Mood in the Languages of Europe (Studies in Language Companion Series)

STUDIES IN LANGUAGE COMPANION SERIES 120

Mood in the Languages of Europe Edited by Bjorn Rothstein Rolf Thieroff

J O H N B E N J A M I N S P U B L I S H I N G COMPANY

Mood in the Languages of Europe

Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical Studies in Language.

Editors Werner Abraham University of Vienna

Elly van Gelderen

Arizona State University

Editorial Board Bernard Comrie

Max Planck Institute, Leipzig and University of California, Santa Barbara

William Croft

University of New Mexico

Östen Dahl

University of Stockholm

Gerrit J. Dimmendaal University of Cologne

Ekkehard König

Free University of Berlin

Christian Lehmann University of Erfurt

Brian MacWhinney

Carnegie-Mellon University

Marianne Mithun

University of California, Santa Barbara

Heiko Narrog

Tohuku University

Johanna L. Wood

University of Aarhus

Volume 120 Mood in the Languages of Europe Edited by Björn Rothstein and Rolf Thieroff

Mood in the Languages of Europe Edited by

Björn Rothstein University of Bochum

Rolf Thieroff University of Osnabrück

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mood in the languages of Europe / edited by Björn Rothstein and Rolf Thieroff. p. cm. (Studies in Language Companion Series, issn 0165-7763 ; v. 120) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.  Modality (Linguistics) 2.  Grammar, Comparative and general--Mood.  I. Rothstein, Björn. II. Thieroff, Rolf. P299.M6M66   2010 415--dc22 2010032898 isbn 978 90 272 0587 2 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 8763 2 (Eb)

© 2010 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents Preface

ix

List of contributors

xi

List of abbreviations

xv

Moods, moods, moods Rolf Thieroff

1

part i. Germanic Mood in Icelandic Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

33

Mood in Norwegian Kristin Melum Eide

56

Mood in Swedish Björn Rothstein

71

Mood in Danish Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft

85

Mood in English Alexander Bergs & Lena Heine

103

Mood in Dutch Ronny Boogaart & Theo Janssen

117

Mood in German Rolf Thieroff

133

part ii. Romance Mood in French Walter De Mulder

157

Mood in Portuguese Martin Becker

179

Mood in Spanish Brenda Laca

198



Mood in the languages of Europe

Mood in Catalan Josep Quer

221

Mood in Italian Mario Squartini

237

Mood in Rumanian Martin Becker

251

part iii. Celtic Mood in Irish Dónall P. Ó Baoill

273

Mood in Breton Steve Hewitt

292

Mood in Welsh Johannes Heinecke

309

part iv. Slavic Mood in Russian Björn Hansen

325

Mood in Polish Björn Hansen

342

Mood in Czech and Slovak Roland Meyer

358

Mood in Sorbian Lenka Scholze

376

Mood in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Luka Szucsich

394

Mood in Bulgarian and Macedonian Jouko Lindstedt

409

part v. Baltic Mood in Latvian and Lithuanian Axel Holvoet

425



Table of contents

part vi. Other Indo-European languages Mood in Albanian Walter Breu

447

Mood in Greek Hartmut Haberland

473

Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian Jasmine Dum-Tragut

492

part vii. Finno-Ugric Mood in Finnish Hannu Tommola

511

Mood in Estonian Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

528

Mood in Hungarian Casper de Groot

551

part viii. Other European languages Mood in Maltese Martine Vanhove

571

Mood in Turkish Astrid Menz

584

Mood in Modern Georgian Winfried Boeder

603

Mood in Basque Martin Haase

633

Index

644



Preface Björn Rothstein & Rolf Thieroff Bochum & Osnabrück

The idea to edit a book on Mood in the languages of Europe goes back to a talk given by Rolf Thieroff about mood categories in the European languages at the Zweite Tagung Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft in Italien in February 2006. Discussing details of the talk on the beautiful balcony of the Villa Sciarra at the Istituto Italiano di Studi Germanici, where parts of the conference took place, we soon realized that there existed no compilation of the mood systems in the European languages. A couple of years before, Rolf Thieroff had edited two volumes on Tense systems in European languages (volume 1 together with Joachim Ballweg). It seemed all too natural to us that we should undertake a similar project on mood. The present volume contains articles about morphological mood in 36 European ­languages, thus presenting a broad empirical overview of the mood systems in the languages of Europe. Each article presents the mood system of a specific European language in a way that readers not familiar with this language are able to understand and to interpret the data. The articles contain information on the morphology and semantics of the mood system, the possible combinations of tense and mood morphology, and the possible uses of the nonindicative mood(s). Main questions addressed in the articles are: ––

–– –– ––

Which verbal forms are used in indirect speech, reported speech and thought, condi­ tional clauses and so on? In which additional semantic domains can the non-indicative mood(s) be used? Is there a particular (non-periphrastic) morphology to express mood? What does this morphology look like? Are there periphrastic constructions competing or replacing the non-periphrastic mood forms? Are there originally temporal verbal forms replacing the modal verbal forms?

We hope the articles presented here will give a better understanding of the analysis of mood. We would like to thank first of all the authors who have contributed to these volumes and the editors of the Studies in language companion series, Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen, as well as Kees Vaes and the crew of John Benjamins. We would also like to thank Sandra Hiller and Jacqueline Thißen for her help with the editing work.

