.PRS-NMLZ NEG-EXT ‘No entrance’, lit. ‘Here it is not possible to pass’ (a poster on the fence of one of the State institutions in Vladikavkaz).
The participant-external possibility construction does not obtain (deontic) necessity meaning either in affirmative or in non-affirmative contexts12. E.g. the modality of the example (11) is interpreted by native speakers only as deontic impossibility (‘you can’t go away’, lit. ‘it is not possible for you to go away’). The construction does not have any non-modal meanings. In accordance with my field data and the examples from ONC, the second possibility construction expresses only participant-internal possibility, i.e. physical ability to do something. It can convey neither other non-epistemic and epistemic possibility meanings nor non-modal meanings (32). It cannot be used with inanimate subjects. See the examples cited above.
(32) gorɜt-mɜ а-sɜw-ən-ɜn dɜn town-ALL PREF-go.PRS-INF-DAT be.PRS.1SG ‘I’m able to go to town’; *‘I’m allowed to go to town’; *‘[The train came,] I can go to town’.
The participant-internal possibility construction cannot express any premodal or postmodal meanings of the internal possibility. E.g. it does not convey the premodal meaning ‘to know’ (I can read Arabic = ‘I know how to read Arabic’).
The next three sections are connected to the origin of the Ossetic possibility constructions. Ossetic is an Iranian language located in the Caucasus. It has been separated from other Iranian languages for centuries. According to the generally accepted belief, Ossetic has been heavily influenced by neighboring languages of the Caucasus, though it has retained the basic lexical stock and morphology of its
12 The discussion of possibility and necessity interaction in Ossetic is far beyond the paper’s main topic and will not be considered.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 108 Arseniy Vydrin
Iranian origins (Abaev 1964). As has been noted above, the Ossetians living in Russia (mainly in North Ossetia) are bilingual in Russian and Ossetic. There is no diachronic evidence that the Ossetic possibility constructions existed before the 19th century as Ossetic was an unwritten language till the middle of the 19th century and little data is available about the Alanian language (the ancestor of the modern Ossetic). The clue to the origin of the Ossetic construction is either in Ossetic itself or in the influence of the languages geographically and genetically close to Ossetic. Taking this into consideration, one can make three hypotheses about the origin of the Ossetic dedicated possibility constructions: 1) it is the result of the influence of the neighboring languages (Russian and / or Caucasian languages); 2) the dedicated possibility constructions are or were typical for Iranian languages in general; 3) the constructions are unique for the Irano-Caucasian language area and were developed in Ossetic independently. In the next section, I will consider the Russian co-called ‘dative-infinitive’ construction, which at first sight is similar to the Ossetic possibility constructions, and compare it to the Ossetic constructions under discussion. In section 6, I will examine dedicated grammatical ways to express non-epistemic possibility meanings in Iranian (both modern and extinct) and Caucasian languages geographically close to Ossetic.
5. RUSSIAN DATIVE-INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTION VS. OSSETIC POSSIBILITY CONSTRUCTIONS
The Russian dative-infinitive construction is the construction with an infinitival predicate and a so-called ‘dative subject’. E.g. (the construction is marked in bold):
(33) Tebe zavtra ne vstavat’ rano. (Maurice 1995: 152) you-DAT tomorrow not get.up-INF-IMPERF early ‘You don’t have to get up early tomorrow’ (Fortuin 2000: 236).
The construction has been heavily discussed in the literature (Rubinstein 1986; Maurice 1995, 1996; Fortuin 2000, 2005; Bonch-Osmolovskaya 2003 and others). In this section, I will briefly describe the syntactic and semantic peculiarities of the dative-infinitive construction (for more details see Fortuin 2005) and compare it to the Ossetic possibility constructions under discussion. The dative-infinitive construction can be used both in affirmative (33) and interrogative sentences (34)13. It can be used with adverbs and particles (35).
