1

THE TENSE SYSTEM OF LEZGIAN MARTIN HASPELMATH Freie Universität Berlin

1. Introduction and overview

Lezgian is spoken by more than 350,000 people in southern Daghestan and northern Azerbaijan in the eastern Caucasus. Genetically, it belongs to the Lezgian subgroup of the Nakho-Daghestanian family. The data presented here are mainly from the modern (written) standard language. For a fuller description of Lezgian grammar, see Haspelmath (in prep.).1 This introduction will give an overview of the Lezgian tense-aspect forms. The morphology of the tense-aspect forms is described in section 2, and section 3 describes the uses of these forms. In section 4, some more marginal categories (periphrastic and archaic) are considered, and section 5 contains some di- achronic considerations that might illuminate the present system. Table 1 gives an overview of the main synthetic (i.e. non-periphrastic) tense- aspect forms of Lezgian, using fin ‘go’ as an example. Following the convention of Comrie 1976:12, I capitalize the names of language-particular categories.

Table 1. LEZGIAN TENSE-ASPECT FORMS Imperfective fi-zwa ‘is going’ Continuative Imperfective fi-zma ‘is still going’ Future fi-da ‘will go/goes’

Past Imperfective fi-zwa-j ‘was going’ Past Continuative Imperfective fi-zma-j ‘was still going’ Past Future fi-da-j ‘would go’

Aorist fe-na ‘went’ Perfect fe-n-wa ‘has gone’ Continuative Perfect fe-n-ma ‘has still gone’

Past Aorist fe-na-j ‘went earlier’ Past Perfect fe-n-wa-j ‘had gone’ Past Continuative Perfect fe-n-ma-j ‘had still gone’

As Table 1 shows, there are four basic tense forms: the Imperfective, the Future, the Aorist, and the Perfect. The Past can be combined with each of these. Only the Imperfective and the Perfect have a Continuative form, while the Future and the Aorist lack it.

1A brief typological characterization of Lezgian might look as follows: non-rigid SOV; only preposed nominal modifiers; postpositions; strictly ergative case-marking; very little evidence for syntactic accusativity; practically no relation-changing operations (no passive, no raising); non-finite subordination; no agreement; non-pro-drop; overwhelmingly suffixing (agglu- tinating); 16 nominal cases; rich in uvular, ejective, and labialized consonants; palatal and labial vowel harmony; stress on the second syllable of roots. 2

2. The morphology of tense-aspect categories2

Lezgian inflected verb forms are based on three different stems of the verb: the Masdar stem, the Imperfective stem, and the Aorist stem. The Masdar stem is the basis for the Masdar (verbal noun), the Optative and the Imperative; the Imperfective stem is the basis for the Infinitive, the Imperfective, the Future, and the Prohibitive; and the Aorist stem is the basis for the Aorist, the Perfect, and the Aorist converb. There are two morphological verb classes: weak verbs, which are stressed on the root, and strong verbs, which are stressed on the meaningless thematic vowel that comes between the root and the suffixes. Only strong verbs dis- tinguish the three different stems by means of their thematic vowels, whereas the three stems coincide with the root in weak verbs. Table 2 exemplifies the different stems for two strong verbs.

Table 2. THE THREE STEMS IN STRONG AND WEAK VERBS strong verb strong verb weak verb gatún ‘beat’ juzún ‘move’ háltun ‘meet’ root gat- juz- halt- Masdar stem gat-ú- juz-ú- halt- Masdar gat-ú-n juz-ú-n hált-un Optative gat-ú-raj juz-ú-raj hált-raj Imperative gat-ú-t juz-ú-z hált-a Imperfective stem gat-á- juz-á- hált- Infinitive gat-á-z juz-á-z hált-iz Imperfective gat-á-zwa juz-á-zwa hált-zawa Future gat-á-da juz-á-da hált-da Prohibitive gat-á-mir juz-á-mir hált-mir Aorist stem gat-á- juz-ú- hált- Aorist gat-á-na juz-ú-na hált-na Perfect gat-á-nwa juz-ú-nwa hált-nwa Aorist converb gat-á-na juz-ú-na hált-na

There are only about 100 strong verbs, and the great majority of verbs are weak. Nevertheless, the class of strong verbs is very important since it contains the most frequent verbs, e.g. fin ‘go’, raxun ‘speak’, luhun ‘say’, gun ‘give’, qhun ‘drink’, tun ‘put’, q’un ‘hold’, q˜ acˇ un ‘take’, gˇ un ‘bring’. The primary division is between the Imperfective stem and the Aorist stem. This can be seen from the small number of verbs with suppletive stem formation, shown in Table 3.