List of contributors Martin Becker Romanisches Seminar Universität zu Köln Germany [email protected] Alexander Bergs Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (IfAA) Fachbereich 7 Universität Osnabrück Germany [email protected] Winfried Boeder Fakultät III Universität Oldenburg Germany [email protected] Ronny Boogaart LUCL Leiden University The Netherlands [email protected] Walter Breu FB Sprachwissenschaft/Slavistik Universität Konstanz Germany [email protected] Tanya Karoli Christensen Danmarks Grundforskningsfonds Center for Sociolingvistiske Sprogforandringsstudier

Københavns Universitet Denmark [email protected] Casper de Groot Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication The Netherlands [email protected] Walter de Mulder Department of Linguistics University of Antwerp Belgium [email protected] Jasmine Dum-Tragut Fachbereich Linguistik Universität Salzburg Austria [email protected] Kristin Melum Eide Department of Scandinavian studies and comparative literature Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway [email protected] Martin Haase Romanische Sprachwissenschaft Universität Bamberg Germany [email protected]



Mood in the languages of Europe

Hartmut Haberland Department of Culture and Identity Roskilde University Denmark [email protected] Björn Hansen Institut für Slavistik Universität Regensburg Germany [email protected] Lena Heine Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (IfAA) Fachbereich 7 Universität Osnabrück Germany [email protected] Johannes Heinecke Orange Labs France [email protected] Lars Heltoft Department of Culture and Identity Roskilde University Denmark [email protected]

Theo A.J.M. Janssen VU University Amsterdam The Netherlands [email protected] Brenda Laca UMR 7023-SFL Université Paris 8 & CNRS France [email protected] Jouko Lindstedt Department of Modern Languages University of Helsinki Finland [email protected] Astrid Menz Orient-Institut Istanbul Turkey [email protected] Helle Metslang Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics University of Tartu Estonia [email protected]

Steve Hewitt ADM/CLD/T UNESCO France [email protected]

Roland Meyer Institut für Slavistik Universität Regensburg Germany roland.meyer@sprachlit. uni-regensburg.de

Axel Holvoet Institute of the Lithuanian Language Vilnius Lithuania [email protected]

Donall Ó Baoill SLLPA Queen’s University Belfast Northern Ireland [email protected]



Josep Quer Departament de Traducció i Ciències del Llenguatge ICREA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra Spain [email protected] Björn Rothstein Germanistisches Institut Ruhr-Universität Bochum Germany [email protected] Lenka Scholze FB Sprachwissenschaft/Slavistik Universität Konstanz Germany [email protected] Maria-Maren Sepper Institute of the Estonian Language Tallinn Estonia [email protected] Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson SOL, Centre for Languages and Literature Lund University Sweden [email protected]

List of contributors 

Mario Squartini Università di Torino Italy [email protected] Luka Szucsich Institut für Slawistik Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Germany [email protected] Rolf Thieroff Institut für Germanistik Fachbereich 7 Universität Osnabrück Germany [email protected] Hannu Tommola School of Modern Languages and Translation Studies University of Tampere Finland [email protected] Martine Vanhove LLACAN (INALCO - CNRS) France [email protected]

List of abbreviations 1 2 3 A aBl abs acc adj adv agr all antip aor appl art aux ben caus cl clf cmpr com comp compl cond cop cvb dat decl def dem det dist distr

first person second person third person agent-like argument of canonical transitive verb ablative absolutive accusative adjective adverb(ial) agreement allative antipassive aorist applicative article auxiliary benefactive causative clitic classifier comparative comitative complementizer completive conditional copula converb dative declarative definite demonstrative determiner distal distributive

du dur erg excl f foc fut gen ger hab hOR hyp imp impf incl ind indf inf ins int intr ipfv irr juss loc m n n- nec neg nmlz nom obj obl

dual durative ergative exclusive feminine focus future genitive gerund habitual hortative hypothetical imperative imperfect inclusive indicative indefinite infinitive instrumental interrogative intransitive imperfective irrealis jussive locative masculine neuter non- (e.g. nsg nonsingular, npst nonpast) necessitative negation, negative nominalizer/ nominalization nominative object oblique

 Mood in the languages of Europe

opt p pass pfv pl plup poss pot pp pred pret prf prs pro prog proh prox pst

optative patient-like argument of canonical transitive verb passive perfective plural pluperfect possessive potential(is) past participle/perfect participle predicative preterite perfect present pronoun progressive prohibitive proximal/proximate past

ptcp ptl purp q quot recp refl rel res s

sbj sbjv sg sub top tr voc vol

participle particle purposive question particle/ marker quotative reciprocal reflexive relative resultative single argument of canonical intransitive verb subject subjunctive singular subordinator topic transitive vocative voluntative

Some papers use additional abbreviations. Their explanation is found at the end of the papers in question.