(34) Kak mne tuda popast’? how I.DAT there get.INF.PERF ‘How can I get there?’ (35) Trotuary tak uzki, čto odnomu tol’ko čeloveku projti pavements so narrow that one.DAT only man.DAT pass.INF.PERF ‘The pavements are so narrow that only one person can pass’.
13 The examples (34)-(39) and (42)-(44) are borrowed from (Fortuin 2005), the English translation and the interlinearization are mine.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 109
The construction occurs in a subordinate clause (36). The construction can function in a contrastive context (37).
(36) Čtoby rebenku igrat’ v “dočki-materi” ili in.order kid.DAT p l a y . INF.IMPERF PREP daughters-mothers or v “soldatiki”, emu nuzhny druz’ja PREP soldiers he.DAT need.PL friends ‘A kid friends needs friends to play “house” or “war”’.
(37) Pete zalezt’ na derevo, a Maše - net Peter.DAT climb.INF.PERF PREP tree but Masha.DAT NEG ‘Peter can climb the tree but Masha can’t’.
The construction allows the omission of the subject, cf.:
(38) Tut ne projti here NEG pass.INF.PERF ‘One can’t pass here’.
According to Fortuin (2005: 43), the construction can omit the infinitive:
(39) Eh... mne by na spektakl’ oh I.DAT PRTCL PREP play ‘Oh... if only I [could go] to the play’.
As was discussed in the previous section, both Ossetic possibility constructions can be used in subordinate sentences, in affirmative and interrogative sentences and in contrastive contexts. Both constructions allow the omission of the constituents. The Ossetic possibility constructions can be used with adverbs. However, the participant-internal possibility construction does not occur with the adverb žǝntɜj ‘hardly’; cf. the examples below, where the first is the participant- external possibility construction, the second - participant-external possibility construction.
(40) fǝd-ǝ sǝrt fɜ-tar, jɜ fǝšt-ǝt-ɜn father-GEN grave.stone PREF-dark POSS.3SG inscription-PL-DAT ba-kɜš-ɜn žǝn-t-ɜj iš PREF-read.PRS-NMLZ difficulty-PL-ABL EXT ‘The father’s grave get dark, the epitaph hardly can be read’ (ONC. Makh dug, 2002, 10, p. 75).
(41) *Saša bɜlaš-mɜ žǝn-t-ɜj š-bǝr-ǝn-ɜn u Sasha tree-ALL difficulty-PL-ABL PREF-creep.PRS-INF-DAT b e . PRS.3SG Expected translation ‘Sasha is ill able to climb the tree’.
As can be seen from the above, the Russian dative-infinitive construction and the two Ossetic possibility constructions function syntactically the same. Nevertheless, the Russian and the Ossetic constructions differ semantically. While the Ossetic constructions are restricted to non-epistemic possibility meanings, the dative-infinitive construction semantically is much wider. It expresses “different shades of (absence of) necessity, ranging from uses that have a deontic character..., to uses that have an epistemic character..., expressing that
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 110 Arseniy Vydrin the infinitive event will or will not occur” (Fortuin 2005: 39). The example (33) expresses non-epistemic necessity, while (42) conveys epistemic necessity.
(42) On spokojno pogladyvaet po storonam, budto emu ne he calmly look.PRS.3SG PREP sides as.if he.DAT NEG umirat’ čerez minuty... die.INF.IMPERF after minutes ‘He calmly looks around as if he is not going to die in a few minutes...’.
Under some circumstances, like the use of negation, perfective aspect, questions with an interrogative adverb, adverbs and other specific contexts, the Russian construction can express non-epistemic possibility (Fortuin 2005: 39– 40). However, the non-epistemic possibility is not the core meaning of the Russian dative-infinitive construction. Note that unlike the Russian construction the Ossetic possibility construction does not depend on the use of negation particles or specific contexts (though, as it was mentioned in 4.1.1., the participant-external possibility construction is more frequently used in the negation contexts than in the affirmative ones). Besides the modal meanings, the Russian dative-infinitive construction conveys wish and directivity (43)-(44) (ibid, 40).