Table 3. VERBS WITH STEM SUPPLETION

Masdar Infinitive Aorist atu-n q˜ we-z ata-na ‘come’ xˆ u-n zˇ e-z xˆ a-na ‘be, become’ t’ü-n ne-z t’ü-na ‘eat’

2The morphology of Lezgian tense-aspect categories is described in detail in Moor 1985 and Topuria 1959. 3

awu-n iji-z awu-na ‘do’ q˜ un req˜ i-z q˜ a-na ‘become cold’ q’i-n req’i-z3 q’e-na ‘kill; die’

While the Aorist stem vowel is sometimes identical with the Masdar stem vowel (as in juzun in Table 2) and sometimes with the Imperfective stem vowel (as in gatun in Table 2), the Masdar stem and the Aorist stem are always the same in verbs with suppletion, as opposed to the Imperfective stem. This primary division between the Imperfective and Aorist aspectual stems is of course what we expect: Bybee 1985:63-64 observes that "aspect conditions stem changes much more frequently than tense, mood or agreement categories" because "aspect affects the meaning of the verb to a greater degree". Secondary tense-aspect forms are the Continuative and the Past categories. The Continuative is marked by the suffix -ma that replaces -wa in the Imperfective suffix -z(a)wa and the Perfect suffix -n(a)wa:

Imperfective ksu-zwa ‘is falling asleep’ acuq’-zawa ‘is sitting down’ Continuative Imperfective ksu-zma ‘is still falling asleep’ acuq’-zama ‘is still sitting down’ Perfect ksa-nwa ‘has fallen asleep, is asleep’ acuq’-nawa ‘has sat down, is sitting’ Continuative Perfect ksa-nma ‘is still asleep’ acuq’-nama ‘is still sitting’

The Continuative cannot be combined with the Future. The notion ‘will still be sitting (down)’ must be expressed lexically (using hele ‘still’). The Past is marked by the suffix -j which can be added to any Non-Past tense-aspect form, as shown in Table 1. It cannot, however, be combined with non-finite forms like the Masdar, the Infinitive or the Aorist converb, or with mood forms like the Imperative or the Optative. Negation is expressed by the suffix -cˇ that follows the tense-aspect suffix and precedes the Past suffix, which is -ir after -cˇ :4

xa-zwa ‘is breaking’ xa-zwa-cˇ ‘is not breaking’ xa-da ‘will break/breaks’ xa-da-cˇ ‘will/does not break’ xa-zwa-j ‘was breaking’ xa-zwa-cˇ -ir ‘was not breaking’ xa-da-j ‘would break’ xa-da-cˇ -ir ‘would not break’ xa-na ‘broke’ xa-na-cˇ ‘did not break’ xa-nwa ‘has broken’ xa-nwa-cˇ ‘has not broken’ xa-na-j ‘broke earlier’ xa-na-cˇ -ir ‘did not break earlier’ xa-nwa-j ‘had broken’ xa-nwa-cˇ -ir ‘had not broken’

Non-finite forms use prefixal negation, e.g. Masdar ta-xu-n ‘not breaking’, Infinitive ta-xa-z ‘not to break’, participle ta-xa-zwa-j ‘who is not breaking’.

3 The re- in these weakly suppletive stems is the only remnant in Lezgian of an imperfective aspect marker r that is much more common in closely related languages (Alekseev 1985:75-89). 4 The Continuative forms are omitted in the following for reasons of space and because they are quite rare anyway. 4

Prefixal negation is also used for the Aorist converb form xa-na ‘having broken’: ta-xa-na ‘without having broken’. Thus, the Aorist converb is not homonymous with the finite Aorist form when it is negated (unlike the non-negated form, cf. Table 2).