Moods, moods, moods Rolf Thieroff Osnabrück

1.  In the mood for moods The present volume offers a thorough description and investigation of the morphological moods in 36 European languages.1 In the present article an attempt is made at giving an overview of the moods of these 36 languages. First I discuss some problems connected with the very notion of mood ­(Section 2) and some problems we have with the terms for some of the mood categories we find in Europe (Section 3). In Section 4 I provide an overview of how many moods we find in the different lan­guages of Europe. In Sections 5 and 6 the major non-indicative moods, “Sub­junctive” and “Conditional”, are discussed, and a distinction is introduced between a “Western” and an “Eastern” conditional. In Section 7 I provide an overview of tense restrictions (in almost all languages the number of tenses in the non-indicative moods is smaller than that in the indicative), and finally in Section 8 I investigate one concrete semantic question, namely how counterfactual conditional sentences are rendered in the European languages. Section 9 summarizes the main findings of the previous sections. Some sections provide maps showing the geographical distribution of the features under discussion. In these maps the 36 languages treated in this book are shown with abbreviations for their language names. The abbreviations are placed roughly in the centre of the area where they are spoken. Map 1 displays the geographical distribution of the languages treated. The abbreviations of the language names used in the maps are explained in Table 1. Table 1.  Abbreviations of language names Albanian Armenian Basque Bosnian-Croatian- Serbian Breton Bulgarian Catalan Czech Danish

Alb Arm Bsq BCS Brt Blg Ctl Cz Dan

Dutch English Estonian Finnish French Georgian German Greek (Modern) Hungarian Icelandic

Dut Eng Est Fin Fr Geor Grm Grk Hng Ice

Irish Italian Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Maltese Norwegian Polish Portuguese Rumanian

Ir It Lat Lith Mcd Mlt Nor Pol Prt Rum

Russian Slovak Sorbian Spanish Swedish Turkish Welsh

Rus Slk Srb Spn Swd Trk Wel

.  All contributions are restricted to morphological mood in a narrow sense. Modals and ­modality in general are not in the scope of the articles. For the most recent work on both modals and ­modality, see Abraham & Leiss (2008), Abraham & Leiss (2009) and Hansen & de Haan (2009).



Rolf Thieroff Ice Nor

Fin Swd

Ir

Est Lat

Dan

Lith

Eng

Srb

Dut

Wel

Grm

Brt Fr

Cz

Pol Slk Hng

Bsq Ctl

Prt Spn

Rus

BCS It

Rum Blg

Alb Mlt

Mcd

Geor Arm Trk

Grk

Map 1.  The languages of the sample

2.  What is mood? Mood, or, more precisely, morphological mood, as it is understood here, is a morphological category of the verb, just as are the verbal categories person, number, aspect, tense, and voice. Mood categories express modalities such as orders, wishes, (non-)factivity, (non-)reality and the like. Just as time can be expressed by many different lexical elements (adverbs, prepositional phrases, verbs, sentences), modality, too, can be expressed by other linguistic means, for example by modal verbs or other lexical elements. In a few languages (mainly the Slavic languages and Albanian), certain particles, mostly derived from modal verbs or other verbs, may contribute to a (morphological) mood category. In general, such mood particles are restricted either to a certain tense (like in the Slavic languages) or to a combination with a non-indicative mood (like in Albanian). In contrast to Palmer, who claims that modality is a grammatical category “which is similar to aspect, tense, number, gender, etc.” (Palmer 1986: 1), it is mood which is the category similar to these categories, whereas modality is a notional category which is similar to the internal constituency of an event (as opposed to the grammatical category of aspect), to time (as opposed to the grammatical category of tense), to sex (as opposed to the grammatical category of gender) etc. In the field of modality, traditionally two kinds are differentiated, deontic and epistemic modality. While in many European languages one and the same modal verb may



Moods, moods, moods

serve to convey deontic and epistemic modality, the morphological moods are generally restricted to either deontic or epistemic modality.2 There are few languages in Europe with verbal categories expressing certain kinds of evidentiality. Whether or not “evidentiality” is part of epistemic modality is a much debated and debatable issue. For an informative discussion of evidentiality and the distinction from epistemicity, the reader is referred to Leiss (2009). Since the evidential categories are very different from the “ordinary” mood categories, it is unclear whether they should be subsumed under the heading mood, or if they should be considered an additional verbal category, distinct from the categories mentioned so far. One major reason to separate the evidential categories from the mood categories is the fact that very often mood and evidential categories can both appear in one verbal form, i.e. a finite verb form can be categorized with regard to mood and evidentiality simultaneously. In the present article I follow the view that evidentiality is distinct from mood and does not belong to the category of mood in the narrow sense. With regard to Bulgarian and Macedonian, Lindstedt (in this volume: 416) explains evidentiality as follows: As in neighbouring Turkish, Albanian, and Aromanian, both Bul­garian and Macedonian have grammaticalized evidential distinctions […]. Basically this means that a special verbal form must be used when speaking about a situation, especially a past one, that the speaker has not herself witnessed, though the semantic details vary from one language to another.

As for the name of this special verbal form in Bulgarian and Macedonian Lindstedt (in this volume: 417) writes: The non-witnessed forms are usually called “reported” in the gram­matical traditions of the two languages, but actually they are used both for reported and inferred events, hence terms like “non-witnessed” or “indirect” are to be preferred. Other terms sometimes used are “quotative”, which is misleading because the non-witnessed forms do not quote but report other persons’ speech, and “narrative”, which is likewise misleading since both witnessed and non-witnessed forms can be used in narrative discourses.