(43) Mne by tol’ko smotret’ na tebja I.DAT PRTCL only look.INF.IMPERF PREP you ‘I wish I could always look at you’.
(44) Rasti emu bol’šim i zdorovym! grow.INF.IMPERF ‘I wish him to grow up, be strong and healthy’.
Though the Russian dative-infinitive construction shows formal resemblance to the Ossetic possibility constructions, semantically it is quite a different construction. Besides non-epistemic possibility it includes necessity, epistemic modality and non-modal meanings14 like wish and directivity. The influence of the Russian dative-infinitive construction to the origin of the Ossetic participant- external or participant-internal construction is hardly probable.
6. NON-EPISTEMIC POSSIBILITY IN OTHER IRANIAN AND CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES As mentioned above, Ossetic is geographically separated from other Iranian languages. It is surrounded by Caucasian languages belonging to different language families, namely, Northwest Caucasian or Abkhazo-Adyghean, South Caucasian or Kartvelian, Nakh languages and one Turkic language (Karachay- Balkar). In accordance with reference grammars and special studies of modality of the languages geographically close to Ossetic, these languages do not have dedicated grammatical ways to express participant-external and participant- internal possibilities. Certain Northwest Caucasian languages have two verbal
14 According to the definition of modality proposed in section 1, these meanings are outside modality.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 111 morphological markers of non-epistemic possibility. However, they are distributed according to transitivity / intransitivity and not semantically (as in Ossetic). For instance, in Adyghe Adyghe15 the main meanings of non-epistemic possibility can be conveyed by one of the two affixes, viz. the prefix fe-16 (in the modal meaning can be used only with transitive predicates, (45)) and the suffix - ŝʷə (can be used both with transitive (46) and intransitive predicates (47)).
(45) se a-r s-fe-šxə-š’t-ep I that-ABS 1SG.IO-POT/BEN-eat-FUT-NEG ‘I can’t eat that’ (Rogava, Keraševa 1966, 280). (46) a-š’ a-r ə-wəč’̣ ə-ŝʷə-š’t-ep he-OBL that-ABS 3SG-kill-POT-FUT-NEG ‘He can’t kill him’ (Rogava, Keraševa 1966, 279). (47) se sə-ḳʷe-ž’ə-ŝʷə-š’t-ep I 1SG.A-go-RE-POT-FUT-NEG ‘I will not be able to come back’ (Rogava, Keraševa 1966, 279).
Iranian languages also do not have a dedicated grammatical opposition of the main meanings of non-epistemic possibility. However, many extinct Eastern Iranian languages of the Middle Iranian period (Sodgian, Khwarazmian, Khotani Saka) and certain modern Iranian languages (Eastern: Yaghnobi, Pashto; and Western: Tat, Balochi) have a potential construction consisting of a verbal derivative and an auxiliary ‘to do’, ‘to become’ or ‘to be’, which usually agrees with the subject. The construction conveys different possibility meanings, cf. the examples from Pashto (48)-(50)17, where the construction is marked in bold. As has been shown in section 2, in Sogdian the potential construction is the only way to express possibility (7)-(8).
(48) Asad xə gaḍed-əl-ay si Asad well dance-INF-POT become.PRS.3SG ‘Asad can (= is able to – participant-internal possibility) dance very well’ (Robson and Tegey 2009: 751).
(49) paxwā me wror har-a wradz zmuž̟ kara formerly POSS.1SG brother each-F day POSS.1PL home.OBL rā-tl-āy šu magar os hec PREF-go-POT become.PST.3SG but now nothing na-ši rā-tl-āy NEG-become.PRS.3SG PREF-go-POT ‘Formerly my brother could come to us every day, but now he can’t [as he lives far away]’ (participant-external possibility) (Grjunberg 1987: 176).