3. Uses of tense-aspect categories

3.1. The Imperfective

As its name suggests, the Imperfective denotes imperfective situations. This includes ongoing (progressive) events, as in 1, current states, as in 2, and ha- bitual events, as in 3.5

(1) a. Non-Past Jab gu-zwa-ni küne? (K90,3:2)6 ear give-IMPF-Q you:ERG ‘Are you listening?’

b. Past Abur sekin-diz fi-zwa-j, harda wicˇ i-n haldi-kaj they quiet-ADV go-IMPF-PST every(ERG) self-GEN situation-SBEL fikir-zawa-j. (J89:32) think-IMPF-PST ‘They were walking quietly, each of them was thinking about his sit- uation.’

(2) a. Non-Past Wa-z wucˇ luhu-z k’an-zawa? (M90:75) you-DAT [what:ABS say-INF] want-IMPF ‘What do you want to say?’

5 The following abbreviations of category names are used in the morphemic glosses: ABS Absolutive INEL Inelative ABST abstract noun suffix INESS Inessive ADEL Adelative INF Infinitive ADV adverb MSD Masdar AFUT Archaic Future NEG negation ANTIC Anticausative PER Periphrasis form AOP Aorist participle POESS Postessive AOR Aorist PRF Perfect APRET Archaic Preterit PST Past CND Conditional PT particle CONT Continuative PTP participle COP copula Q question marker DAT Dative SBEL Subelative ERG Ergative SBESS Subessive case FUT Future SBST substantivizer GEN Genitive SRDIR Superdirective IMPF Imperfective SRESS Superessive INDEF indefiniteness marker TEMP Temporal converb

6 The abbreviations following the examples refer to the texts from which they have been taken. See Haspelmath (in prep.) for references. 5

b. Past Zˇ in wicˇ i-n cˇ iragˇ di-n q˜ ene jasˇ amisˇ zˇ e-zwa-j. (K90,3:2) jinn self-GEN lamp-GEN inside living be-IMPF-PST ‘The jinn lived inside his lamp.’

(3) a. Non-Past Wuna har juq˜ u-z wa-z k’ama-j q’wan nek qhwa-zwa. you:ERG every day-DAT you-DAT want-PTP as.much.as milk drink-IMPF ‘You drink as much milk as you want every day.’ (A90:23)

b. Past Disˇ ehlij-ri cˇ pi-n cˇ in sˇ arsˇ awdi-k cˇ ünüx-zawa-j. (L86,3:22) woman-PL(ERG) selves-GEN face veil-SBESS hide-IMPF-PST ‘The women used to hide their faces under a veil.’

3.2. The Future

The Future expresses not only future situations, as in 4, but also habitual si- tuations, as in 57. The Past Future cannot, of course, express past future situ- ations, so it only has the past habitual reading, as in 5b.

(4) Am ni-waj aq˜ wazar-iz zˇ e-da? (K90,3:2) he:ABS who-ADEL stop-INF can-FUT ‘Who will be able to stop him?’

(5) a. Non-Past Cˇ ’exi buba cˇ iniz muhmanwili-z ata-j-la, aq’wan zun [big father to.us guesthood-DAT come-AOP-TEMP] so I:ABS sˇ ad zˇ e-da xˆ i! (K90,3:2) glad be-FUT PT ‘When grandfather comes to visit us, I am so glad!’

b. Past Har näni-qh Mirzebeg cˇ ’exi juldasˇ -ri-n pataw fi-da-j. (L86,3:21) every evening Mirzebeg big comrade-PL-GEN to go-FUT-PST ‘Every evening Mirzebeg went to his older comrades.’

The Past Future is also used in the apodosis of counterfactual conditionals, see section 3.6. With a small number of (mostly irregular) verbs, the Future expresses a current state, e.g. k’an-da ‘wants’ (=k’anzawa), cˇ ida ‘knows’ (=cˇ izwa), e.g.

(6) I kar zˇ anawurdi-z qhsan cˇ i-da. (M83:28) this thing wolf-DAT good know-FUT ‘The wolf knows this well.’

7The habitual use of the Future seems to be receding. It is not uncommon in texts and informants accept it, but they never volunteer a Future when presented with a habitual context. 6

3.3. The Aorist

The (Non-Past) Aorist is a perfective past. It is the usual tense-aspect form used in narratives.