While for Bulgarian and Macedonian there is no generally accepted name for the category in question, in Albanian this category is called Admirative – for details about the Albanian Admirative, which has some features different from the Bulgarian/Macedonian “Indirect”, see Breu (in this volume). Apart from Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Turkish, there are three other European languages with an evidential category. These are Estonian (with a category called “Quotative”; see Metslang & Sepper, in this volume), Lithuanian and Latvian (see Holvoet, in this volume). Altogether there are thus seven languages with evidential categories which are distinct from mood categories in the narrow sense. In what follows, these categories will not be considered. .  One exception is the use of the Subjunctive in German indirect discourse (see Thieroff, in this volume; Abraham 2009: 292).





Rolf Thieroff

3.  What’s the name of the moods? Boeder’s (in this volume) treatment of the moods in Georgian is a good example to show one of the major problems encountered when dealing with morphological mood. Boeder gives the following table of verbal forms in Georgian (see Boeder, in this volume; I only present the 1st singular forms): Table 2.  Verbal morphology of Modern Georgian gatla ‘carve’, 1st sg (cf. Boeder in this volume: 604) Present series: Imperfective Perfective Aorist series Imperfective Perfective Perfect series Imperfective Perfective

Non-past

Past

Subjunctive

Present v-tl-i Future ga-v-tl-i

Imperfect v-tl-i-d-i Conditional ga-v-tl-i-d-i Aorist v-tal-e ga-v-tal-e Pluperfect m-e-tal-a ga-m-e-tal-a

Present subjunctive v-tl-i-d-e Future subjunctive ga-v-tl-i-d-e Optative v-tal-o ga-v-tal-o Perfect subjunctive m-e-tal-o-s ga-m-e-tal-o-s

Perfect m-i-tl-i-a ga-m-i-tl-i-a

A closer look at the morphological forms reveals that what Boeder calls “Present Subjunctive” differs from the (Indicative) Imperfect only in one morpheme – where the Imperfect has i, the “Present Subjunctive” has e. The same is true for the “Future Subjunctive”: Again, the only difference from the Conditional is the morpheme e in the Future Subjunctive vs. the mor­pheme i in the Conditional. In contrast, the non-past forms Indicative Present and Future differ from both Past and Subjunctive in that they lack the morpheme d. A morphological analysis would thus result in that the Past is marked by d, the Indicative is, in the Past, marked by i, and the Sub­junctive is marked by e. As a result, according to the morphology, there is a Subjunctive of the Imperfect and a Subjunctive of the Conditional, but no Subjunctive of the Present or of the Future. Similarly, in the Perfect series the Subjunctive forms differ from the Pluperfect forms only in that they have o where the (Indicative) Pluperfect has a, whereas the Perfect forms are radically different from the Subjunctive forms. Again, the Subjunctives seem to be Pluperfect Subjunctives, and again it seems that there is no Subjunctive of the Perfect. Furthermore, the forms of the Aorist and the “Optative” show that the Optative obviously is the Subjunctive of the Aorist, with the same Subjunctive marker o as the Pluperfect. Why, then, does Boeder choose to refer to the Subjunctive forms differently, obviously disregarding the tense markers? The reason is, of course, the semantics. The Subjunctives of the Present series have non-past and future time reference, the Subjunctives of the Perfect series have perfect time reference, and the Subjunctives of the Aorist series have predominantly an optative meaning. So, should the different moods be named after their



Moods, moods, moods

semantics or rather according to their morphological make-up? What should the names of the moods be? This is, of course, a general problem, especially in the domain of the verbal categories, and it is a problem with all verbal categories. So, at first glance, there seem to be no problems with person and number. However, as soon as we regard so-called polite forms, problems arise. For example, in German the 2nd sg is marked by -st, as in du singst ‘you sing’, and the 3rd pl is marked by -en as in sie singen ‘they sing’. However, this latter form is also used for the polite address, towards one or many addressees. In other words, Sie singen can also mean ‘you (sg, polite) sing’. How should singen in this case be classified? Is it a 3rd pl form, used for the polite address in the singular, or is it a 2nd sg form like singst, homonymous with the 3rd pl form? In this specific case, there are some (syntactic) reasons in favour of both analyses, but I won’t go into them here. With tense, the problem is far trickier. In many languages the tense named “present” can be used with future time reference, and in some languages also with past time reference. The tense with the name “future” can in many languages be used to convey a supposition (with present time reference), as in the well-known English example That’ll be the postman. In another much cited English example, Who was the chicken sandwich?, the tense with the name “past” obviously does not have past time reference. And in a sentence like If I had money (now), I would buy a car it could even be argued that the form had is not a Past Indicative but a Present Subjunctive or Conditional, given that (1) we are dealing with present time reference and (2) in very many languages in such unreal conditional sentences a non-indicative mood is obligatory (see Section 8). One could add many more cases of this kind, but I think with these few examples it has become obvious that the names of the tenses must not be understood in such a way that this name precisely describes the semantics of the tense in question. Instead, the tense names must be seen as mere labels, and, what is more, as labels for the morphological form: What the uses of the Present with present, future and past time reference have in common is precisely the fact that it is one and the same morphological form which is used. Yet, with tenses in general it is still possible to identify something like a basic meaning (Grundbedeutung), which for example for a Present could be non-past time reference, for a Past past time reference, and for a Future arguably future time reference. Obviously, the tense names mentioned are related to such (assumed) basic meanings. With moods, the terminological problem is still more difficult since for many moods it is not even possible to find a basic meaning. In almost all articles in the present volume, quite different meanings or uses of the moods discussed are given. One of the many examples comes from French. According to de Mulder, the French Subjunctive is used to express wishes, orders, hypotheses, and conditions (in independent clauses); furthermore it is used after verbs expressing “will, feeling and subjective appreciation, and doubt”; and finally, in relative clauses, the Subjunctive delivers a non-specific reading as opposed to the Indicative with a





