The syntax of *

Márta Csepregi – Katalin Gugán

0. Introduction

Khanty is an indigenous language spoken in Western , its speakers inhabiting mostly the banks of the River and its tributaries from the middle course of the river up to its wash. According to the census of 2010, 30934 citizens of claimed that they were of Khanty origin, but only 9584 declared that they can speak the language as well. As the speakers are scattered at a vast territory, there are such significant differences between the that it is also questionable whether one can speak of “the” Khanty language as such, or there are in fact several Khanty languages. Traditionally, three groups are distinguished, the Southern (Irtyš, Demyanka, Konda) the Eastern (Vakh, Vasyugan, , Salym) and the Northern group (Obdorsk, Šuryškar, Kazym, Šerkal), and each of these can be further divided into variants. Southern Khanty is already extinct, Eastern Khanty is severely endangered, and Northern Khanty is threatened according to the classification applied by endangeredlanguages.com. As it is unfeasible to give a comprehensive syntactic description of all Khanty dialects, the present paper will focus on the Surgut dialect, with occasional references to other variants. The linguistic data presented here are either elicited (in that case, the abbreviation stands for the name of the informant), or cited from published text collections (these cases will be marked with references).

The first Khanty grammar, based on the Irtish and Surgut dialects, was published at the middle of the 19th century. By the turn of the 19th century investigations covered the whole linguistic area where Khanty was spoken, and the grammars that were written then are important sources up to these days (Patkanow and Fuchs 1911, Paasonen and Vértes 1963, Karjalainen and Vértes 1964). The following variants of Khanty have been described individually: the Sherkaly and Synja dialects (Steinitz 1950), the Vakh dialect (Terëškin 1961, Gulya 1966), the Shurishkary dialect (Rédei 1965), the Surgut dialect (Csepregi 1998, 2016), the Kazym dialect (Nëmysova 1988, Kaksin 2007), the Obdorsk dialect (Nikolaeva 1995, 1999), and the Vakh-Vasyugan dialect (Filchenko 2010). On the other hand, the

*The authors would like to acknowledge the following grants of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office: FNN 107793, Multilingual practices in Finno-Ugric communities (Márta Csepregi), ERC_HU_15 118079, Languages under the Influence. Uralic syntax changing in an asymmetrical contact situation (Katalin Gugán). Khanty grammar of László Honti (Honti 1984) covers all variants in a single volume, following a historically oriented approach. Khanty data and linguistic descriptions have become accessible on the Internet as well, thanks to the recently constructed rich databases (Havas et al. 2015, Skribnik 2014–2017).

Section 1. Word order and sentence types

1.1. Basic word order in a sentence 1.1.1 Finite verb and its arguments

A simple context-free translation of a sentence including a transitive predicate with two overt arguments shows clearly that Khanty is an SOV language.

(1) iki qåt wär-ł. man house make-PRS.3SG ‘The man builds a house’ (LNK)

The grammatical category of subject appears in the nominative case, and agrees in person and number with the predicate. Information structure is a determining factor in sentence structure. Khanty shows a strong preference for the configuration in which the information structural role primary topic (that constituent of the sentence that is predicated about) appears as the grammatical subject of the sentence (Nikolaeva 1999), and the operation of passivization is partly motivated by the preference of the isomorphism of the grammatical subject and primary topic (for further details, see 1.1.8). Topical subjects can be dropped.

The grammatical category of object is only marked with the accusative in case it is a pronoun (2); in case it is a noun, it is not distinguished from the subject morphologically (1).

(2) məŋ łüw-at kənč-ł-əw. we (s)he-ACC look.for-PRS-1PL ‘We are looking for him.’ Transitive verbs can appear either in the subjective or in the objective conjugation; verbs in the objective conjugation display agreement with the object in number. If the object is a noun, the choice between subjective / objective conjugation is assumed to depend partly on thematic role of the given argument, and partly on its information structural role. A patient or theme argument of a verb triggers the objective conjugation if it is among the presupposed arguments of the sentence, i.e. if it is the secondary topic of the sentence (Nikolaeva 1999, 2001, Dalrymple— Nikolaeva 2011). For instance, in (3a) the patient object ‘pike’ represents new information, therefore, the verb only agrees with the first person singular subject. However, its already discourse-old in (3b) and (3c), therefore the verbs appear in the objective conjugation, and the object can be dropped.

(3) a. ma sårt wäł-0-ǝm. […] I pike kill-PRS-1SG b. nüŋ ał łiw-e you PROH eat-IMP.SG<2SG c. ma nŏq kił-t-am-ka I up wake-PRS.PTCP-1SG-COND nik1 tärt-ł-em. up fry-PRS-SG<1SG ‘I killed a pike! [Answer] Don’t eat it! When I wake up, I’ll fry it.’ (Csepregi 1998: 68) Non-agreeing objects are assumed to be within the focal domain of the sentence (either as parts of it, or themselves being the focus). In this case, they appear in the preverbal position, which is assumed to be the focus position, and only a limited set of elements may stand between the focused element and the finite verb. As opposed to this, topical objects appear earlier in the sentence, and adverbials may appear between the topical object and the verb (Nikolaeva 1999).

1.1.2. Non-finite verb and the object

1 This preverbal particle is almost impossible to translate into English, as it carries so many different meanings (although they are conceptually related for the Khanty speakers). In the given example, it means ’on(to) the stove’, but it can also mean ’into the forest ’ or ’down to the river’. Object marking and object placement do not differ in finite and non-finite clauses, that is, pronominal objects of non-finite sentences are accusative-marked, whereas nominal objects appear in the nominative (4a, 4b).

(4) a. məŋ łüw-at kənč-čaɣə jăŋq-Ø-əw. we (s)he-ACC look.for-INF go-PST0.1PL ‘We left to look for him/her.’ (forrás?)

b. iki qåt wär-taɣǝ ǝntǝ łăŋq-ǝł-Ø man house make-INF NEG want-PRS-3SG ‘The man does not want to make a house.’ (A.S.P.)

1.1.3 Word order in imperatives

Imperative and prohibitive sentences exhibit the same SOV word order pattern as assertive sentences. Verbs in the imperative sentence appear in the second person imperative with different forms available for the singular (5), dual and plural, distinguishing subjective and objective conjugation, the latter agreeing with the object in the three numbers (6). Special imperative forms used for addressing family members that cannot be spoken to directly for taboo reasons ceased to be used during the 20th century.

(5) nüŋ ńarǝk quł wǝr-a! you row fish do-IMP.2SG ‘Do some row fish!’ (Csepregi 1998: 66)

(6) ǝnǝł kür piŋ-ǝm ał sǝɣr-e! big foot finger-POSS.1SG PROH cut-IMP.2SG

There might be some word order variation in sentences containing preverbal particles. According to one of our informants, the preverbal particle may precede of follow the verb, and the latter type of word order indicates a stronger type of instruction, potentially a command. A similar pattern is observable in the northern dialects (Eszter Ruttkay-Miklián, p.c.), but it is important to note that not all speakers of Surgut Khanty find the type represented by (7b, 8b) grammatical. (7) a. kem ł’iwt-a out come.out-IMP.2SG ‘Come out!’ (L.N.K.) b. ł’iwt-a kem come.out-IMP.2SG out ‘Do come out!’ (L.N.K.) (8) a. sup nŏq łiw-a soup up eat-IMP.2SG ‘Eat up the soup!’ (A.S.P.) b. *sup łiw-a nŏq soup eat-IMP.2SG up (‘Do eat up the soup!’, A.S.P.)

1.1.4 Pronominal objects

Concerning word order, pronominal objects seem to pattern similarly to nominal objects both in finite (9) and non-finite (10) sentences. It has to be noted, though, that they differ from nominal objects with respect to objective agreement. Irrespective of person-number combination, overt pronominal objects in Surgut Khanty (as opposed to the northern dialects, c.f. Honti 1986: 100, Nikolaeva 1999: 65) do not trigger the objective agreement (9, 11).

(9) məŋ łüw-at kənč-ł-əw. we (s)he-acc look.for-prs-1pl ‘We are looking for him.’ (10) məŋ łüw-at kənč-čə kič-əw әntem. we (s)he-acc find-prs.ptcp wish-poss.1pl neg.ex ‘We don’t want to find him/her.’ If a first or second person pronominal object is dropped, the verb still appears in the subjective conjugation (11). However, dropped third-person pronominal objects trigger the objective conjugation (12).

(11) nüŋ mant änm-0-ǝn. ma nüŋat nŏq ałǝm-ł-ǝm. you me raise-pst-2sg I you(acc) up lift-prs-1sg nomǝn ałitł-ł-ǝm čymǝł. above carry-prs-1sg little ‘You have raised me. I will fly up with you. I will carry you for a while.’ (Csepregi 2011: 12)

(12) łüw ymǝł-0-0 łüw owti-ł-a panǝ tuw-0-tǝɣ

he sit-PST-3SG he top-3SG-LAT and carry-PST-3SG>3SG ‘He (=the man) sat on his (=the eagle’s) back and he (the eagle) carried him (=the man)’ (Csepregi ibid.)

1.1.5 Sentences without a copula

Non-verbal predicates show different patterns with respect to the possibility of zero copula, and tense, number and person are also factors determining the presence or absence of the copula.

1.1.5.1. Sentences with a nominal/adjectival predicate

In the present tense the use of the copula is optional in first and second person (13a, c.f. 13b); there is no third person form of the copula in the present tense at all (14).The predicate (noun/adjective) agrees with the subject in number (13). The form of the copula in the present tense differs from the present form of the verb wał- meaning ‘to be, to live, to exist’. Concerning negation, the negative particle precedes the nominal predicate irrespectively of the presence/absence of the copula (15a, 15b).

(13) a. mǝŋ säkkeŋ-ǝt, mǝŋ wiťǝŋ-ǝt we pretty-PL we beautiful-PL ‘We are pretty, we are beautiful!’ (Csepregi 1998: 80) b. mǝŋ säkkeŋ-ǝt, mǝŋ wiťǝŋ-ǝt wŏs-uw we pretty-PL we beautiful-PL COP-1PL ‘We are pretty, we are beautiful!’ (ibid.) (14) łüw pyrəs imi she old woman ‘She is an old woman.’ (UTDB -> v. helyettesíteni, v. forrás) (15) a. nüŋ ǝntǝ ma äwǝ-m. you NEG I girl-POSS.1SG ‘You aren’t my daughter.’ (Csepregi ibid.) b. nüŋ ǝntǝ ma äwǝ-m wŏs-ǝn. you NEG I girl-POSS.1SG COP.PRS-SG2 ‘You aren’t my daughter’ (A.S.P.)

In the past tense the use of the copula is obligatory, and its form is the same as the past tense form of the verb meaning ‘to be, to live, to exist’. The negative particle precedes the copula.

(16) łüw jǝmat karkam-ǝŋ wŏł-Ø.

s\he very hard.working-DER be.PST-3SG

‘S\he was very hard-working.’

(17) ma ať-em prepodavaťel-ɣǝ ǝntǝ wŏł-Ø

I father-POSS.1SG teacher-TR NEG be.PST-3SG

‘My father wasn’t a teacher.’