(7) a. Za sa cˇ ar-ni kxˆ e-na, telegramma-ni ja-na. (Q81:19) I:ERG one letter-and wrote-AOR telegram-and hit-AOR ‘I wrote a letter and sent a telegram.’

b. Zˇ anawur mad ata-na. Za ada-l q’we gülle wolf again come-AOR I:ERG he-SRESS two bullet aqhaj-na. Wahsˇ i cawu-z gadar xˆ a-na, axpa cˇ ile-l launch-AOR animal sky-DAT throw ANTIC-AOR then ground-SRESS aluq’-na, mad juzu-n qhuwu-na-cˇ . (M83:29) fall-AOR anymore move-PER do.again-AOR-NEG ‘The wolf came again. I fired two bullets at him. The beast was thrown up, then fell onto the ground, and did not move anymore.’

The Past Aorist refers to situations in the remote past (8a), situations that took place before the main story line (8b), situations that do not obtain anymore (8c), and situations whose effect has been canceled (8d).

(8) a. Cˇ i xür-e sa itimdi däwedi-laj gügˇ üniz wicˇ i-qh we:GEN village-INESS one man(ERG) war-SREL after self-POESS galaz nems-eri-n disˇ ehli xka-na-j... Am qhsan-diz with German-PL-GEN woman bring.back-AOR-PST she:ABS good-ADV

lezgi cˇ ’ala-ldi raxa-da-j. Lezgian language-SRDIR speak-FUT-PST ‘A man in our village (had) brought a German wife with him after the war. She spoke Lezgian well.’ (S88:171)

b. Alat-aj jisu-z Dilbera q’we predmetd-aj pis pass-AOP year-DAT Dilber(ERG) two subject-INEL bad q˜ imet-ar q˜ acˇ u-na-j. (R66:6) grade-PL take-AOR-PST ‘The year before, Dilber had gotten bad grades in two subjects.’ c. Sifte q’we wacr-a ada waxt=waxtund-a cˇ ar-ar first two month-INESS she(ERG) time=time-INESS letter-PL kxˆ e-na-j. Gila wucˇ iz jat’ani a-bur xükwe-zma-cˇ . write-AOR-PST now why INDEF it-PL come.back-CONT:IMPF-NEG ‘In the first two months she wrote letters time and again. Now they don’t come anymore for some reason.’(M79:6) d. Zun q˜ e Q’asumxüre-l fe-na-j. I:ABS today Qasumxür-SRESS go-AOR-PST ‘I went to Q’asumxür today.’(HQ89:5) [Speaker has returned to his village by the time of the utterance.]

7

3.4. The Perfect

The Perfect has the familiar function of expressing a past event with current relevance.

(9) a. Polkovnikdi-z p’ap’rus cˇ ’ugu-n duxtur-ri q˜ adagˇ a awu-nwa. colonel-DAT [cigarette pull-MSD] doctor-PL(ERG) forbid do-PRF ‘The doctors have forbidden the colonel to smoke cigarettes.’ (Sˇ 83:58)

b. Cˇ i cˇ il azad qhuwu-r-da-laj iniqh jaxc’ur jis alat-nawa. we:GEN land free do.again-AOP-SBST-SREL since forty year pass ‘Since our land was liberated forty years have passed.’ (DD85,2:21)

c. Zi pul na aq˜ ud-nawa! (Sˇ 83:67) I:GEN money you:ERG take.away-PRF ‘YOU have stolen my money!’ [the theft has just occurred]

The Past Perfect expresses an event that precedes another past event, e.g.

(11) Kuxnjad-a bubadi-ni xci cˇ aj qhwa-zwa-j. kitchen-INESS father(ERG)-and son(ERG) tea drink-IMPF-PST Ajal-ar hele q˜ aragˇ -nawa-cˇ -ir. (Sˇ 83:71) child-PL yet get.up-PRF-NEG-PST ‘Father and son were drinking tea in the kitchen. The children hadn’t gotten up yet.’

The perfect also expresses the resultative (cf. Nedjalkov (ed.) 1988), i.e. it expresses a state resulting from a previous event. This is particularly common with verbs of posture like acuq’un ‘sit down’.

(12) Wiri isätda klubdi-z k’wat’ xˆ a-nwa. (J89:33) everyone now club-DAT gather become-PRF ‘Everybody has now gathered in the clubhouse.’ (German: ‘Alle sind nun im Klubhaus versammelt.’)