(50) day bə har kāl pə žəmi ke Jalālkut̟ ta he PRTCL every year PREP winter.OBL POST Jalalabad POST
15 I thank Yury Lander for checking my interlinearization of the Adyghe examples. 16 The prefix fe- mainly functions as benefactive. Perhaps, it is not entirely correct to state that Adyghe has two possibility markers. However, discussion of this point will lead us far beyond the subject of the paper, сf. (Lander, Vydrin to appear). 17 The interlinearization is mine.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 112 Arseniy Vydrin
tl-āy ši awka yawāzi saž̟ kāl dā go-POT become.PRS.3SG or alone this.year this ijāza war ta war-kə̟re šəwe da? permission to.him POST PREF-do.PST.3SG become.PART be.PRS.3SG.F ‘Can he visit Jalalabad every year or he has permission only for this year?’ (deontic possibility) (Grjunberg 1987: 177).
Though the potential construction in Iranian conveys both participant-external and participant-internal possibility, the construction is similar to one of the Ossetic possibility constructions in terms of its structure (a verbal derivative + an auxiliary usually agreeing with the subject) and semantics (dedicated possibility construction; it cannot convey necessity meanings in Iranian). In the next section, I will discuss the origin of the Ossetic constructions.
7. ORIGIN OF THE OSSETIC POSSIBILITY CONSTRUCTIONS As can be seen from the previous section, none of the languages that are geographically or genetically close to Ossetic have the opposition (d), i.e. none of them opposes participant-internal and participant-external possibilities grammatically – by dedicated markers or constructions. I reject hypothesis 1 (cf. section 4.3). Hypothesis 2 can be rejected partly. The dedicated participant-internal and participant-external possibility constructions are not typical for other Iranian languages. But a possibility construction similar to one of the Ossetic modal constructions is attested in many extinct Eastern Iranian languages of the Middle Iranian period as well as in some modern Eastern and Western Iranian languages. The possibility construction detected in other Iranian languages resembles the Ossetic participant-internal possibility construction: in both constructions the auxiliary agrees with the subject (in non-ergative languages). I assume that the Ossetic participant-internal possibility construction was inherited from its ancestor, which either had this construction from at least the Middle Iranian period or it was developed during the Middle Iranian period under the influence of other Eastern Iranian languages18. The Ossetic participant-internal possibility construction apparently was grammaticalized from the verb wɜvən ‘to be’ and the purpose meaning (‘to be for’ or ‘to be created for’ → ‘to be able to’). I partly admit hypothesis 3. The Ossetic dedicated possibility constructions are unique in Irano-Caucasian language area19. At least one of the constructions, most probably, the participant-external possibility construction was developed in Ossetic independently. Apparently, the origin of the participant-external possibility construction is connected to functions of the dative and the auxiliary wɜvən ‘to be’ in 3SG. As was mentioned in section 4.1.4, there is the possessive
18 A weak point of this assumption is that the participant-internal possibility construction does not exist in Digor Ossetic, which is considered to be a more archaic dialect than Iron Ossetic. 19 I want to underline that I did not study the cross-linguistic rarity of this kind of dedicated constructions. It was shown that the Ossetic constructions under discussion are unique only for the Caucasian and Iranian language area.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 113 construction of inalienable possession in Ossetic consisting of the verb wɜvən ‘to be’, Possessor in the dative and Possessum in the nominative, cf. (16). In the present indicative, the possessive construction uses the existential copula i / iš / -j (17), the same copula which is used in the participant-external possibility construction, cf.:
(51) nǝr mɜnɜn iš ɜfšǝmɜr now I.DAT EXT brother ‘Now I have a brother’ (ONC. Makh dug 2001, 10, p. 34).