(source: http://www.univie.ac.at/negation/typologie/downloads/khanty/non- verbal-surgut.html)

It is interesting to note that it is usually assumed that the condition of copula drop is the lack of overt morphological marking of TAM and person-number categories (according to Stassen’s terminology, the Dummy Hypothesis, see Stassen 1997: 65- 66). However, in Surgut Khanty it is the past tense, third person singular form of verbs that bears zero marking of tense and person-number, whereas the present form in the same person-number combination carries the present tense marker. Still, with nominal / adjectival predicates it is the present form in Surgut Khanty that allows (more precisely, requires) copula drop, supporting Stassen’s claim based on a large typological sample that the Dummy Hypothesis has to be rejected (Stassen 1997: 65- 76, 106-120). A further interesting feature of nominal predication is the marking of the noun, as it can appear both in the nominative and in the translative case (18a, 18b), as opposed to adjectives, which can only appear in the nominative (19). However, in the past tense, nominal predication seems only to appear with translative marking on the noun (20).

(18) a. ať-em ŏnəłtətə qo. father-1SG teaching man ’My father is a teacher.’ (A.S.P.) b. ať-em ŏnəłtətə qoγə wăł-ł-0. father-1SG teaching man-TR live-PRS-3SG ’My father lives as a teacher.’ (A.S.P.) (19) a. ať-em wökkəŋ / wökkəŋ wŏł father-1SG strong / strong was ’My father is / was strong.’ (A.S.P.) b. *ať-em wökkəŋ-kə wăłł / wŏł father-1SG strong-TR is / was (’My father is / was strong.’, A.S.P.) (20) a. *ať-em ŏnəłtətə qo wŏł. father-1SG teaching man was (’My father was a teacher, A.S.P.) b. ať-em ŏnəłtətə qoγə wŏł. father-1SG teaching man-TR was ’My father was a teacher.’ (A.S.P.) This type of variation in case-marking is reported to be absent from the (Stassen 2001: 572), and it is precisely the absence of the double encoding in other branches of that allows this phenomenon to be classified as an areal feature in the according to Stassen (2001).2 As Russian has a similar double encoding pattern (which in turn may be the trace of Uralic substrate in Russian, see Stassen 2001: 588 and the references therein), marking the nominal predicate with a translative case could be a contact-induced phenomenon. However,

2 Although it has to be mentioned that he only mentions Hungarian and Vogul specifically from the Ugric branch, and enlists other members of the Volgaic and Permic branch that have double encoding. Still, Stassen claims that this phenomenon manifests itself most clearly in those Uralic languages that are spoken in the Circum-Baltic area. the Khanty pattern seems to be different from that found in Russian, this alternation being restricted to the past tense in Russian, but available for both nouns and adjectives (Stassen ibid.). The choice between the forms (nominative vs. translative) can be conditioned by similar factors as in the Finnic languages, i.e. nominative case might indicate relative time stability, but both the semantic motivation and the morphological features of this phenomenon need further research in Khanty.

1.1.5.2. Sentences with a locational predicate

There is no copula in the present tense in any of the person-number combinations (21). It is a specific Surgut Khanty phenomenon that the locational predicate agrees with the subject in number (cf. 22 and 23, the latter from Synja Khanty). Locational predicates are negated with the existential negative verb (24).

(21) łüw kem-ǝn. (s)he outside-LOC ‘(S)he is outside. (22) łǝɣ kem-ǝn-ǝt. they outside-LOC-PL ‘They are outside.’ (23) ul-ǝt tāś-n. reindeer-PL meadow-LOC ‘The reindeer are at the medow.’ (S.O.) (24) kəńika pəsan owti-nə əntem, nărəm-nə. book table top-LOC NOT.EXIST shelf-LOC. ‘The book isn’t on the table, it’s on the shelf.’ (A.S.P.) The use of the copula is obligatory in the past tense (25). As for negation, there seem to be several issues that need further investigations, including word order and the placement of the particle (cf. the variants of 26).

(25) kǝńika pǝsan owti-nǝ woł-Ø book table top-LOC be.PST.3SG ‘The book was on the top of the table.’ (26) a. kǝńika ǝntǝ pǝsan owti-nǝ wŏł-Ø book NEG table top-LOC be.PST-3SG ‘The book wasn’t on the top of the table.’ (source: http://www.univie.ac.at/negation/typologie/downloads/khanty/existential- surgut.html) b. pəsan owtinə kəńika əntə wŏł-Ø table top-LOC book NEG be.PST-3SG ‘The book wasn’t on the top of the table.’ (A.S.P.) c. kəńika pəsan owtinə əntə wŏł-Ø book table top-LOC NEG be.PST.3SG ‘The book wasn’t on the top of the table.’ (A.S.P.) A further point to explore is negation in the past tense, which may display either the standard negative particle or the negative existential verb (even though (27) also contains the past tense of the be-verb as well), although some speakers find only (26c) grammatical.

(27) ať-in jăqǝn ǝntem wŏł-Ø father-POSS.3DU at.home NEG.EX be.PST-3SG ‘Their father wasn’t home.’ (Csepregi–Sosa 2009: 205) There is no grammaticalized marker of definiteness in Khanty, therefore existential and locational sentences may only differ in word order (28). However, this difference might be neutralized in negative sentences (as in 26b and c above), as (29) clearly illustrates: the object in the second clause is dropped, meaning that it can only have a definite interpretation in the sentence.

(28) a. qåt wŏnt ŏnt-nə åməs-ł-0 house forest inside-INESS sit-PRS-3SG ’The house is in the forest.’ (A.S.P.) b. wŏnt ŏnt-nə qåt åməs-ł forest inside-LOC house sit-PRS-3SG ‘There is a house in the forest.’ (A.S.P.) (29) pəsan owti-nə kəńika əntem, masa-nə nărəm-a pan-i table top-LOC book NEG.EX Maša-LOC shelf-LAT put- PST.PASS.3SG ‘The book isn’t on the table, it was put on the shelf by Maša.’ (A.S.P.)

1.1.5.3. Existential sentences

Declarative existential sentences contain the verb ‘to be, to live, to exist’ (as in 30), although there are also examples without a finite verb (31). Negation is carried out with the negative existential verb (32).

(30) łåpka-nǝ ńań wăł-ł-Ø shop-LOC bread be-PRS-3SG ‘There is bread in the shop.’(ibid.) (31) pǝsan owti-nǝ kǝńika. table top-LOC book. ‘There is a book on the table. (ibid.) (32) łåpka-nǝ ńań ǝntem. shop-LOC bread NEG.EX ‘There is no bread in the shop.’ (ibid.)

1.1.6 Location of adverbs

Adverbs differ with respect to their position in the sentence. For instance, framing adverbials appear higher in the sentence than the adverbial 'still', which is to be found typically between the topical and the focal domain of the sentence.

(33) məŋ ťŏwal-ew-nə qŏłγa naj łi-ł-Ø. our oven-poss.1pl-loc still fire eat-prs-3sg ’There is still fire burning in our oven.’ (Volkova–Solovar 32)

(34) łår-nə jäŋk qŏłγa əntə put-Ø-i. lake-loc ice still neg freeze-pst-pass.3sg ’The ice has not yet frozen on the lake.’ (Volkova–Solovar 51)

1.1.7 Adpositions

Khanty has postpositions only, and the nouns they modify do not bear any case markers. The postpositions themselves can carry person-number marking.

*1.1.8 Other

Although Khanty can be classified as an SOV language without reserve, it is inevitable to mention that information structure plays a very important role in determining sentence structure (Nikolaeva 1999). The role the two conjugation types play in distinguishing topical objects and focused objects has been mentioned earlier. Passivization is another pervasive syntactic operation that is driven by information structural motivation. On the one hand, it aims at promoting topical constituents into the subject position. On the other hand, the intention behind its use may be to put non-topical elements into focus position. The demoted argument in passive clauses appears in the , and the verb is in the passive conjugation. Passivization is equally available in intransitive (35), transitive (36) and ditransitive (37) structures; topical arguments of various thematic roles can appear as subjects of passive sentences (besides patient and recipient, the benefactive, the experiencer3, and arguments expressing location and time can also be topicalized in this way (Kulonen 1989).

(35) əj məta łatnə măč jåγ-nə jŏwt-oj-əm once guest people-LOC come-PST.PASS-1SG (Context of the translation: I was at home, sewing a shirt.) ‘Once there appeared guests.’ (literally: ‘Once I was come by guests.; A.S.P.) (36) kemǝ küč nürǝɣt-0-ǝm, tŏt kat-ł-oj-ǝm. out as.soon.as run-PST-1SG there seize-PRS-PASS-1SG ‘As I was running out, I was captured instantly.’ (Csepregi 1998: 70) (37) … ťu imili-nǝ čaj-at wär-ǝmt-0-i that woman-loc tea-instr make-Dx-pst-passSg3

3 In Kulonen’s terms: Neutral. lit. ‘She was made with tea by that woman.’ (‘That woman made her tea.’; Csepregi 1998: 78)

As there is a separate chapter dedicated to information structure in the present volume [cross-reference], in what follows, we will only outline certain basic features of information structurally driven features, with special emphasis on phenomena that are restricted to the Surgut Khanty.

1.1.8.1. Topic and subject

[[The topic-comment articulation of sentences and the strong association of the topic and the subject are probably universally characteristic of languages (Lambrecht 1994: 136, Givón 2001 [chapter 4.3.4.]); to quote Lambrecht, “Across languages, the subject of a sentence will be interpreted as its topic and the predicate as a comment about this topic unless the sentence contains morphosyntactic, prosodic, or semantic clues to the contrary” (Lambrecht ibid.). In what follows, we are going to survey those clues Khanty uses either to indicate that the subject is not topical, or, on the contrary, to ensure that the subject and the topic would be identical (however, it has to be mentioned that the investigation of prosodic features is not attainable at the present stage). Analyzing this can also help to resolve the issue whether Khanty is a discourse-configurational language, i.e. one of those “languages in which topic and focus form key constituents of sentence structure, i.e. languages in which primary sentence articulation serves to express discourse-semantic functions […]” (É. Kiss 1995: 5).

Discourse-configurational languages can be characterized by a) topic prominence, b) focus prominence, or c) the co-occurrence of these (É. Kiss ibid.). Concerning topic-prominence, this feature manifests itself in the consistent structural differentiation of categorical and thetic statements. Thetic statements can be characterized as having “a marked presuppositional structure, in which the subject is part of the focus of the sentence” (Lambrecht 1994: 137), and they include sentences with weather verbs, presentational sentences (this subcategory includes existential sentences as well), and event-reporting sentences. ]] The most evident difference between non-topic (38 a, b) and topic (39a, b) subjects is that the latter are mostly dropped (Lambrecht 1994: 137).