Rolf Thieroff

specific reading (see de Mulder, in this volume). A basic meaning of the French Subjunctive might perhaps be something like “non-real”, but to label this form as “Non-realis” would not help very much; it would still be necessary to describe the meanings and uses as de Mulder does, since there are many instances of non-reality where the Indicative can or must be used. I conclude from this that it is not necessary and in most cases not possible to give a name to a non-indicative mood which delivers a description of the semantics and uses of this mood. Rather, names for moods should serve as mere labels, to distinguish them from the Indicative (and other moods, if there are any). However, there is one constant value of the Subjunctive in French, irrespective of its concrete use, and that is its morphology. In other words, the Subjunctive forms can always be identified by their morphology, regardless of their concrete use. In conclusion, I suggest that forms containing the same morphemes should be identified by their morphology. For our example, Georgian, this would mean that we are dealing with two moods, the Indicative and the Subjunctive. This, of course, does not prevent us from saying that the Aorist Subjunctive is used as an optative, that the Imperfect Subjunctive has non-past time reference, that the Con­ditional Subjunctive has future time reference and so on.

4.  How many moods can a language have? All 36 languages investigated have one marked mood in common: the Im­perative. Since the Imperative is a very special mood (e.g. contrary to all other moods, it does not normally appear in all 3 persons and both numbers, and it is mostly restricted to the present and the active), the interesting question is, in fact, how many non-indicative non-imperative moods we find in the languages under investigation. Thus, in what follows, “mood” is to be understood as “non-indicative, non-imperative mood”.3 There is only one language in Europe which, in this sense, has no mood at all, namely Maltese (see Vanhove, in this volume). The vast majority of the European languages have exactly one non-imperative mood, usually called either Subjunctive or Conditional (see Section 5). Among these one-mood languages there is one group of languages which are in the process of losing their Subjunctive, thus developing towards moodless languages. These

.  It could even be argued that the imperative is not a mood at all. Abraham (2009: 252) sees the imperative on a par with declarative and interrogative sentences. However, there are at least some languages where the imperative form clearly has non-imperative, modal uses, as for instance in Dutch (see Boogart & Janssen, in this volume).



Moods, moods, moods

are the Germanic languages Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, and English, plus Irish and Welsh. Contemporary Norwegian “has almost no morphologically encoded mood distinctions”. There are only some “relics of an old subjunctive, but they are no longer productive – they are used mostly in idioms, hymns and curses” (Eide, in this volume: 60). Eide discusses some of the ‘substitutes’ for the lost Subjunctive such as the verb la ‘let’, modal particles and modals. Christensen & Heltoft (in this volume) show how the tense system and the passive constructions are used to convey modal meanings in Danish, where the Subjunctive is almost extinct too. The subjunctive form has also “nearly completely vanished from the Modern English verbal paradigm” (Bergs & Heine, in this volume: 110) and like in Norwegian “mood is indicated periphrastically by means of modals”(ibid.: 114) and by the verb let. Apart from Georgian, which, as we have seen, can be analysed as having the Subjunctive as its only non-indicative non-imperative mood, there are eight languages which, according to the authors of the present volume, have more than one non-imperative mood category. I shall briefly discuss the moods of these languages. 1. Sorbian. For Sorbian Scholze (in this volume) assumes, besides the “Conditional” (or Subjunctive), a second mood she calls “Jussive”. However, Scholze also observes that “the term ‘jussive’ is not commonly used in Sorbian grammars.” Faßke (1981: 272–273) stresses the fact that the free morpheme njech is combined with the indicative and that njech competes with several modal verbs (1981: 273). Accordingly, in keeping with our definition given in Section 2, the Sorbian Jussive cannot be regarded as a mood in the narrow sense. Thus Sorbian has only one mood, the Conditional or Subjunctive (see Section 6). 2. Basque. Following Haase (in this volume), Basque has two non-imperative moods – the Subjunctive and the Potential, built with a bound morpheme added to the Subjunctive. For the Conditional, see Section 5. 3. Hungarian, too, has two non-imperative moods, called Subjunctive and Conditional by de Groot (in this volume) and by Abondolo (1987: 580). The Subjunctive is also called Imperative (Bánhidi et al. 1975: 218) or Adhortative (Szent-Iványi 1995: 91). 4. Finnish. According to Fromm (1982:  272) the Finnish tense system “is not only ­morphologically, but also syntactically and semantically very similar to those of the Germanic languages and especially to that of German” (my translation) and Tommola (in this volume) rightly observes that it is tempting to draw a parallel between the German and the Finnish tenses and moods in the manner of Table 3 (compare also Thieroff 1994: 14f), the more so as the meaning of the Conditional forms (vetäisi, olisi vetänyt) corresponds to a large degree to the meaning of the Preterite and Pluperfect Subjunctive in German (and to the “Western” Conditional; see Section 5).