The participant-external possibility construction may be a result of grammaticalization of the inalienable possessive construction: the verbal derivative in -ɜn (which is used in the modal construction) became Possessum, the Possessor marked by the dative became A and then S, the auxiliary lost its person and number paradigm, and the construction meaning changed to participant-external possibility. Note that the modality’s map by van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) shown in Figure 1, offers the grammaticalization of participant-external necessity from the meaning ‘have’, cf. English have to (among many others see Los 2005); also note the grammaticalization of some modal constructions from the possessive constructions in the Baltic languages (Holvoet 2003; 2007).
8. CONCLUSION In the paper, I examined the manifestation in a human language of dedicated participant-external and participant-internal possibilities oppositions. Logically, there are four options to oppose the main meanings of non-epistemic possibility in a language: lexically, lexically+grammatically, no opposition, only grammatically. I have shown that every opposition can be realized in a language. The most typical opposition is lexical, as non-epistemic modality tends to have lexical expression. Examples of lexico-grammatical opposition and the absence of opposition can be found in reference grammars and typological studies of modality. A grammatical opposition seems to be the most interesting case. It is epistemic modality which is usually expressed grammatically. Non-epistemic modality tends to use lexical means. The main point of the paper was to find out whether a dedicated grammatical opposition between participant-external and participant internal possibilities exists in a language. Using the Ossetic data, I have shown that in a language there can be a dedicated grammatical opposition of participant-external and participant-internal possibilities – an opposition expressed by two dedicated modal constructions, one conveying only participant-external possibility, and the other one only participant-internal possibility. In this paper, I examined in detail the semantic and syntactic peculiarities of the constructions. I also made some assumptions about the origin of the constructions. The Ossetic construction of participant- internal possibility grammaticalized from the verb wɜvən ‘to be’ and the purpose meaning (‘to be for’ or ‘to be created for’ → ‘to be able to’). Most probably it existed in Ossetic (and its ancestors) for a long time, viz. since the Middle Iranian period. The origin of the participant-internal possibility construction offers a new
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 114 Arseniy Vydrin grammaticalization path to the semantic map of van der Auwera and Plungian (1998). I assume that the origin of the Ossetic participant-external possibility construction is connected to the grammaticalization of the possessive construction. If the assumption is right, it also adds a new path of grammaticalization of the meaning ‘have’ to participant-external possibility. The examined Ossetic possibility constructions support on grammatical grounds the division of non-epistemic possibility to participant-internal and participant-external possibilities. A language has a lot of lexical means to oppose participant-internal and participant-external possibilities, e.g. permission vs. ability. In accordance with typological studies of modality, the division of non- epistemic modality to participant-internal and participant-external modality was first made mainly on semantic grounds. The Ossetic data offers the grammatical proof for this division.