(38) a. qŏti jəγ-0-0? where become-PST-3SG ‘What happened?’ (A.S.P.) b. kür-am kəčaγə jəγ-0-0. leg-1SG painful become-0-0 ‘My leg hurts.’ (A.S.P.) (39) a. kür-a qŏti jəγ-0-0? leg-2SG where become-PST-3SG ‘What happened?’ (A.S.P.) b. kəčaγə jəγ-0-0. painful become-0-0 ‘It hurts.’ (A.S.P.) Naturally, dropping topical constituents is not categorical,4 therefore it is still a reasonable objective to test the prototypical thetic sentence types mentioned by Lambert in order to see whether they show a feature unique to them. Unfortunately, however, this has not yielded unequivocal results. Starting with weather verbs, these usually appear without an overt subject in Khanty. However, both orders were possible with an overt subject and an adverbial.5

(40) a. wičipə jŏm jŏm-əł-0. always rain rain-PRS-3SG ‘It always rains.’ (A.S.P.) b. jŏm wičipə jŏm-əł-0. rain always rain-PRS-0 ‘It always rains.’ (A.S.P.) Presentational sentences can appear in the passive, but the active version of (35), given in (41) is also acceptable, and this is the pattern that is general at the

4 Sosa (2017: 90-91) provides statistical data of the forms (affixal, pronominal, nominal etc.) of the different types of arguments (the subject of intransitive clause, the agent and the object of transitive clauses), and mentions that in her data lexical arguments appear in a relatively high ratio, even though they frequently represent given information, which would be exprected to be ellipted or occur as pronouns. 5 Although this was not tested specifically, it is reasonably safe to assume that the adverbial ’always’ patterns similarly as the adverbial ’yet’ (1.1.6.), at least as far as word order goes. beginning of tales, a typical presentational context (42). The type showing Russian influence in placing the non-topical subject after the predicate (c.f. Nikolaeva 1999: 57) seems to be infrequent (43), but present in Surgut Khanty, although postverbal placement was characteristic of backgrounded information in older texts (as shown in (44); Asztalos et al. 2017).

(41) əj məta łatnə mantema măč jåγ jŏwt-0-ət. once I.LAT guest people come-PRS-3PL (Context of the translation: I was at home, sewing a shirt.) ‘Once guests came to me.’ (A.S.P.) (42) kat imi-ɣǝn wăł-ł-ǝɣǝn. two women-DU live-PRS-3DU ‘There were two women.’ (Csepregi 1998: 74) (43) temi juɣ-nǝ åmǝs-ł-0 karǝs-iki. lo (?) tree-LOC sit-PRS-0 eagle-father(?) ‘Behold, sitting on the tree there is the eagle.’ (Csepregi 2011: 12) (44) pǎɣ atłnam qyť-ǝs-0 imi-ł-nat boy alone remain-PST-3SG wife-3SG-COM ‘The boy remained (survived) alone with his wife.’ (PV: 30)

Despite the fact that these results are not conclusive, some traits still suggest that topical and non-topical objects occupy different structural positions. This is shown by the word-order based different interpretations already cited above (28a, b), quoted here again for the sake of convenience as (45a, b). If the subject precedes the postpositional phrase, it gets a definite interpretation, and the sentence is interpreted as locational. However, the opposite word order triggers the existential interpretation, the subject is interpreted as indefinite, and the postpositional phrase as a framing adverbial. Similarly, framing adverbials6 always precede the subject in presentational sentences (those found at the beginning of tales, or as in (41) above.

(45) a. qåt wŏnt ŏnt-nə åməs-ł-0

6 According to Nikolaeva (1999: 58-59), there is a clause-external topic position in Khanty, and she proposes that scene-setting adverbials appear in that position. house forest inside-iness sit-prs-3sg ’The house is in the forest.’ (A.S.P.) b. wŏnt ŏnt-nə qåt åməs-ł forest inside-loc house sit-prs-3sg ‘There is a house in the forest.’ (A.S.P.) On the basis of these observations, it seems probable that the subjects of non- passivized thetic sentences occupy a different structural position than subjects of categorical statements.

1.1.8.2. Complex predicates

When discussing focus position, Nikolaeva (1999) also surveys those elements that can appear between the focused constituent and the verb. She distinguishes two basic types: grammatical elements (parentheticals and certain functional elements) and such constituents that form a complex predicate with the verb. Within the category of complex predicates, Nikolaeva differentiates two subtypes, the adverbial and the nominal type, the former comprising of preverbs (46), the latter of nouns marked with specific cases (either Locative or Translative), as in (47).

(46) ǝj mǝtałi-t memi-t-nǝ nŏq łiw-at, one some-PL bear-PL-LOC up eat-PST.PASS.3PL, ǝj mǝtałi-t råɣǝpłǝ-tǝ ruť-ǝt-nǝ yłǝ ł’ik-at. one some-PL poach-PRS.PTCP Russian-PL-LOC down shoot- PST.PASS.3PL ‘Some of them [=the family’s reindeers] were eaten by bears, some of them were shot by pouching Russians.’ (Csepregi 1998: 54)

(47) ma naŋ-e:n ne:m-na pon-l-ǝm. I you-acc name-loc put-prs-Sg1 ‘I will give you a name.’ (a northern Khanty example from Pápay 1906-1908, cited by Nikolaeva 1999: 62)

Concerning the nominal type, Nikolaeva argues that these elements show different characteristics than other types of arguments: they cannot be passivized; questioned separately from the verb; cannot be independently modified. The question to be discussed is whether it would be justified to subsume certain object-verb patterns (exemplified by [48]-[50]) under the category of complex predicates, as these share some characteristics of nouns forming complex predicates with the verb: they are non-referential, and their meaning is often idiomatic.

(48) pǝťa wär-0-ɣǝn greeting do-pst-DU3G ‘They greeted each other.’ (Csepregi 1998: 78) (49) quł kǝnč-ł-0 fish search-PRS-3SG ‘He is a fisherman / He fishes.’ (Csepregi 1998: 58) (50) ma sar put wär-ł-ǝm. I soon dish make-PRS-1SG ‘I’ll soon cook.’ (Csepregi 1998: 60) Among the possible features of complex predicates, only passivization was tested, and the results are not clear-cut even in this case. Apparently, it was possible to elicit passivized versions of sentences with non-referential objects (51a,b), i.e. these were not claimed to be ungrammatical or non-existent, as opposed to non-referential obliques (51c).

(51) a. op-em-nə put wär-i, sister-1SG-LOC pot make-PST.PASS.3SG ‘dishes were made by my sister’ (A.S.P .) b. jej-em-nə juγ säwr-i, brother-1SG-LOC wood cut-PST.PASS.3SG ‘wood was cut by my brother’ (A.S.P.) c. *pa jåγ-nə jəŋk-at jăŋq-i. other people-LOC water-INSTR walk(?)-PST.PASS.3SG ‘other people fetched water’ (A.S.P.) However, (51a and b) also show that even though the sentences are passivized, their subject does not precede the assumed focus, that is, the locative-marked noun, but retains its immediately preverbal position.7 When these sentences were elicited in

7 It has to be added that this is not uncommon in Surgut Khanty sentences in general (see the next section). context that would trigger passivization (with the intended interpretation that the non-referential nouns are contrastive topics and the agents would be foci),8 the informant translated differently. Apparently, the relevant sentences were translated following the neutral pattern, with the agent appearing as a subject, and the non- referential object preceding the verb (52).

(52) a. op-em put wär-0-0 sister-1SG dish make-PST-3SG ‘my sister cooked’ b. jej-em juγ säwər-0-0 brother-1SG wood cut-PST-3SG ‘my brother chopped wood’ However, the informant also pointed out that other word order patterns are also possible, with strong emphasis on the elements printed in boldface here:

(53) a. put opem wär, / put wär opem , b. juγ jejem säwər, / juγ säwər jejem, c. jəŋkat pa jåγ jăŋqət / jəŋkat jăŋqət pa jåγ

Rather than using the passive construction in sentences where the active pair would contain a non-referential object, it is word order that is manipulated, with the focused subject moved either into preverbal or postverbal position. Besides, the fact that the sentences in (52) can also have a focused interpretation is shown by the fact that these can be answers to questions about the subject (54).

(54) a. aŋk-e müwə put wär-əł-? mother-2SG EMP dish make-PRS-3SG ’Is it your mother who cooks?’ b. əntə, ma op-em put wär-əł-0 no I sister-1SG dish make-PRS-3SG ’No, my sister cooks.’ (A.S.P.)

8 The following text was translated into Khanty: We worked a lot today. We checked the fish-trap, cooked, fetched water, cut wood. Everybody did something: it was me who checked the fish-trap, my brother who cut wood, my sister who cooked, and the others fetched water. Admittedly, the situation is rather murky, and definitely needs further investigation. Still, the tentative conclusion is that certain non-referential objects seem to pattern similarly to the prototypical verbal modifiers, i.e. preverbal particles in that they can appear between the focused constituent and the verb.

1.5. Passive and ergative alignment

Passivization, as discussed above, functions to promote a constituent into subject position, whereas the agent (bearing locative case) that carries new information appears in the position of focused elements. However, there are two types of exceptions that do not conform to this pattern.9 On the one hand, there are instances when the locative-marked argument is indeed the focus of the sentence, but it does not occupy the preverbal position of foci (as in 55b, which contrasts with the prototypical word order found in 55a).

(55) a. ńuł-ǝł ǝnǝł ťŏras qo äwi-nǝ arrow-3SG big rich man daughter-LOC nŏq wǝ-ji up take- PST.PASS.3SG ‘His arrow was picked up by the richest merchant’s daughter’10 b. aj ťŏras qo äwi-nǝ ńuł-ǝł little rich man daughter-LOC arrow-3SG nŏq wǝ-ji up take-PST.PASS.3SG ‘His arrow was picked up by the daughter of a less rich merchant.’ (Csepregi 1998: 82) On the other hand, there are recurrent examples when the locative-marked argument of the passive sentence is in fact the primary topic, therefore, the fact that it does not sit in the preverbal position is well explicable, the question being the motivation of the use of passive voice. As this pattern is characteristic of the eastern

9 Kulonen (1989: 285) also mentions this phenomenon, noting that it is characteristic of Eastern Khanty mainly, and suggests that in those cases, „[t]he topic of the passive sentences seems to be the agent, the primary actant (normally Ag), but the situation itself is regarded from the point of view or perspective [...] of the secondary actant (normally Pat)”. 10 In the preceding text, the heroes of the story agree that they shoot their arrows, and will marry whoever picks up their arrows; these sentences identify those who picked up the arrows. Khanty dialects,11 we will discuss this briefly. However, the discussion will also include some examples of agentless passive sentences, as these are inevitable to illustrate that the function of the passive in Khanty is truly versatile.

Naturally, the most typical functions of passive can all be found in Surgut Khanty, that is, the passive can be used if the agent is unknown or general (56), or, on the other hand, in the function described about, that is, when some argument other than the agent is chosen as the primary topic by the speaker (as in 36 above). In this latter case, the topic is often dropped, and the use of the passive maintains topic continuity.

(56) at-qătǝł-pǝ ropiłtǝ-ł-i. night-day-EMPH work-PRS-PASS.3SG ‘People work day and night.’ (lit.’It is worked day and night.’, Csepregi 1998: 58)

On the other hand, passivization may co-occur with an overt subject, and in that case it is also a possible function to indicate topic shift (Sosa 2017: 141).