(13) a. Sasˇ a Moskvadi-n kücˇ e-jri-kaj sa kücˇ ed-a aq˜ waz-nawa-j. Sasˇ a Moscow-GEN street-PL-SBEL one street-INESS stand-PRF-PST ‘Sasˇ a was standing in one of Moscow’ streets.’ (DD71,1:14)

b. Perixan gˇ amlu jaz acuq’-nawa-j. (G63:140) Perixan sorrowful being sit-PRF-PST ‘Perixan was sitting sorrowfully.’

c. Bazardi-n jugˇ ada-z tars-ar awa-cˇ luhuz Sunday-GEN day he-DAT lesson-PL exist-NEG saying tak’an xˆ a-nwa-j. (N88:75) hateful become-PRF-PST ‘He hated Sunday because there were no classes.’

8

3.5. The Continuative categories

The Continuative forms have the meaning ‘still’ / (negative) ‘anymore’. Example (14) shows the Non-Past and Past Continuative Imperfective.

(14) a. Lak’ab-ri jeke rol’ q˜ ugˇ wa-zma. (L87,2:74) name-PL(ERG) big role play-CONT.IMPF ‘Nicknames still play a big role.’

b. Za-z w ucˇ -da-t’a cˇ i-zma-cˇ -ir. (S88:157) I-DAT do.what-FUT-CND know-CONT.IMPF-NEG-PST ‘I didn’t know anymore what to do.’

The Continuative Perfect only has the resultative use because the meaning ‘still’ is not compatible with a non-stative past event.

(15) K’wal-e sekin tir. Gˇ ül hele ksa-nma-j. (DD77,4:10) house-INESS quiet COP:PST husband still sleep-CONT.PRF-PST ‘It was quiet in the house. The husband was still asleep.’

3.6. Tenses in conditional clauses

The verb of the protasis is marked by the Conditional suffix -t’a. The clause- introducing conjunction eger ‘if’ is optional. In the potential conditional, the protasis verb is most often in the Aorist participle form.

(16) a. Wun wi didedi-ni bubadi Ismidi-z [you:ABS you:GEN mother(ERG)-and father(ERG) Ismi-DAT ga-ji-t’a wucˇ -da na? (S88:26) give-AOP-CND] what.do-FUT you:ERG ‘If your parents give you (i.e. marry you off) to Ismi, what will you do?’

b. Eger küne cˇ a-qh galaz däwe awu-r-t’a, kün [if you.all:ERG we-POESS with war do-AOP-CND] you.all allahdi länetlamisˇ -da. (K87,1:7) God(ERG) curse-FUT ‘If you wage war with us, God will curse you.’

In counterfactual conditionals the protasis verb is in the Past aorist tense, while the apodosis verb is in the Past Future tense. Unlike English or German, Lezgian does not distinguish counterfactual conditionals with non-past time reference (17) from ones with past time reference (18).

(17) Eger am paka ata-na-j-t’a, za am vokzald-a [if she:ABS tomorrow come-AOR-PST-CND] I:ERG she:ABS station-INESS

gürüsˇ misˇ iji-da-j. meeting do-FUT-PST ‘If she were to arrive tomorrow, I would meet her at the station.’ 9

(18) Eger am naq’ ata-na-j-t’a, za am vokzald-a [if she:ABS yesterday come-AOR-PST-CND] I:ERG she:ABS station-INESS gürüsˇ misˇ iji-da-j. meeting do-FUT-PST ‘If she had arrived yesterday, I would have met her at the station.’

4. Periphrastic and archaic tense-aspects

Periphrastic tense-aspect categories do not play an important role in Lezgian. Two such categories exist, the Periphrastic Habitual and the Periphrastic Future. Neither of them is used particularly frequently. The Periphrastic Habitual is formed by means of the auxiliary xˆ un combined with the Infinitive, e.g. q˜ acˇ u-z xˆ un ‘take (habitually)’.

(19) Cˇ i televizord-aj GDRdi-kaj peredacˇ a-jar [we:GEN television-INEL GDR-SBEL program-PL q˜ alur-da-j-la, zun hamisˇ a kilig-iz zˇ e-da. (K85,7:4) show-FUT-PTP-TEMP] I:ABS always look-INF be-FUT ‘When programs on the GDR are shown on our TV, I always watch.’

The Periphrastic Future is formed by the copula together with the -wal-abstract noun from the Future participle, e.g. q˜ acˇ u-da-j-wal ja ‘is going to take’. The Periphrastic Future often expresses a more immediate future time than the synthetic Future (cf. 20), and in combination with a Past form of the copula (tir, or xˆ ana) it can express immediate future in the past (cf. 21).