REFERENCES Abaev V. I., 1959, Grammatičeskij očerk osetinskogo jazyka, Ordžonikidze, Severo-Osetinskoe knižnoe izdatel'stvo, (Grammatical sketch of Ossetic – in Russian). Abaev V. I., 1964, A Grammatical Sketch of Ossetic, The Hague, Mouton. Ahvlediani G.S. (red.), 1963, Grammatika osetinskogo jazyka. T. I. Fonetika i morfologija, Ordžonikidze, Nauchno-issledovatel'skij institut pri sovete ministrov Severo-Osetinskoj ASSR, (Grammar of Ossetic. Vol 1. Phonetics and morphology – in Russian). Ahvlediani G. S. (red.), 1969, Grammatika osetinskogo jazyka. T. II. Sintaksis, Ordžonikidze, Nauchno-issledovatel'skij institut pri sovete ministrov Severo- Osetinskoj ASSR, (Grammar of Ossetic. Vol 2. Syntax – in Russian). Ammann A. & van der Auwera J., 2002, Korean Modality - Asymmetries between possibility and necessity, in H.-D. Ahn & N. Kim (eds), Selected Papers from the Twelfth International Conference on Korean Linguistics, Seoul, Kyungjin Publishing, p. 43-56. Bagaev N. K., 1965, Sovremennyj osetinskij jazyk. Čast’ I (fonetika i morfologija), Ordžonikidze, Severo-Osetinskoe knižnoe izdatel'stvo, (Modern Ossetic. Part 1: Phonetics and Morphology – in Russian). Bagaev N. K., 1982, Sovremennyj osetinskij jazyk. Chast' II (sintaksis), Ordžonikidze, IR, (Modern Ossetic. Part 2: Syntax – in Russian). Belyaev O., 2010, Evolution of Case in Ossetic, Iran and the Caucasus 14, p. 287-322. Benveniste E., 1954, Expression de ‘pouvoir’ en iranien, Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 50 (1), p. 56-67. Benveniste E., 1959, Études sur la langue ossète, Société Linguistique de Paris, Collection Linguistique, 60, Paris, C. Klincksieck. Bonch-Osmolovskaya A. A., 2003, Konstrukcii s dativnym sub’ektom v russkom jazyke, (Constructions with dative subject in Russian – in Russian). Unpublished dissertation, Moscow, Moscow State University. Bybee J., Perkins R., Pagliuca W., 1994, The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World, Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access Non-epistemic possibility oppositions and Ossetic modal constructions 115
Cheung J., 2002, Studies in the Historical Development of the Ossetic Vocalism, Beiträge zur Iranistik, Gegründet von Georges Redard, herausgegeben von Nicholas Sims-Williams, Band 21, Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Cheung J., 2008, The Ossetic Case System Revisited, in A. Lubotsky, J. Schaeken & J. Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, Amsterdam-New York, p. 87-105. Fortuin E., 2000, Polysemy or monosemy: Interpretation of the imperative and dative-infinitive construction in Russian, Doctoral dissertation, Amsterdam, http://www.hum2.leidenuniv.nl/pdf/S&R/fortuin_polysemy_and_monosemy_ dissertation.pdf. Fortuin E., 2005, From necessity to possibility: the modal spectrum of the dative- infinitive construction in Russian, in B. Hansen & P. Karlik (eds.), Modality in Slavonic languages, New Perspectives, München. Gagkaev K. E., 1952, Očerki grammatiki osetinskogo jazyka, Dzaudžikau, Sevosgiz, (Grammatical Sketch of Ossetic – in Russian). Gershevitch I., 1961, A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, (reprint from the 1954 edition). Grjunberg A. L., 1987, Očerk grammatiki afganskogo jazyka (pašto). Leningrad, Nauka, (Grammatical sketch of the Afghan language (pashto) – in Russian). Hettich B., 2002, Ossetian: Revisiting Inflectional Morphology, A Thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of North Dakota in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, Grand Forks, North Dakota. Holvoet A., 2003, Modal constructions with ‘be’ and the infinitive in Slavonic and Baltic, Zeitschrift für Slawistik 48 (4), p. 465-480. Holvoet A., 2007, Mood and Modality in Baltic, Krakow, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Kiefer F., 1981, What is possible in Hungarian?, Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31 (1-4), p. 147-185. Kiefer F., 1988, Ability and Possibility: the Hungarian verb tud ‘to be able to’, Studies in Language 12 (2), p. 393-423. Lander Yu., Vydrin A., (to appear), Non-canonical subject marking in languages of the North Caucasus: modal constructions, in Ergative and Ergative construction in Ibero-Caucasian languages, in Russian (http://ossetic- studies.org/biblio/10-modal_non-canonical.pdf). Livšic V. A., Khromov A. L., 1981, Sogdijskij jazyk, Rastorgueva V. S. (otv. red.), Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija. Sredneiranskie jazyki, Moscow, Nauka, pp. 347-514, (Sogdian language – in Russian). Los B., 2005, The