Rolf Thieroff

Table 3.  Finnish moods modelled on the German tense-mood system ziehen ‘pull’, vetää ‘pull’, 3rd sg German Present Perfect Preterite Pluperfect

Finnish

Indicative zieht hat gezogen zog hatte gezogen

Subjunctive ziehe habe gezogen zöge hätte gezogen

Indicative vetää on vetänyt veti oli vetänyt

Subjunctive vetänee lienee vetänyt vetäisi olisi vetänyt

However, although the system according to Table 3 “works” (and actually was used in the 18th and 19th centuries) and although the forms in -isi- even contain a former past morpheme, the picture in Table 3 cannot be justified morphologically. In real fact, synchronically we are dealing with two in­dependent moods in Finnish, both restricted to the Present and the Perfect, yielding the picture in Table 4, slightly different from Tommola’s Table 5 (cf. Karlsson 2000: 176–179, 184f). Table 4.  Tense-mood system of Finnish vetää ‘pull’, 3rd sg Present Perfect Preterite Pluperfect

Indicative

Conditional

Potential

vetää on vetänyt veti oli vetänyt

vetäisi olisi vetänyt — —

vetänee lienee vetänyt — —

5. Estonian, too, has a mood called Conditional with roughly the same meaning as the Finnish Conditional, which is, according to Metslang & Sepper (in this volume), unreality in the widest sense. Estonian does not have a mood corresponding to the Finnish Potential. Instead, Estonian is a language with the evidential category. Metslang & Sepper show that the Quotative is a mere evidential category, whereas the Jussive is both evidential and modal and must therefore be included as a second mood. Leaving out the Conditional, the core meanings of the Estonian moods can be presented as in Table 5 (cf. Metslang & Sepper). Table 5.  Mood and evidentiality in Estonian evidentiality mood

non-directive directive

direct

indirect

Indicative Imperative

Quotative Jussive

6. Armenian. According to Dum-Tragut (in this volume), Armenian has four moods, the Subjunctive, the Conditional, the Debitive and the Imperative. However, Dum-Tragut also says that the “Conditional Present” “renders the meaning of the future indicative.”



Moods, moods, moods

Since there are no morphological reasons speaking against it, the Present with the prefix k- can therefore only be classified as being precisely the Future of the Indicative, while the Past with this prefix must be seen as a “Western” Conditional and thus not as a mood (see Section 5). Consequently Armenian has two non-imperative moods, the Subjunctive and the Debitive. 7. Albanian. Breu (in this volume) assumes ten different moods for Albanian: the Imperative, the Optative, the Subjunctive, the Jussive, the Admirative, the Conditional, the Possibilitative, the Obligative, the Volitive, and the Hypothetical mood. Buchholz & Fiedler (1987) have eight moods: Breu’s moods minus his Conditional, Obligative and Hypothetical, plus a Necessitative, lacking in Breu’s list. As was said in Section 2, the Admirative belongs to the category of evidentiality and thus does not count among the moods treated here. I do not count the Imperative either, which we find in all 36 languages. Indisputable non-imperative moods are the Optative, the Subjunctive, and the Jussive. The Volitive is identical to the Future and the Conditional is, in Breu’s words, “homonymous with the future in the past.” Obviously these alleged moods are in fact modal uses of these two tenses and in accordance with Section 3 I regard neither as being a mood. For Futures in the past and Conditionals, see also Section 5. As for the Possibilitative, Breu (in this volume: 460) remarks in a footnote: The classification of the possibilitative as a mood is questionable. Like the obligative and the volitive, to be discussed below, it could just as well be conceived as a member of a separate more or less grammaticalized subcategory of modality expressed by modals […]. Contrary, however, to other Indo-European languages, where modality systems of this kind are expressed by inflected modal auxiliaries, the specific way of expressing possibility by means of a particle, which is typical for the Albanian grammatical system as a whole, gives the possibilitative a special position.

With regard to the Obligative “formed by the partially grammaticalized modal semi-particle duhet ‘must’ plus the subjunctive” Breu (ibid.: 460f) writes: [Q]ualifying the duhet-construction as a mood is still more questionable than in the case of the possibilitative. One could argue that it is still just part of the modal system. On the other hand, its formal character­istics with respect to grammaticalization differ only gradually from those of the possibilitative, and the general structure of the Albanian mood system could allow us to accept the duhet-construction as an obligative mood.

As this “semi-particle” “has preserved some inflectional features, especially for tense and aspect and to a certain extent for number”, as Breu says, I would prefer not to regard the construction as a mood but as a construction with a (partially defective) modal verb. Finally, the Hypothetical certainly cannot be regarded as a mood since it comprises combinations of particles “with the indicative, subjunctive or optative”, and the Necessitative, “formed with kam ‘have’ plus the finite construction për të + past participle, discussed by Buchholz/Fiedler (1987: 151–153), is hardly grammaticalized” according to Breu.