(20) Ada i dagˇ -lari-z c’iji ümür gˇ i-da-j-wal ja. he(ERG) this mountain-PL-DAT new life bring-FUT-PTP-ABST COP ‘He is going to bring a new life into these mountains.’ (S88:25)

(21) Dilber-ni Allahq˜ uli fermad-aj xürü-z xkwe-da-j-wal xˆ a-na. Dilber-and Allahquli farm-INEL village-DAT return-FUT-PTP-ABST be-AOR ‘Dilber and Allahquli were about to return to the village from the farm.’ (R66:8)

Three tense-aspect categories that are described in Uslar 1896 do not occur in the modern standard language. These are referred to here as the archaic tense- aspects, although it is not quite clear whether they have really become obsolete or whether they are restricted to non-standard dialects. The Archaic Preterit is formed with a suffix -ja or -ra from the Aorist stem. Its negative counterpart is marked by a suffix -ncˇ . According to Uslar (1896:§177), its meaning differs slightly from the Aorist in that it conveys a nuance of surprise, e.g.

(22) C’inín jis awádan t˜ ir, amma thexíl-ar phis xˆ á-ja. this.year year favorable COP:PST but grain-PL bad be-APRET ‘This year was favorable, but (surprisingly) the crops were bad.’

10

The Archaic Future is formed with the suffix -di (negative -cˇ ) from the Imperfective stem. According to Uslar (1896:§198), it is less assertive in pre- dicting a future event and occurs mainly in the apodosis of a conditional sentence, e.g.

(23) Gíla wun adá-n k’walí-z sˇ a-jí-t’a, am k’wal-é zˇ é-di. now you:ABS he-GEN house-DAT go-AOP-CND he:ABS house-INESS be-AFUT ‘If you go to his house now, he will be at home.’

The form zˇ edi occurs in the modern standard language as a lexicalized particle (‘possibly’) with no synchronic relation to the verb xˆ un/zˇ e- ‘be’. The negative form is also sometimes used, especially in exclamations (zˇ e-cˇ ha! ‘impossible!’). The Archaic Past Future is formed with the suffix -dir (negative -cˇ ir), i.e. -di plus the Past suffix -(i)r, which otherwise occurs only after the negative suffix - cˇ (the alternation j/r occurs also elsewhere in Lezgian) . According to Uslar’s description, the Archaic Past Future is used in the apodosis of counterfactual conditionals, e.g.

(23) a. Wun q˜ wé-da-j-di cˇ hírxˆ a-na-j-t’a, zun k’wal-é you:ABS come-FUT-PTP-SBST know-AOR-PST-CND I:ABS house-INESS zˇ é-d-ir. be-AFUT-PST ‘If I had known that you would come, I would have been at home.’

b. Mäq’í xˆ a-ná-cˇ h-ir-t’a, zun qhisén zˇ é-d-ir. [cold be-AOR-NEG-PST-CND] I:ABS good be-AFUT-PST ‘If it were not cold, I would get better.’

5. Some diachronic considerations

The earliest attested Lezgian material dates from the late 1860s, when Petr K. Uslar, the founder of Daghestanian linguistics, collected the material for his grammar of Lezgian that was published only in 1896. The language that Uslar describes does not differ substantially from the present-day language, so Uslar’s pioneering work does not give us any significant additional time depth. Nevertheless, for some of the forms the diachronic origin is fairly transparent, so some diachronic considerations will be helpful for a fuller understanding of the Lezgian tense-aspect system. The Imperfective and the Perfect clearly go back to combinations of the auxiliary awa ‘be (somewhere), exist’ with the Infinitive (for the Imperfective) and the Aorist converb (for the Perfect). The auxiliary ama ‘be still’, combined with the same forms, yields the corresponding Continuative forms:

fi-z awa ‘is, going’ > fizawa > fizwa ‘is going’ fi-z ama ‘is still, going’ > fizama > fizma ‘is still going’ fe-na awa ‘is, having gone’ > fenawa > fenwa ‘has gone’ fe-na ama ‘is still, having gone’ > fenama > fenma ‘is still gone’