(57) wutpi wåč wutpi-nam suč-0-ǝm. jăwǝł ńåł-ǝt wǝj-0-at.

upper city upper-appr step-pst-1sg bow arrow-pl take-pst-pass.3pl

‘I was walking towards the upper part of the upper city. I took a bow and some arrows. (Literally: A bow and arrows were taken; Csepregi 1998: 70)

11 Perhaps this phenomenon is not firmly restricted to the eastern dialects of Khanty. Characterizing the syntax of Synja Khanty (a northern dialect), Schmidt (2008: 67) observes that the locative-marked agent frequently precedes the nominative-marked patient (i.e. the grammatical subject) in passive clauses if their information structural role is the same as it would be in an active clause, i.e. if the agent is the primary topic. Kulonen (1989: 285) observes that eastern and southern Khanty may share the feature that the function of passive sentences is not necessarily promoting some constituent into subject position with the concomitant demoting of the agent, because the locative-marked agent can appear as the topic of the passive sentence. According to Sosa, agented passives can also function to distinguish competing topics in discourse. The entity that is the primary topic in the given segment of the discourse can appear as the primary topic, subject to potential dropping. The entity that is the main topic of the whole stretch of discourse, but only secondary topic in the given part, appears as the locative marked element (58)

(58) pan piťǝŋkǝli-nǝ ǝj pälǝk nŏq łiw-0-i

and bird-LOC one half up eat-PST-PASS.3SG ‘And one part was eaten up by the bird.’ (Csepregi 1998: 68 )12

Finally, it is also worth mentioning that locative-marked agents can also appear in active sentences, yielding an ergative-like structure. However, it does not share the basic characteristic of the ergative pattern, i.e. that the subject of an intransitive clause appears in the same morphological case as the object of a transitive clause, whereas the subject of the transitive clause bears a different case. On the one hand, in those Khanty transitive sentences in which there is a pronominal object, the accusative marking of this object clearly shows that intransitive subjects and transitive objects are treated as different categories (Kulonen 1989: 298). On the other hand, the extremely rare, but existing examples of locative-marked agents in intransitive active clauses show that it is the subject of the transitive clause and the subject of the intransitive that form a category with respect to morphological marking, be it unmarked or locative-marked (Sosa). Therefore, it seems justified to substitute the label “ergative” with the label “marked nominative” (Filtchenko 2006: 60).

According to Sosa, the function of the marked nominative construction is to indicate topic shift or to distinguish the primary topic and the secondary topic, that is, the marked nominative structure shares the characteristics of the agentive passive constructions. Her findings are in accordance with Kulonen’s data, which indicate

12 The protagonists of the tale are a bird and his sister, but in the given segment, the fish caught by one of them is the primary topic. that although the proportion of passive constructions vs. marked nominative structures shows significant variation between the subgroups of the eastern Khanty dialects, the total proportion of these types of sentences compared to active sentences is relatively uniform in all the dialects in question (Kulonen 1989: 301). Marked nominative occurs in Surgut Khanty very rarely; according to Honti (1971), it can be an areal phenomenon in the easternmost dialects of Khanty owing to contact with Paleo-Siberian languages.

1.2. Negation

1.2.1 A negative auxiliary (verb):

There is no negative auxiliary in any of the Khanty dialects, including the Surgut version discussed here (dialectal differences are observable only in the form of the negator). The negative element is a particle.

(59) a. măč qo məŋ-ati jŏwət-Ø-Ø guest man we-DAT arrive-PST0-3SG ‘A guest has arrived to us.’ (L. N. K.)

b. măč qo məŋ-ati əntə jŏwət-Ø-Ø visitor man we-DAT NEG arrive-PST0-3SG ’We didn’t have visitors.’ (L. N. K.)

1.2.2 Additional auxiliary verbs with negation:

N/A

1.2.3. Word order in (finite) negative sentences

Word order in negative sentences does not differ from that of affirmative sentences. The negative particle is adjacent to the main verb, and it is one of those very few elements that appears between the constituents of a complex predicate, e.g. the preverbal particle and the verb (60).

(60) os kemǝ ǝntǝ mǝn-ł-uw. again out not go-PRS-1SG ‘Let’s not go out again.’ (Csepregi 1998: 82)

Although the set of auxiliaries and their defining characteristics have not been investigated in Khanty, the negative particle seems to precede the main verb + auxiliary unit (61). Besides, this pattern is shared by the constructions expressing in Surgut Khanty. These consist of a participial form and a postposition (tåɣi ‘place’ / qŏrasǝp ‘similar’), and the negative particle precedes them (62).

(61) panǝ opǝ-li-ł ǝntǝ jis-taɣǝ jǝɣ-Ø-Ø. and sister-DER-POSS.3SG NEG cry-INF became-PST0-3SG ‘And his/her sister stopped crying.’ (Csepregi 1998: 66)

(62) puɣǝł qări-nǝ mǝtałi ǝntǝ kǝł-tǝ qŏrasǝp. village courtyard-LOC something NEG sound-PRS.PTCP as.if ‘There did not seem to be anybody in the yard.’ (Csepregi 1998: 108(4)

1.2.4. Negation of non-finite clauses

Non-finite clauses are negated similarly to finite clauses: (63) is an example of a negated infinitive, (64) is a negated , (66) is a negated converb. However, the participle can be negated in a different way as well, namely by using the negative participle; some speakers seem to prefer the latter option (65), claiming that it sounds more natural.

(63) ma kič-əm wŏł-Ø-Ø, I wish-POSS.1SG be.PST-PST0-3SG, əj säm jəŋk yłə əntə qorəɣ-taɣə. one eye water down NEG fall-INF ‘I wish that not even one teardrop would fall down’ (Csepregi 1998: 92)

(64) aťe-m wont-i säm əntə punč-əm łaŋki moq father-POSS.1SG forest-ABL eye NEG open-PST.PTCP squirrel cub tuw-Ø-Ø bring-PST0-SG3 ’My father brought a squirrel cub from the forest, the eyes of which weren’t open yet.’ (KK3 12)

(65) aťe-m wŏnt-i säm-əł punč-łəɣ łaŋki moq father-POSS.1SG forest-ABL eye-POSS.3SG open-NEG.PTCP squirrel cub tuw-Ø-Ø. bring-PST0-3SG ’My father brought a squirrel cub from the forest, the eyes of which wasn’t open yet.’ (A.S.P.)

(66) säm-a əntə äwəł-min, pəł-a əntə äwəł-min myr-ət eye-LAT NEG believe-CNV ear-LAT NEG believe-CNV people-PL ł’åł’-ł’-ət. stand-PRS-3PL ‘The people were standing there, not believing their eyes, not believing their ears.’ (PUS 60)

1.3 Complex main clauses

1.3.1 Regular yes/no questions

Regular yes/no questions differ from affirmative questions only in intonation.

(67) nüŋ amp wu-ł-ən? you dog see-PRS-2SG ‘Do you see the dog?’

1.3.2 The question particle

N/A

1.3.3 Questioning an NP

There is no question particle in Surgut Khanty, but particles that may function as focus markers may also mark the intended focus of a yes/no question. This was apparent in question (54); the examples below show a similar strategy in a grammatically more complex environment, i.e. in these cases, the questioned NP is modified with a finite (68) or a non-finite (69) relative clause.

(68) ťit müwə måł qătəł maša sup tem qătəł-a pit-Ø-Ø? this perhaps yesterday Maša soup this day-lat fall-pst0- 3sg ‘is this Maša’s soup from yesterday that remained for today?’ (A.S.P.)

(69) ťit müwə måł qătəł maša wär-əm sup this perhaps yesterday Maša do-pst.ptcp soup tem qătəł-a pit-Ø-Ø? this day-lat fall-pst0-3sg ‘Is this the soup made by Maša yesterday, being left for today?’ (A.S.P.)13

1.3.4 Content (WH-) questions: location of WH-words and word order in general

Questions usually follow the SOV pattern similarly to declarative sentences (70), although (similarly to declarative sentences) other word order variations are not ungrammatical, either (71). Concerning the position of the WH-word, the data seem to be inconclusive. Nikolaeva observes that question words bear inherent focus status (1999: 60), and occur in focus position.14 The observation that the question word why does not necessarily pattern with other question words (72) could be matched by cross-linguistic tendencies and explained similarly (Kroch 2006). However, ‘why’ is not the only element that does not necessarily occupy focus position in Surgut Khanty (73). The conditions of question word placement in Khanty definitely need further investigation.

13 The context for eliciting this sentence (or a similar one) was the following: Yesterday I saw Mary cooking. We got soup for lunch today. Is this the soup that Mary prepared? 14 Although she also mentions that there are exceptional question words, namely ‘why’ and ‘how’ that do not necessarily appear there. (70) it nüŋ müwǝłi wär-ł-ǝn? now you what do-PRS-2SG ‘What are you doing now?’ (Csepregi 1998: 48)

(71) tem qatǝł müwǝłi min wär-ł-ǝmǝn? this day what we.DU do-PRS-1DU ‘What are we (i.e. the two of us) doing today? (ibid.)

(72) ma qărǝ-m-a müwat säsǝɣ wär-ł-ǝn? I clearing-1SG-LAT why trap make-PRS-2SG ‘Why are you making a trap at my clearing?’ (Csepregi—Sosa 2009: xx)

(73) ǝj müwǝłi-pǝ ťet wăł-ł? anybody here live? ‘Does anybody live here?’ (Csepregi 1998: 70)

*1.3.6 Question words qŏjaγi ‘who, whose’ müwəłi ‘what’ məta ‘which’ müw sir ‘what kind of’ mükkim ‘how much’ müw arit ‘how many’ qotti ‘where’ qŏłnam ‘to where’ qŏł såγit ‘from where’ qŏłnə ‘how’ müwat ‘why’ quntə ‘when’

The question words qŏjaγi ‘who, whose’ and müwəłi ‘what’ can carry all the nominal suffixes (74, 75).

(74) qŏjaγ-em-nə jŏwət-ł-oj-əm? who-1SG-LOC come-PRS-PASS-1SG ‘Who comes to me?’ (Csepregi 1998: 88)

(75) müwəłi-nat quł qatəł-ł-i? what-INSTR fish catch-PRS-PASS.3SG ‘What do they catch fish with?’ Pokacheva – Pesikova 2006: 24)

1.3.8 Old and new information

This issue was discussed in 1.1.8.1. and 1.1.8.3.; if those points fits better here, they can be moved here.

1.3.9. Sentence particles

The deictic element ťi (‘this’), when it appears pre- or postverbally, seems to encode that there is special emphasis on the verb (actually, preverbal in this case means that ťi is among those few items that may stand between the constituents of a complex predicate, e.g. a preverbal particle and the verb). When it appears with nouns, it either indicates definiteness (in that case, it alternates with its velar pair ťu ‘that’), or it can also surface as an emphatic particle (76). müwǝ can have a similar function in questions (cf. 54, 68, 69 above).