Rolf Thieroff

In conclusion we may say that Albanian has at least three moods (Subjunctive, Optative, Jussive) and possibly four or (at most) five moods. 8. Turkish. The only language with at least as many moods as Albanian, and probably more, is Turkish, with, according to Menz (in this volume), the five moods Optative/ Voluntative, Irrealis, Necessitative, Conditional and Possibilitative. For possible influences of Turkish on Albanian, see Breu (in this volume). How many moods can a European language have? As we have seen, the only language with no non-imperative mood is Maltese. Most languages have one non-imperative mood, five languages, Basque, Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, and Armenian, have two, and two languages, Albanian and Tur­kish, have more than two. In the north-west of the continent, the Subjunctive is vanishing. Seven languages have, in addition to mood, the evidential category (Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Turkish). The geographical distribution of these features is shown in Map 2. Ice Nor

Fin Swd

Ir

Est

Dan

Lith

Eng

Srb

Dut

Wel

Lat

Grm

Brt

Cz

Fr

Pol

Hng

Bsq Ctl

Prt Spn

Rus

Slk

BCS It

Rum Blg

Alb Mlt no moods one mood, decreasing two moods more than two moods evidential categories Map 2.  Number of moods in the languages of Europe

Geor Arm Trk

Grk



Moods, moods, moods

5.  Is it mood? At first glance, it seems that almost all languages of our sample have (be­sides the Imperative) one more non-indicative mood in common: the “Conditional”. In the descriptions of the mood systems in this volume there are only three languages which do not have a “Conditional”. In addition to Maltese (the only “non-mood” language), these are Greek and, following Heinecke, Welsh.4 There are two more languages which are described as having no “Conditional”, namely Latvian and Lithuanian. However, according to Holvoet, the mood he names “Irrealis” is a mood “variously referred to in the western literature as conditional, subjunctive or optative”, and indeed it is called “Konjunktiv” by Bense (1996: 22, 24), “subjunctive” by Mathiassen (1996: 93, 130) and “Konditional” by Holst (2001: 205). Since, at least in Latvian, this mood is formed with the invariable form būtu (a form of ‘be’) and thus reminds one of the Russian particle by (also derived from a form of ‘be’), and since, according to Holvoet, this mood is used with irrealis and non-factive meaning, in conditional clauses and in counter­factual wishes, just as is the Russian “Conditional”, the mood in question can be called “Conditional” with the same right as the respective mood in Russian. So, if we take into account that the Latvian and Lithuanian non-indicative moods are called “Conditional” at least by some scholars, Maltese, Greek, and Welsh indeed seem to be the only three languages of our sample not having a “Conditional”, whereas all other languages do have one. But are all these “Conditionals” instances of one and the same cross-linguistic category? They are not: A closer look at all these “Conditionals” reveals that there are two kinds of “Conditionals” in the languages in question. Morphologically, the “Conditionals” of the Germanic, Romance and Celtic languages, but also the Conditionals of Albanian, Basque, Armenian, and Georgian, are built with a past and a future morpheme, i.e. in these lan­guages we are dealing with a tense form, made up of two tense morphemes in much the same way as for instance a pluperfect is a combination of a past and a perfect. It is true that such past+future forms can be used in some contexts where non-indicative moods are used, too, but this cannot be a reason to classify such forms as non-indicative moods. For Spanish, Laca (in this volume: 217f) explains: The verbal form built on the infinitive/future stem by adding to it the endings of the imperfect (cantar-ía/habr-ía cantado) is predominantly classified as a temporal form of the indicative mood. It is not surprising that it should have modal uses: the future and imperfect indicative are known to exhibit a number of modal uses, which clearly predominate over temporal uses in the case of the former, so that it is only to be

.  Watkins (1993: 321ff) has no Conditional either, whereas Russell (1995: 171) does mention a Conditional for Welsh.





Rolf Thieroff

expected that a form combining the morphology of both tenses will have a still more pronounced modal profile.

This same view is also taken in Thieroff (2004: 341): If a verb form containing a past […] morpheme can have either a temporal or a modal meaning and a verb form containing a future morpheme can have either a temporal or a modal meaning, too, then one would expect that a verb form containing a past and a future morpheme should have temporal and modal meanings too. This is exactly what we find.

The temporal and modal uses of the forms mentioned are exemplified with sentences (1)–(3) (from English): (1) a. b. (2) a. b. (3) a. b.

He came yesterday. If he came now, (I would stay at home). He will come tomorrow. That will be the postman. (I did not expect) that he would win the race. (If he came now,) I would stay at home.

Past, temporal Past, modal Future, temporal Future, modal Past-Future, temporal Past-Future, modal

Another example is French, where we find exactly the same uses: (4) a. b. (5) a. b. (6) a. b.

Il venait hier. S’il venait maintenant, (je resterais ici). Il viendra demain. Ça sera le facteur. (Je n’attendais pas) qu’il gagnerais la course. (S’il arrivait maintenant,) je resterais ici.