rise of the to-infinitive, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Maurice, F. 1995. Zur Verteilung von Möglichkeit und Notwendigkeit im russischen modalen Infinitiv, in H. Dippong (ed.), Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik, München, Otto Sagner, p. 147-158. Maurice F., 1996, Der modale Infinitiv in der modernen russischen Standardsprache, München, München, Sagner. Nuyts J., 2005, The modal confusion: on terminology and the concepts behind it, in A. Klinge & H. H. Müller (eds.), Modality: studies in form and function, London, Equinox, p. 5-38. Nuyts J., 2006, Modality: overview and linguistic issues, in W. Frawley (ed.). The expression of modality, The expression of cognitive categories I, Berlin, New York, Mouton de Gruyter, p. 1-26.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access 116 Arseniy Vydrin
Palmer F. R., 2001, Mood and Modality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Robson B. & Tegey H., 2009, Pashto, in G. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages, London, New York, Routledge, p. 721-772. Rogava G. V. & Keraševa Z. I., 1966, Grammatika adygejskogo jazyka, Krasnodar, Majkop, Knižnoe izdatel’stvo Krasnodar, (A Grammar of the Adyghe Language – in Russian). Rubinstein G., 1986, Subjective dative in Russian infinitival clauses of purpose, Slavic and East European journal 30, Issue 3, p. 367-379. Sims-Williams N., 2007, The Sogdian potentialis, in M. Macuch, M. Maggi & W. Sundermann (eds.), Iranian Languages and Texts from Iran and Turan, Ronald E. Emmerick Memorial Volume, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, p. 377-386. Takazov Kh. A., 1992, Kategoria glagola v sovremennom osetinskom jazyke, (Verb in the modern Ossetic language – in Russian), Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Moscow, Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences. Tekhov F. D., 1970, Vyraženie modal’nosti v osetinskom jazyke, Tbilisi, Mecniereba, (Modality in the Ossetic language – in Russian). Thordarson F., 2009, Ossetic grammatical studies, Wien, OAW. Traugott E. C., 2006, Historical aspects of modality, in Frawley W. (ed.), The expression of modality, The expression of cognitive categories I, Berlin, New York, Mouton de Gruyter, p. 107-140. Trnavac R., 2006, Aspect and subjectivity in modal constructions, LOT Dissertation Series 143, Utrecht, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics. van der Auwera J. and Plungian V., 1998, Modality’s semantic map, Linguistic Typology 2, p. 79-124. van der Auwera J., Ammann A. & Kindt S., 2005, Modal polyfunctionality and Standard Average European, in A. Klinge & H. H. Müller (eds.), Modality: studies in form and function, London, Equinox, p. 247-272. van der Auwera J., Kehayov P. & Vittrant A., 2009, Acquisitive modals, in L. Hogeweg, H. De Hoop & A. Malchukov (eds), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company, p. 271-302. Vydrin A. P., 2011, Sistema modal’nosti osetinskogo jazyka v sopostavitel’nom osveschenii, (Modal system of Ossetic – in Russian), Unpublished dissertation, St. Petersburg, Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, http://www.ossetic-studies.org/vydrin /index.php/publications/. Vydrin A. P., 2014a, Glagol v osetinskom jazyke, (Ossetic verb – in Russian), in Vostokovedenie, Istoriko-filologicheskie issledovanija, Mezhvuzovskij sbornik statej, Vyp. 30 (zakljuchitel'nyj), Pamjati akad. M. N. Bogoljubova, Sankt-Peterburg, p. 25-80. Vydrin A. P., 2014, Specializirovannyj impersonal v osetinskom jazyke: k tipologii impersonal’nosti v iranskih jazykah, (Verbal Impersonal in Ossetic: towards a typology of grammatical Impersonal in Iranian languages – in Russian), Voprosy jazykoznanija 3, p. 20-33. Vydrin A. P., 2015, Legko i trudno osuschestvit'dejstvie. Osetinskaja modal'naja konstrukcija, (Difficult and easy to accomplish. An Ossetic modal construction – in Russian), Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, Trudy ILI RAN, otv. red. N. N. Kazanskij, T. 11, Ch. 2, SPb, Nauka, p. 111-134.
Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 10:57:14PM via free access