(76) a. łüw ťi jŏwət-0-0 he PART arrive-PST-3SG b. łüw jŏwət ťi he arrive-PST-3SG PART ‘ ‘He arrived.’ (As an answer to the question ‘What happened’); A.S.P.

Section 2: Advanced topics

2.1 The structure of the NP (or DP)

2.1.1 The possessive construction(s) The possessor is in the nominative case in Khanty. The possessum is invariably marked with a possessive affix agreeing in person and number with the possessor if the possessor is encoded as a pronoun (77); this pronoun can be dropped. There are specific markers of number for possessed nouns (e.g. the regular marker of the dual number is -ɣǝn, but the dual marker appearing before possessive suffix is -ɣǝł, c.f. 77 and 78). If the possessor is encoded as a noun, the possessum may or may not agree with it. Nikolaeva (2005) identifyes three patterns with nominal possessors: the internal construction without agreement, the internal construction with agreement, and the external construction with agreement. These three types differ in their structure. In the internal construction without agreement, the possessor and the possessum are juxtaposed without morphological marking on the possessum (78). The internal construction with agreement is indicative of NP-internal topicalization of the possessor, its main motivation being the foregrounding of the inalienable relationship between the possessor and the possessum. The third pattern is external topicalization, in which the possessor appears as the topic of the clause, i.e. it is moved out of its phrase, and appears at the periphery of the clause (see 81b below). Finally, it may be added that marking the possessum with a nominal possessor may serve to disambiguate sentences in which there would be several nominals juxtaposed without overt morphological marking (79);15 as this phenomenon was observed when collecting examples in isolation, it remains to be seen whether this pattern represents possessor topicalization.

(77) ma säm-ɣəł-am I eye-DU-1SG ‘my two eyes’

(78) äwi säm-ɣən girl eye-DU ‘the girl’s two eyes’

(79) miša ryt-əł jəm.

15 There were several cases during sentence elicitation when our informants claimed that a certain pattern seems odd because there are too many nouns next to each other without any kind of morphological marking, and this example was one of these, with the unmarked possessor thought to be ungrammatical for this reason. Miša boat-poss.3sg good. ‘Miša’s boat is good.’

2.1.2 Attributive adjective: word order and agreement

The attributive adjective always precedes the noun it modifies.

(80) jəłəp put jəłəp ker owti-nə åməs-ł. new pot new herd top-LOC sit-PRS-3SG ‘The new pot sits (=is) on the new stove.’ (A.S.P.)

2.1.3 Combining a possessor and an adjective

The adjective follows the possessor irrespective of the presence or lack of possessive marking on the possessum, i.e. in all types of possessive constructions.

(81) a. imi jəłəp put jəłəp ker owtinə åməs-ł. woman new pot new stove top-LOC sit-PRS-3SG ‘The woman’s new pot is on the new stove.’ (A.S.P.) b. imi jəłəp putəł jəłəp kirəł woman new pot-POSS.3SG new stove-POSS.3SG owti-nə åməs-ł. top-LOC sit-PRS-3SG ‘The woman’s new pot is on her new stove.’ (A.S.P.)

2.1.4 Adjectival concord The attributive adjective does not agree with the head noun (neither in case, nor in number)

(82) ənəł qåt : ənəł qåt-nə : ənəł qåt-ət-nə big house big house-LOC big house-PL-LOC ‘big house’ ‘in the big house’ ‘in the big houses’

2.1.5 Quantifiers

The placement of quantifiers also reflects the different structures a possessive construction may have: the nominal possessor may precede or follow the quantifier, but the possessum bears a possessive marker in both cases, indicative of external (83a) or internal (83b) topicalization of the possessor.

(83) a. imi əjməta put-ł-ał jəmat ənł-ət. woman some pot-POSS.PL-3SG very big-PL b. əjməta imi put-ł-ał jəmat ənł-ət. some woman pot-POSS.PL-3SG very big-PL

The quantifier ’all’ regularly follows the modified noun (84a), whereas the quantifiers ’each’ and ’many’ precede it (84b).

(84) a. imi put-ł-ał əjnam åłqas-ət. woman pot-poss.pl-3sg all old-pl ’All of the woman’s pots are old.’ b. imi ar put-ł-ał åłqas-ət. woman lot pot-poss.pl3 old-pl ’A lot of the pots of the woman are old.’

*2.1.6 Quantifiers and case The quantifier does not select the case of the quantified noun.

2.2 Subordinate (finite) clauses

2.2.1 Finite embedded yes/no questions As the variants below show, there are several patterns to mark finite embedded yes- no questions in Khanty. (85) displays the use of the negative particle and the multifunctional particle pǝ; in (86), there is an added clause meaning ‘or what happened’, whereas in (87), there is a tag meaning ‘or not’.

(85) łüw pyrip-əɣ, miša əntə pə mät. (s)he ask-PST0.3SG Miša NEG EMPH tired.

(86) łüw pyrip-əɣ, miša mät wəs qoti jəɣ-Ø-Ø (s)he ask-PST0.3SG Miša tired CNJ where.LAT became-PST-3SG

(87) łüw pyrip-əɣ, miša mät wəs əntə. (s)he ask-PST0.3SG Miša tired CNJ NEG

‘(S)he asked if Miša was tired.’ (L.N.K.)

2.2.2 Finite embedded WH-questions

Finite embedded WH-questions seem to differ from independent WH-questions in the location of the question word, as the question word appears at the beginning of the subordinate clause. Otherwise, word order in embedded questions does not differ from the general, non-embedded pattern.

(88) łüw pyrij-ǝɣ, quntǝ liza anɣ-ǝt săwn-ǝt ł’uwit-ǝɣ. (s)he ask-PST.3SG when Liza dish-PL bowl-PL wash-PST.3SG ’(S)he asked when Liza had washed the dishes.’ (L.N.K.)

(89) łüw pyri-j-əɣ, müwat čewər pəł-ɣəł qŏq-qən. (s)he ask-EP-PST0.3SG why rabbit ear-DU long-DU ‘(S)he asked why the ears of the rabbit are long.’ (L.N.K.)

2.2.3 Finite embedded clauses

Khanty allows finite subordination; for more on finite and non-finite subordination, see Part 3 of this chapter.

(90) miša jast-əɣ, məttə łüw qŏłtaɣił wåč-nam mən-ł-Ø. Miša say-PST.3SG COMP he tomorrow town-APPR go-PRS-3SG ‘Miša said that he would go to the town tomorrow.’

2.3 Non-finite clauses

2.3.1 Non-finite verb forms

Khanty has four productively used non-finite verb forms: the infinitive marked with - taɣǝ (91), the participle (the present participle marked with -tǝ, as in 92, and the past participle marked with –m, as in 93), the converb marked with -min (94), and the negative non-finite marked with łǝɣ (95).

(91) miša wåč-nam mən-Ø-Ø, Miša city-APPR go-PST-3SG, leli-ł-nat ńuł wu-taɣə. brother-POSS.3SG-COM together see-INF ‘Miša went to the city to meet his brother.’ (LNK)

(92) ma kanək wåńť-ťaɣə mən-t-am-nə I berry gather-INF go-PRS.PTCP-1SG-LOC wičipə ənəł qynt wə-ł-əm. always big basket take-PRS-1SG ‘When I go to gather berries, I always take a big basket [with me].’ (LNK)

(93) miša jaqə łăŋ-m-ał-nə maša kem ł’iwət-Ø-Ø Miša inside enter-PST.PTCP-3SG-LOC Maša out exit-PST-3SG ‘When Miša entered, Maša went out.’

(94) ǝj ťu arit jis-min jüw-Ø-ǝn one that many[?] cry-CVB come-PST-2SG ‘Still, you came back crying.’ (Csepregi 1998: 92)

(95) ma wŏnt-nam mən-łəɣ-am-nə I forest-APR go-NEG.PTCP-1SG-LOC ar łiwpəs łiťatə-ł-əm. a.lot.of food prepare-PRS-1SG ‘I prepare a lot of food before going to the forest.’ (LNK)

2.3.2 Case on non-finite verb forms Whereas the infinitive and the converb do not occur with case markers, the and the negative non-finite may be case-marked, but only with a restricted set of those. The cases that may appear on the participles are the locative, the lative, the ablative, the instructive-final, and translative in Surgut Khanty. Besides, the participle can also appear with several postpositions. The negative indefinite can only appear in the locative, and it cannot be the object of postpositions.

2.3.3: Tense, agreement and negation with non-finite forms

None of the non-finite forms can carry tense, mood or voice markers. The infinitive cannot have person agreement markers, either. However, both the participle and the negative non-finite can be inflected according to the number and person of its subject; the paradigm is similar to, but not identical with the paradigm of the possessive suffixes. The converb does not show person agreement, but but if it is the predicate of a sentence, it agrees with the subject in number (similarly to locational predicates).16 Concerning negation, see (1.2.4).

2.3.4: Finite vs. non-finite We will (or at least we were about to) discuss this issue in the last section of the chapter in detail, therefore we would skip it here to save space.

2.4 Relative clauses

2.4.1. Non-finite relative clauses

The most typical form of relative clause in Khanty applies the gap strategy. These relative clauses are externally headed, with the relative clause preceding the noun it modifies (96); the opposite order is extremely rare (97).

(96) yłə säwər-m-am juɣ-i aťe-m ryt wär-əł-Ø.

16 This is again a phenomenon that is unique to Surgut Khanty among the Khanty dialects. down cut-PST.PTCP-1SG tree-ABL father-POSS.1SG boat make-PRS- 3SG ‘My father makes a boat from the wood I cut.’ (Csepregi 2012: 67)

(97) ăwł-ət, aťe-m-nə pułt-əm, sledge-pl father-poss.1sg-loc harness-pst.ptcp qåt pŏŋəł-nə ł’åł’-ł’-ət. house side-loc stand-prs-3pl ‘The sledges that were harnessed by my father stand next to the house.’

2.4.2. The verb form in a participial relative clause

The predicate of non-finite relative clauses is either a participle or a negative non- finite (for further description, see 2.3.2.-2.3.3.).

2.4.3. Finite relative clauses

Although much rarer than non-finite relative clauses, finite relatives are also attested. These either display a relative pronoun that is identical with the corresponding interrogative pronoun, or contain a demonstrative pronoun functioning as a relativizer (Csepregi 2012; Dékány‒Tánczos 2015). Finite relative clauses follow the head they modify.

(98) puɣəł, qot ma säm-a pit-Ø-əm, village where I eye-LAT fall-PST-1SG ənəł łår qånəŋ-nə åməs-ł big lake shore-LOC sit-PRS-3SG ‘The village where I was born is next to the shore of a lake.’

(99) pyrǝš iki, ťu łüw äwi-ł-at ma nămłaɣt-ǝɣǝł-t-am, old man, DET 3SG daughter-3SG-INSF 1SG think-DX-PRS.PTCP-1SG qunta pǝ mantem äwi-ł ǝntǝ mǝ-ł-0 / mǝ-ł-tǝɣ when EMPH 1SG-DAT daughter-3SG NEG give-PRS-3SG ‘The old man whose daughter I am thinking about will never give me his daughter.’ (Csepregi 2012: 87)

2.4.4 Relative pronouns

Relative pronouns stem from (and are identical in form with) interrogative pronouns, but these only appear in the highly sporadic finite relative clauses.