11

In Uslar’s (1896:§210) description , these forms are not yet treated as synthetic forms, although they seem to have had pretty much the same shape and functions that they have now. Thus, the Imperfective shows a source that is very common cross-linguis- tically for progressive constructions (cf. Bybee & Dahl 1989:77-83): A copula plus an adverbial form of the verb, the Infinitive. (The Infinitive also serves as the Imperfective converb; formally it is very similar to the Dative case, which also expresses direction and location in time.) This pattern is exactly the same as for instance, the Portuguese progressive periphrasis estou a ir (or estou indo) ‘I am going’. However, the Lezgian form in -iz(a)wa has already expanded its range of uses to current state and habitual uses, so that it is no longer a progressive, but an imperfective. Similarly, the Perfect conforms to a cross-linguistically common pattern for resultatives and perfects: A copula plus a perfective converb (cf. Nedjalkov (ed.) 1988: 19). The fact that the Imperfective form is so young may also throw light on the somewhat surprising future/habitual polysemy of the Future form. We can construct the following diachronic scenario to explain this fact: Originally the - da-form was a very general non-past form that could express ongoing and habitual present meaning as well as future meaning, much like the (colloquial) German Present.8 Then a new progressive periphrasis in -z(a)wa took over the progressive and current state meanings, so that the -da-form was left only with the future and habitual senes. Now the -z(a)wa-form has even extended to the habitual sense, so that -da is becomeing more and more restricted to future meaning. Such a scenario for the rise of future meanings has been described for several other languages by Bybee et al. 1991. (One of these languages is Turkish, and given the strong influence of the closely related Azerbaijani on Lezgian, a connection seems possible.) The correctness of this scenario for Lezgian is also confirmed by the forms k’anda ‘wants’ and cˇ ida ‘knows’ (cf. 3.2. above), where the -da form preserves its old present meaning. When a new progressive-imperfective form ousts an older one or restricts it to future or subjunctive uses, it is not uncommon for a small number of high-frequency verbs to survive.9

References

Alekseev, Mixail E. 1985. Voprosy sravnitel’no-istoricˇ eskoj grammatiki lezginskix jazykov. Morfologija. Sintaksis. Moskva: Nauka. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. (Typological Studies in Language, 9.) Amsterdam: Benjamins.

8The shape -da resembles the copula da mentioned in Uslar 1896, alongside the copula ja. (The modern standard language only has the copula ja.) However, Alekseev 1985:98 proposes the etymology q˜ acˇ u-da ‘will take’ < *q˜ acˇ u-d+a, where *-d is an adjectival/participial suffix found in related languages, and *a is an old copula (cf. the second part of the modern copulas j-a, aw-a, etc.). Whichever the correct etymology, what is important here is that the form in -da definitely does not look like a future resulting from a periphrasis with ‘want’, or ‘go’, etc. 9For instance, in Modern Hebrew, the Imperfect (i.e., the old non-past form) is mostly restricted to future uses, but the verb jaxol ‘can’ has present tense meaning even in the Imperfect form. Similarly, in Modern East Armenian, the old synthetic forms of the Present are now restricted to the subjunctive (e.g. kardam ‘that I read’; the new Present tense is periphrastic: kardum em ‘I read’). Only a few verbs, e.g. gitem ‘I know’, gites ‘you know’ etc. preserve the non-subjunctive use of the old Present. 12

Bybee, Joan L. & Dahl, Östen. 1989. "The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world." Studies in Language 13:51-103. Bybee, Joan L. & Pagliuca, William & Perkins, Revere. 1991. "Back to the fu- ture." In: Heine, Bernd & Traugott, Elizabeth (eds.) Approaches to gram- maticalization. Vol. II. (Typological Studies in Language) Amsterdam: Benjamins. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. In preparation. A grammar of Lezgian. Moor, Marianne. 1985. Studien zum lesgischen Verb. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.) 1988. Typology of resultative constructions. (Typological Studies in Language, 12.) Amsterdam: Benjamins. Topuria, Guram V. 1959. Lezgiuri zmnis dziritadi morpologiuri kategoriebi. [Osnovnye morfologicˇ eskie kategorii lezginskogo glagola (po dannym kjurinskogo i axtynskogo dialektov)] («The main morphological categories of the Lezgian verb.») Tbilisi: Izdatel'stvo AN GruzSSR. Uslar, Petr K. 1896. Etnografija kavkaza. Jazykoznanie. VI. Kjurinskij jazyk. Tiflis.