2.4.5 Resumptive pronouns

N/A

2.5 Reflexives and anaphoric binding

2.5.1 Reflexives

Khanty does not have a separate set of reflexive pronouns. Reflexivity can be encoded with verbs having a derivational suffix (100); besides, the ordinary forms of personal pronouns (101) or intensified personal pronouns (102) can get a reflexive interpretation in an appropriate context.

(100) jåɣ päwǝł-tǝ kåt-nǝ ł’owittǝ-ɣǝł-ł-ǝt. people bathe-PRS.PTCP house-LOC wash-DER-PRS-3PL ‘People wash themselves in the bathing house.’ (Volkova-Solovar 2016)

(101) ma man-t serkala-nǝ wu-ł-ǝm. I I-ACC mirror-LOC see-PRS-1SG ‘I see myself in the mirror.’ (L.N.K)

(102) miša əj nŏrɣə łüw-ə łüwati-jat nŏməqsə-ł. Misha always he_INT he-INS think-PRS.3SG ‘Misha only thinks about himself.’ (L. N. K.)

2.5.2 The reflexive morpheme

As regular pronouns appear in reflexive contexts, their form varies according to the person and number of the subject.17

2.5.3 Anaphoric binding The following sentences contain variants of the same trigger sentences used for eliciting structures with phenomena pertaining to anaphoric binding.

(103) a. maša vera-γ-a qŏr-əł wə-ta pirt-təγ. Maša Vera-EP-LAT picture-POSS.3SG take-INF ask-PST0-SG>3SG b. maša-nə vera qŏr-əł wə-ta pirt-i. Maša-LOC Vera picture-POSS3SG take-INF ask-PST0-PASS.3SG

‘Mašai asked Vera to take a picture of heri.’ (A.S.P.)

(104) a. maša vera-γ-a pirt-təγ łüw qŏr-əł wə-ta. Maša Vera-EP-LAT ask-PST0-SG<3SG she picture-POSS.3SG take-INF b. maša-nə vera pirt-i łüw qor-əł wə-ta. Maša-LOC Vera ask-PST0-PASS.SG3 she picture-POSS.3SG take-INF

‘Maša asked Verai to take a picture of herselfi.’

2.5.4 The anaphoric morpheme

The pronoun that appears in anaphoric contexts is the personal pronoun.

2.5.5 Binding the anaphor

As binding phenomena have not received much attention in studies of Khanty syntax, the sentences that were used as triggers aimed at eliciting both possible interpretations: one in which the pronoun is coreferent with the subject, and one in which it is coreferent with the (raised) object.18 In both cases there is an active and a

17 Diachronically, there are traces of possessive suffixes being involved in the paradigm of personal suffixes, but this applies to these pronouns in general, and not specifically to their use in constructions with a reflexive reading (Honti 1984: 70-72, Kulonen 1999). 18 Naturally, this pertains to the trigger sentences, as the structure of the Khanty sentences that were elicited on the basis of Russian triggers (Маша попросила Веру сфотографировать её [=Машу] vs. Маша попросила Веру сфотографировать её [=Веру]) is different. corresponding passive structure available. In the active structure, the agent appears in the nominative, and the addressee in the lative-dative case; the former is the subject of the sentence. In the corresponding passive structure, the agent is in the locative, and the recipient in the nominative case is the subject of the sentence. As these are elicited sentences without any context, the analysis of information structural makeup of these sentences is quite an artificial issue. Still, these sentences also reflect the eastern Khanty phenomenon that locative marked agents can precede the subjects in passive sentences, that is, they can be topics. As topics, both the subject in (103 a) and the locative-marked agent (103b) are the external possessors of the possessive-marked noun ‘picture’. To achieve that the possessive suffix would be coreferent with the other argument of the verb, the infinitive phrase was moved to the right edge of the clause into a postverbal position, and this phrase contains a personal pronoun that cannot be interpreted as coreferential with the main clause primary topic. This personal pronoun is the internal possessor of the possessive phrase, triggering agreement. Naturally, it is premature to draw conclusions on the basis of two pairs of sentences, but it still seems to be the case that it is the primary topic, rather than the grammatical subject that proves to be decisive in establishing reference relationships. Finally, it is also interesting to note that in both active sentences, i.e. (103a) and (104a), the matrix verb agrees with the definite object of the embedded clause.

2.5.6. The reciprocal construction The general means of rendering reciprocal constructions in Khanty is to use the preverbal particle ‘ńuł’ ‘together, mutually’ (105). In this example, the verbal prefix changes the meaning of the verb (‘kill’ > ‘fight, beat each other’). As all preverbal particles, ńuł also has an adverbial variant with the same stem carrying the approximative suffix –nam, i.e. ńułnam also meaning ‘together, reciprocally’. The apparence of both forms together emphasizes the meaning of mutuality (as in [106]). A further option is the use of the locative form of the postposition küt ‘between’, which agrees with the subject in person and number using possessive markers (107).

(105) păɣ-ət ńuł wäł-ł-ət. boy-PL together kill-PRS-3PL ‘The boys are fighting.’ (L. N. K.)

(106) păɣ-ət ńuł ńul-nam wäł-ł-ət. boy-PL together together-APR kill-PRS-3PL ‘The boys are fighting.’

(107) łin łin küt-in-nə påritə-ł-ɣən. they_DU they_DU between-3DU-LOC argue-PRS-3DU ‘The two of them are arguing with each other.’ (L. N. K.)

2.5.7. The reciprocal morpheme The morphemes that appear as markers of reciprocity have different origins. The reciprocal meaning of ńuł is probably secondary, and the original meaning was ‘together’, as shown by example (108). The ultimate origin of this element is uncertain (DEWOS 1048). The stem of küt dates back to PFU, and preserved its original meaning ‘middle; space in between’ in Khanty. The reciprocal reading arises owing to the agreement with a plural subject. The grammaticalization of reciprocal meaning is probably based on the inference that if an action happens in between / among the subjects, then the participants act both as the agents and the patients of the action. (108) jåɣ ńuł-a əkm-ət. people together-LAT gather-PST.3PL ‘The people came together.’ 3. Subordination in Surgut Khanty

Enumerations of the presumable features of Proto-Uralic syntax usually include that clauses were typically joined paratactically or through nominalization of the verbs of subordinate clauses (Collinder 1960: 250-251, Bereczki 1996: 56). Consequently, it is generally assumed that finite subordination is a later development in the daughter languages, and possibly a result of contact-induced change (see e.g. Filchenko 2015: 175). In what follows, we will focus on subordination in Surgut Khanty, the speakers of which are almost exclusively Russian-Khanty bilinguals. The aim of this chapter is twofold: besides giving a concise overview on the different encoding possibilities of clausal subordination, it also aims at discussing the hypothesis that finite subordination as a category would be an interference-phenomenon in the syntax of Uralic languages. Throughout the following discussion we will follow the approach developed in Cristofaro (2005). Applying a functional definition of subordination,19 Cristofaro’s cross-linguistic comparison of the different types of subordinate relations relies on two features, the form of the verb and the coding of the participants in the dependent clause. The verb in the subordinate clause may be balanced or deranked; a verb form is classified as deranked if it cannot appear in independent main clauses taken in isolation. Deranking may involve different patterns of expressing tense, aspect, mood and person agreement distinctions, including the lack of these distinctions. Arguments may get a different morphological encoding in a subordinate clause than they would get in an independent clause, or they may not appear overtly at all. The comparison of subordination types on the basis of these criteria shows that the morphosyntactic realization of subordination relations reflects the degree of semantic integration of the two states of affairs and the predetermination of the semantic features of the subordinate clause.20

As all of the nonfinite forms may retain their arguments in most types of subordination21 in Khanty, first we will discuss the specific marking patterns available for these. Then we will present the traditionally established groups of subordination (complementation, adverbial subordination, relativization) following the same subcategorization within the groups as Cristofaro.

3.1. Encoding the arguments of non-finite verbs

As mentioned in (1.1.2), objects of non-finite clauses are marked similarly to non- finite clauses. From among the non-finite verb forms, infinitives and converbs cannot have subject agreement markers. In those rare instances when they have an independent overt subject, it appears in the nominative.

(1) ma kič-ǝm wŏł, ǝj säm jǝŋk yłǝ körǝɣ-taɣǝ. 1SG wish-1SG be.PRS.3SG one eye water down fall-INF ’I wish that not one teardrop would fall.’ (Csepregi 1998: 92)

19 „By subordination will be meant a situation whereby a cognitive asymmetry is established between linked SoAs [=state of affairs], such that the profile of one of the two (henceforth, the main SoA) overrides that of the other (henceforth, the dependent SoA” (Cristofaro 2005: 33). The property that is shared by all subordinate clauses is the lack of assertiveness (Cristofaro 2005: 28). 20 More precisely, semantic features of both the dependent clause and the main clause may be predetermined, but the investigation is based on the features of the subordinate clause (Cristofaro 2005: 116). 21 However, this does not mean that the presence of overt arguments, especially the overt subject argument would be equally frequent in the different types: although there are examples with all types of non-finites with referentially independent subjects, infinitives and converbs usually have controlled covert subjects.

The participial forms, however, can have person markers that are similar to, but not identical with the markers of possession. This type of marking appears when an argument other than the subject is relativized, and the subject of the relative clause is pronominal.

(2) säm-a pit-m-am puɣəł eye-LAT fall-PST.PTCP-1SG village ‘The village where I was born’ (Csepregi 2012: 70)

Nonfinite clauses may display the case alignment pattern of passive clauses even though there is no overt voice marker on the verb. It is the patient that is relativized in both of the following structures, yet in (3a) the agent appears in the nominative, whereas in (3b) it is in the locative, that is, the case of encoding agents in passive sentences. According to our informant, the two patterns differ in information structure.

(3) a. āťe-m pūʌt-əm awʌ-ət father-1sg harness-pst.ptcp sledge-pl ‚the sledges that were harnessed by my father’ b. āťe-m-nə pūʌt-əm awʌ-ət father-1sg-loc harness-pst.ptcp sledge-pl ‚the sledges that were harnessed by my father’ [and not by somebody else] (Csepregi 2012: 71)

Marking the agent with the locative case is also possible with converbs and infinitives.

(4) ńyr iłə əntə wəj-0-i, boot away NEG take-PST-PASS.3SG pyrəs iki-nə ńarək kür əntə wu-taγə. old man-LOC bare foot NEG see-INF ’The boot isn’t taken off so that the old man would not see his/her bare feet.’ (VJK 71)

3.2. Finite and non-finite forms in subordination Below we are going to present the traditionally established groups of subordination (complementation, adverbial subordination, relativization) following the same subcategorization within the groups as Cristofaro (2005). As Surgut Khanty does not have such finite forms the use of which would be restricted to dependent clauses, a deranked verb form is equivalent to a nonfinite form in this case (for a general overview of nonfinite forms, see 2.3).

As for the role of conjunctions, Cristofaro argues that patterns that apply a balanced verb form in both of the linked clauses, and the only difference between them is the presence or absence of a conjunction, “are in fact two sides of the same strategy, one in which the structure of both the linked clauses is kept intact with respect to that of the corresponding independent clause” (2005: 55). We share the view that merely the appearance of a conjunction does not necessarily represent a signifincant structural difference: if the juxtaposition strategy is applicable to encode a subordination type, the conjunction simply makes this structure more marked by marking the subordination type explicitly. This is perhaps reinforced by the observation that heavy structural influence is not a prerequisite of borrowing conjunctions, i.e. it can also happen under minor structural influence (Thomason— Kaufman 1986: 80). Still, we will include the possibility of using a conjunction in a subordination type as a point to discuss, as this category can also appear in nonfinite subordination, i.e. the presence or absence of conjunction cross-cuts the balanced- deranked distinction in Khanty.

Therefore, the discussion of complementation, adverbial subordination and relativization will focus on the form of the verb (whether a given subordination type only allows a deranked or a balanced verb form, or both constructions are possible), and whether the given construnction appears with or without a conjunction. It has to be mentioned that investigating variation and change in present-day Khanty necessarily introduces a diachronic aspect into an otherwise synchronic description. Besides, the possibilities of a diachronic investigation are limited, as the basis of comparison, the earliest collections (four tales) of this dialect stem from 1901. Therefore, the conclusions will necessarily be tentative.

3.2.1. Complement clauses

According to the classic definition of complement clauses, these function as arguments of a main predicate. Following Noonan (1985), Cristofaro compares those types of verbs that can have clausal arguments, and provides the following implicational hierarchy of deranking:22

Modals, Phasals > Desideratives, Manipulatives (‘make’, ‘order’) > Perception > Knowledge, Propositional attitude, Utterance (Cristofaro 2005: 125).

The hierarchy in this case is to be read as follows: if a given language expresses a given subordination type by using a deranked verb form, it will also apply a deranked verb form for all types left of the given type. The overview of the subtypes of Surgut Khanty complementation relations will focus on the question whether balanced forms appear at all in any of these subordination types, and if they appear, do they follow the same order from left to right

Modal and phasal predicates do not seem to appear with finite subordination. In fact, it is also a question whether these structures should be considered monoclausal or biclausal in Khanty, as they display some features that would not be characteristic of clausal subordination. These include the placement of the negation marker (5)23, passive case alignment of the arguments with the passive marked on the main verb (6), and object agreement on the main verb with the dependent clause object (7; c.f. Nikolaeva 1999: 47).

(5) panǝ opǝłi-ł ǝntǝ jis-taɣǝ jǝɣ-0-0. and sister-3SG NEG cry-INF become-PST-3SG ‘Then his/her sister stopped crying’ (literally: began not to cry; Csepregi 1998: 66) (6) łüw-nə panə ťi čemotan jăγli-taγə ťi wär-0-i. 3SG-LOC and this trunk prod-INF EMPH make-PST-3SG.PASS ‘She began to prod that trunk’ (Csepregi 1998: 76) (7) ənəł nŏw owti-j-a quŋət-0-0 big branch top-EP-LAT climb-PST-3SG panə ťi nŏw ăwət-ta wär-təγ. and this branch cut-INF do-PST-3SG>SG

22 As our main aspect to see the presence or absence of finite and non-finite variants of the given types, we will focus on the deranking hierarchies (whereas Cristofaro also provides hierarchies on the basis of arguments and the two aspects combined). 23 Although it has to be mentioned that apparently, this does not hold of the rich stock of phasal verbs in general (tərəm- ‘be ready; finish’, čüksəm- ‘start, begin’, łäjγəmt- ‘start, begin’, raŋip- ‘start, be about to’, jə- ‘become; want; begin’, pit- ‘fall; start’, wär- ‘do; start’ ) or to modal predicates in general; the group of those which allow the given pattern with negation needs to be tested. ’He climbed on a big branch and began to cut it.’ (SMB 88)

In Surgut Khanty, the most natural way to express desiderative relationship between two states of affairs is a possessive construction, in which the wishing itself is expressed either with the noun kač ’wish’ and the transitive verb tăj- ’have’, or with the possessive-marked form of the same noun and the existential verb. The situation wished for appears as a relative clause modifying the noun ’wish’. There is a third possibility, though, in which the verb łăŋq- ’want, like’ has an infinitival phrase as its complement.24

(8) a. låpka-nam mən-tə kač tăj-ł-əm. shop-APPR go-PRS.PTCP wish have-PRS-1SG b. ma låpka-nam mən-tə kičəm wăł-ł-0. 1SG shop-APPR go-PRS.PTCP wish-1SG be-PRS-3SG c. låpka-γ-a mən-taγə łăŋq-ł-əm. shop-EP-LAT go-INF want-PRS-1SG ’I want to / wish to go to the shop.’ (Csepregi 2015c)

According to Cristofaro, the class of manipulative predicates consists of two subgroup. One of these express causation, which directly implies the realization of the dependent clause. This type of construction can also be expressed through affixes,25 and this is a possible strategy in Khanty, too. The second subgroup consists of predicates expressing request which lack such an implication. The verb part- ’order’ can be used both to express syntactic causation and request, and it occurs with an infinitival complement, as in (9a) and (9b).

(9) a. aŋki ma ťeťope-m järnas jånt-taɣə part-əʌ-0 mother I aunt-1SG dress sew-INF order-PRS- 3SG ‘The mother is making my aunt sew a dress for her.’ (L. N. K.) http://en.utdb.nullpoint.info/node/1196 b. ťi qyrγ-əm imi-nə iłə tini-ta pirt-i.

24 See also (1), in which the subject of the main clause is different from that of the subordinate clause. 25Cross-linguistically, this also applies to phasal and modal predicates (Cristofaro 2005: 101, 103) this sack-1SG woman-LOC away sell-INF order-PST- 3SG.PASS ’My sack was ordered by the woman to be sold.’ (LJA 198)

Infinitival phrases in desiderative (1) and manipulative (10) constructions can also appear postverbally. It is important to note that there is an example in which the postposed infinitival phrase is introduced with the Russian subordinator štoby ’in order to’ (11); we will return to this later.

(10) ma łüwat küč lŏwməłtəγł-əm mant wăγ-at mə-ta. én ő.ACC PTCL kérlel[PST]-SG én.ACC pénz- INS ad-INF ’Egyre kérleltem, hogy adjon nekem pénzt.’ (PD 1042) (11) əseγ ŏt-əw-nə pirt-oj-mən, old thing-1PL-LOC suggest-PASS.PST-1DU, štoby tem məγ-a jü-taγə. so.that this land-LAT come-INF (LJA 23) ’Our old relative asked us to move to this land.’ (LJA 23)

Perception verbs are the first on the scale that can occur both with nonfinite and finite complements. In the previously discussed types of subordination, non-finite was equivalent to the infinitive; in this case, however, the verb in the non-finite subject (12) and object (13) complement clause appears as a participle. Cristofaro (2005: 105) notes that perception relation may also be encoded in a way that the subject of the dependent clause appears as the object of the main clause (it is the object of the perception), and the perceived event is encoded in the form of a verbal adjective modifying this object. However, the Khanty structure suggests a different interpretation, as the nonfinite verb is not an adjective-like modifier of the noun (e.g. the interpretation of (13) cannot be that ’I don’t see the up-going myself’). The participles in this case rather function as action nominals, and the subject of the nominalized verb appears as its possessor triggering person agreement on the verb (‘I don’t see my elevation’); it seems that the percieved state of affairs itself is conceptualized as an object.

(12) kåł juɣ nŏwǝt tåɣ-t-ał seť-ǝł- 0 thich tree branch crack-PRS.PTCP-3SG sound-PRS-3SG ’The cracking of thick tree branches is audible.’ (Csepregi 1998: 108) (13) num tŏrǝm mǝn-m-am ǝntǝ wuj-0-ǝm. upper sky go-PST.PTCP-1SG NEG see-PST-1SG ’I didn’t see myself going to the upper sky.’ (Csepregi 1998: 72)

Finite complement clauses do not have overt complementizers, and occur after the perception verb. Both types of constructions (i.e. fininte and non-finite) are present in the texts of the earliest collections as well.

(14) łejł-əł- – jåγ jü-ł-ət. see-PRS-3SG people come-PRS-3PL ’He sees that people come.’ (SMB 82)

Knowledge verbs display the same patterns, that is, their complement can be either finite or non-finite. It needs to be investigated further whether it is a general phenomenon that matrix verbs appear in the objective conjugation (which is indicative of a dropped pronoun in the matrix clause that is in some kind of a chain relation with the subordinate clause, be it finite or non-finite).

(15) it ma tǒŋəmt-0-em: now I understand-PST-1SG>SG müw sys wǒł-0-ən what time live-PST-2SG – ťu sys pərγi əntə jǒγət-ł-0. that time back not come-PRS-3SG ‚Now I understood: the time you lived will never come back.’ (Pesikova– Volkova 2010: 23) (16) ma əntə wu-ł-em, qŏłnam mən-ta. 1SG NEG know-PRS-1SG>SG where go-INF. ’I don’t know where to go.’ (Razg. 1259)

Verbs expressing propositional attitude seem to be rare in the written sources , but those rare instances display finite subordination.

(17) nămǝksǝ-ł-ǝm, sar jăŋk-ł-ǝm think-PRS-1SG quickly go-prs-1sg ’I thought I would return quickly’ (Csepregi 1998: 60)

Utterance verbs may appear either with direct or indirect quotations. In the oldest texts, quotations are almost exceptionlessly direct, and these cannot be anything else than finite, being a verbatim replica of an utterance. The only instance of indirect quotation, however, appears in the form of an infinitive. (18) qŏłtaγəł mə-taγə jastə-ł. tomorrow give-INF say-PRS-3SG ’He said he would give it tomorrow.’ (PV 20) More recently collected texts contain more instances of indirect quotation. These are finite sentences with or without (19) a conjunction. The conjunction is of Khanty origin, though it may be an instance of pattern borrowal from Russian; its use is not restricted to indirect quotation (20). (19) jåγ jastə-ł-ət ma jəm juw wär-tə mastər wăł-ł-əm. people say-PRS-PL I good wood do-PRS.PTCP master be-PRS-1SG ‘People say I am good at carving wood.’ (Csepregi 1998: 56) (20) łüw jast-əł-0, məttə: “łəɣəł-tə saɣət əj pajłaŋ pelk-əm s/he say-PRS-3SG, ?? fly-PRS.PTCP as one wing half-1SG yłtə järkəntəɣəł-ł-əm. down line-PRS-1SG ‘S/he says that: “As I am flying, I’ll draw a line with one of my wings down there.’ (Csepregi 1998: 68)

3.2.2. Complement clauses: interim conclusions

The distribution of finite and nonfinite constructions among complement relation types does seem to follow the deranking hierarchy in that the left side of the hierarchy (modals, phasals, manipulatives, desideratives) seem to allow mostly (if not only) nonfinite subordination, while the rightward endpoint of the hierarchy (propositional attitude and utterance verbs) are almost exclusively finite. In between (perception and knowledge verbs), both variations are possible. There does not seem to be a shift in the sense that those types that allow finite and nonfinite realization seem to display both types from the times of the earliest collection. However, a borrowed conjunction (ʃtoby ‘in order to’) seems to be a new phenomenon, and it is interesting to note that it is to be found with nonfinite subordination. The complementizer introducing quotiations may also be a recent development manifesting pattern borrowal.

Finally, it is interesting to note that most derankend subordination types (modals, phasals) do not seem to allow the postverbal position of the infinitival phase, but it is a frequently occurring variant with the rest of the cases. It remains to be tested whether it follows directly from the deranking hiearchy, or only indirectly, as it may be the case that modals and phasals (either categorically, or at least some verbs belonging to this group) do not instantiate subordination, but these are main verb – auxiliary constructions.

3.2.3. Adverbial relations

In adverbial subordination, the dependent state of affairs specifies some aspect of the circumstances of the main state of affairs. As opposed to complement clauses, it is not the main clause predicate that determines the semantic features of the relationship of the main and the dependent clause, but the adverbial relation itself (Cristofaro 2005: 155-156). However, the same aspects that served as the basis of comparison of complementation types (form of the verb and encoding of arguments) is applicable to adverbial subordination as well, and the resulting hierarchies are also explicable on a semantical basis, which in this case means the semantic characteristics of the different types of adverbial relation themselves (Cristofaro ibid.). The cross-linguistic comparison of adverbial subordination types with respect to verb forms resulted in the following implicational hierarchy (Cristofaro 2005: 168).

Purpose > Before, After, When > Reality condition, Reason

Purposive subordination in Surgut Khanty amlost exclusively appears with non- finite forms: either with an infinitive (4) or with a case-marked participle (21). Presumably, this is again a pattern in which the deranked verb form is used as an action nominal, and the dependent state of affairs is conceptualized as an object (Cristofaro 2005: 175-177).

(21) leli-ł-nat ńuł wu-t-ał-at brother-3SG-COM together see-PTC.PRS-3SG-INS miša wåč-nam mən-0-0 Misa város-APR go-PST-3SG ’Misa went to the city to meet his brother.’ (Csepregi 2015b)

The highly sporadic examples of purposive clauses in which there is a Russian conjunction all have an independent overt subject. It is also interesting to observe that the example with a finite purposive subordinate clause negation is expressed not with the standard negator, put with the prohibitive particle; still, the verb is in the passive, which cannot be anything else but indicative.

(22) tüwət mustəm saɣət juɣat pan-0-təɣ, fire necessary as fire-INSTRF put-PST-3SG>SG štoby ńewrəm-əł ał put-0-i. so.that child-3SG PROH freeze-PST-3SG. ‘She put a lot of wood on the fire so that her small child would not freeze.’ (Csepregi—Sosa 2009: 204-5). The available patterns for expressing the different types of temporal relationship are clearly abundant, and these can be encoded both through finite and non-finite subordination. In case of the latter, it is predominanlty the set participial forms that either express the type of the temporal relationship (posteriority, anteriority, overlap) themselves through the choice of the participle (negative, past, present), or the participles appear with suffixes (23) or postpositions.

(23) ma wŏnt-nam mən-łəɣ-am-nə I forest-APPR go-NEG.PTCP-1SG-LOC ar łiwpəs łiťatə-ł-əm. a.lot.of food prepare-PRS-1SG ‘I prepare a lot of food before going to the forest.’ (LNK)

The converb may also appear expressing temporal relationship,26 but its use is restricted to same-subject constructions and the exact nature of the temporal relationship is probably inferred from the context.

(24) qåt-a łăŋ-min, łüw ťeťi ǒjaγt-əγ.

26 More typically, the converb encodes manner relationship. house-LAT enter-CVB s/he grandfather find-PST.3SG ’Entering the house, s/he found his/her grandfather’ (LNK) Finally, temporal relationships can be expressed with finite subordination using a conjunction. In the case of one characteristic type, that expressing contigiuous anteriority, the conjunction is not a Russian loan, but a Khanty element appearing in the immediately preverbal position. This conjunction has a further function of encoding concessive relationship.

(25) kem küč łiwət-ł-ən, ma ťi jŏwət-ł-əm. out as.soon.as run, I EMPH come-PRS-1SG ‘As soon as you run outside, behold, I come.’ (Csepregi 1998: 82)

However, instances of finite subordination featuring Russian pattern or matter borrowing are also observable. On the one hand, there are instances of the use of quntə ‘when’ appearing in clause-initial position. On the other hand, posteriority can also be expressed with a finite subordinate clause introduced by the loan conjunction poka ‘until’.

There are also several patterns, both non-finite and finite, to express condition.27 As for non-finite conditional clauses, they either appear with a present participle and the clitic -ka (of Komi origin, DEWOS 583-585), or there is a conditional non-finite.

(26) ťumint süj-əł łirti pit-t-ał-ka that.kind.of noise-3SG arise-PRS.PTCP-3SG-COND ‘You should run out then, if that noise arises for the third time’ (Csepregi 1998: 92) (27) mantem metałekkə jek-ŋ-a, jeɣ-a! I.DAT something-TR become-COND-2SG become-IMP.2SG ‘If you become something for me, become!’ (Honti 1978: 132)

However, both are infrequent, and Karjalainen (Karjalainen—Vértes 1964: 269)28 mentions in his grammar sketches that his language instructor preferred to use a structure with a finite verb and quntə ‘when’. The source of the conjunction is the

27 Due to space limitations, we confine ourselves to discuss only reality condition, as this was also the type discussed in Cristofaro’s study. 28 Karjalainen’s fieldwork took place between 1898 and 1902, this is the period when he collected material for his (partly posthumously) published works. question word quntə ‘when’, instantiating a typical grammaticalization process, and it is placed regularly after the finite verb of the subordinate clause, a position which is only characteristic of subordinate conjunctions in SOV languages.

(28) mät-ən quntə, ałint-a! tire-PST-2SG if lay.down-IMP.2SG ‘If you are tired, lay down!’ (Csepregi 1998: 74)

Finally, reason clauses pattern with temporals in that they may have both finite and non-finite verbs, and the nonfinite form in this case is either a case-marked participle or a participle + postposition construction. The case marker or postposition is the same as the one encoding purposive relationship. However, finite reason clauses have a special feature in that the main clause may contain a pronominal element encoding the reason relationship, and this may appear either pre- or postverbally.

(29) uɣ-əm kəčə wŏł-m-ał-at, ma lekar-nam mən-0-əm. head-1SG sick be-PRS.PTCP.3SG I doctor-APPR go-PST-1SG ‘As I had a headache, I went to the doctor.’ (Csepregi 2015, L.N.K) (30) juɣ ontnam mənət ťi pətən forest into go-PST-3SG this for łüw ăntə jăqən wăł-ta łăŋk-ł-ət. perhaps home live-INF want-PRS-3PL ‘They went into the forest for this: they perhaps wanted to live at home’ (Csepregi 1998: 56a)

3.2.4. Interim conclusions: adverbial clauses

In general, the subtypes of adverbial relationship pattern similarly to the cross- linguistic hierarchy established by Cristofaro in that whereas purpose clauses are almost exclusively nonfinite (deranked), temporal and conditional clauses can be both balanced and deranked. Conditionals, however, differ from temporals in that the finite structure displays a conjunction that does not show either matter- or pattern borrowing, and this applies to concessives as well. These adverbial relationship types are predominantly expressed through finite subordination, and if there was a change in this respect among conditionals, then the spread of finite conditional clauses must have taken place prior to the beginning of the 20th century. Reason clauses, however, are higher on the deranking hierarchy than conditional clauses in Khanty, as these appear both appear with finite and non-finite patterns, whereas conditional clauses are predominantly finite. The fact that all adverbial relations except condition can be encoded through nominalized verbs + postpositions or case markers is in harmony with Cristofaro’s claim that certain subordination types can have special properties as they can be construed as objects, whereas condition cannot.

3.2.5 Relative relations and conclusions

In relative relations, the dependent state of affairs specifies the referent of a participant of the main state of affairs through providing another event in which it is involved in (Cristofaro 2005: 195). There is no semantic integration at all between the linked SoAs, only they happen to involve the same entity. Therefore, the parameters used to distinguish the types of complement or adverbial clauses do not distinguish the types of relative clauses. Still, these types too can be ordered with respect to argument encoding and deranking of the verb cross-linguistically, but those hierarchies are based on the Accessibility Hierarchy of Relativization established by Keenan and Comrie (1977).

However, types of relative clauses seem to pattern uniformly in Surgut Khanty, as any types of arguments are accessible to relativization. Characteristically, relative clauses display non-finite forms (participles), which can bear possessive markers (3.1), and there is no overt marker of the relativized element in the relative clause (gap strategy; see the examples in (2) and (3)).

When contrasting the major categories of subordination, it seems that relative relations are the least prone to display finite subordination in Khanty. Whereas complement and adverbial relations show scales according to the extent to which they allow variation in this respect, relatives modifying nouns are characteristically prenominal and nonfinite. However, finite subordination is attested, and the postverbal relative clauses are final and include a clause-initial relativizer developing from interrogative pronouns (Csepregi 2012, Dékány and Tánczos 2015). As there are no corpus studies to support this claim, it is only a assumption (on the basis of the available, sporadic examples) that the emergence of finite relative clauses cannot be related to the deranking hierarchy, either, that is, it is not the case that finite subordination would appear later among relativized subjects (that are highest on the Relativization Hierarchy, and, consequently, on the deranking hierarchy as well) than among obliques (that are lowest on the hierarchy, together with indirect objects, therefore they are more likely to occur with a balanced verb form; Cristofaro 2005: 203).

In spite of the widespread bilingualism among it speakers, present-day Surgut Khanty is a verb-final (that is, OV) language, the proportion of non-verb-finite sentences being under 10% (Asztalos et al. 2017). It is also true that non-finite subordination is markedly present in the language, and in many cases, it can be assumed that it the presence of finite subordination is due to contact, either through pattern or matter borrowing. Still, there are subtypes of subordination (among complement clauses, propositional attitude and utterance verbs; among adverbial clauses, conditional and concessive clauses) in the case of which it is highly unlikely that finite subordination would be an interference-phenomenon. Cross-linguistically, these are types that usually rank low on the hierarchies based on the deranking of the verb form, and, as Cristofaro observes, those languages that have two such sets of verb forms that one of these can only be used in independent clauses, while the other only in dependent clauses, are in fact very-very rare (2005: 54). Therefore, it seems to be reasonable that Proto-Uralic wasn’t such an atypical language, either, and certain subtypes of subordination must have been expressed though finite subordination. Consequently, although the contact-induced spread of non-finite subordination is attested in many of the Uralic languages, the presence of finite subordination as a category can hardly be the result of contact in them.