Past, temporal Past, modal Future, temporal Future, modal Past-Future, temporal Past-Future, modal

With regard to (1)–(3) Thieroff (2004: 342) writes: In most grammars, in describing forms like sing, will sing and would sing, for the preterite only instances like [(1a)] are considered; for the future, both uses (in [(2a)] and [(2b)]) are considered; and for constructions like would sing, exclusively instances like [(3b)] are taken into account with the result that the preterite is regarded as a ‘good’ tense, as for the future there is much debate on whether it is a tense or not, and the future preterite is regarded as a non-indicative mood, called “Conditional”.

This explanation also holds for the other languages with a “Conditional” formed with past and future morphemes, which can be used in roughly the same way as in English and French.



Moods, moods, moods

Despite Laca’s statement cited above, the author continues (in this volume: 218): I would like to suggest, however, that there are good reasons for assuming a split in uses of this form, with some of them correspond­ing to a tense […], and others constituting the mood of choice when non-realistic modal bases are involved.

While the classification of the Future-in-the-past does not become quite clear here, Breu (in this volume) regards the Albanian “Conditional” as a mood, distinct from the (homonymous!) Future-in-the-past. However, in view of the facts presented and taking into consideration the first citation from Laca, I do not see why the Futures-in-the-past in the languages mentioned should be classified as moods. Finally, regarding the Future-in-the-past, it is worth mentioning that in general Futuresin-the-past occur only in one mood, either in the Indicative or in the Subjunctive. As for the Romance languages, the Indicative is the only choice, since in these languages there is no Future Subjunctive. This also holds for many other languages. However, in Icelandic and in German (see Thieroff, in this volume), which do have a Future Subjunctive, the Future-inthe-past only occurs in the Subjunctive, not in the Indicative. Finally, Georgian is the only language of our sample which has both a Future-in-the-past Indicative and Subjunctive – which is one more argument against the view that the “Conditional” is an extra mood. With regard to their morphology, the “Conditionals” in the Slavic languages and in Latvian, Lithuanian, Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian are radically different from the “Conditionals” in the languages mentioned so far. In none of these languages does the “Conditional” contain a future morpheme, and in many it doesn’t contain a past morpheme either. Rather, in these languages the “Conditional” marker must be described as a marker of a non-indicative mood. In conclusion, there are at least two different “Conditionals” in the languages of Europe: One is a tense, the other is a mood. The tense with the name “Conditional” could be called the “Western Conditional”, given that it appears predominantly in the western languages of the continent. In con­trast, we may call the mood “Conditional” the “Eastern Conditional”.5 Map 3 shows the geographical distribution of the two “Conditionals”. Map 3 shows that there are two languages, Bulgarian and Macedonian, which have both a Western and an Eastern Conditional. This fact alone proves that the two Conditionals cannot be instances of the same (cross-linguistic) category. According to Lindstedt (in this volume), in the Bulgarian grammatical tradition the Western Conditional

.  Note that once again the notions “Western Conditional” and “Eastern Conditional” are to be understood as mere labels for the forms in question. The terms do not mean that the “Western Conditional” is restricted to western Europe (in fact it also appears in the very south-east), or that we find the “Eastern Conditional” in all of eastern Europe. Yet a look at Map 3 may give a hint as to why I chose these terms.





Rolf Thieroff

Ice Nor

Fin Est

Swd Lat

Dan

Ir

Lith

Eng

Srb

Dut

Wel

Grm

Brt Fr

Cz

Pol Slk Hun

Bsq Ctl

Prt Spn

Rus

BCS It

Rum Blg

Alb Mlt

Mcd

Geor Arm Trk

Grk

“Western Conditional” “Eastern Conditional” Map 3.  “Western” and “Eastern” Conditionals

(called “Balkan type conditional” by Lindstedt) “is classified as a tense (futurum praeteriti, the Past Future) that also happens to have modal uses”. Indeed, there are “types of contexts where the Bulgarian Past Future is closer to a real tense” (Lindstedt) and “there are modal contexts where the Bulgarian bi conditional [i.e. the Eastern Conditional; R.T.] cannot be replaced with the Past Future” (ibid.). So, although the two types of Conditionals are considered “to be functionally equivalent in counterfactual conditional sentences” (ibid.), they are not synonymous in general. Rather they are two different forms with – at least partially – ­different meanings and uses. Thus, Bulgarian and Macedonian deliver the ultimate proof that the two so-called Conditionals do not belong to the same category. Since the Western Conditional, i.e. the Past Future, obviously is simply absent from the other languages having an Eastern Conditional, the question arises whether there is an equivalent of the Eastern Conditional in the languages with a Western Conditional.

6.  One and one is one As mentioned in Section 5, the non-indicative mood of Lithuanian and Latvian is, according to Holvoet, “variously referred to in the western literature as conditional, subjunctive



Moods, moods, moods

or optative”. For example, it is called “Konjunktiv” by Bense (1996: 22, 24), “subjunctive” by Mathiassen (1996: 93, 130) and “Konditional” by Holst (2001: 205). Similar differences in the names of the non-indicative moods also occur with other languages that have an Eastern Conditional according to Map 3. Whereas the “Conditional” of the Slavic languages is called “Kon­ditional” in all the contributions in Rehder (ed.) (1991) and “Conditional” in all the contributions in Comrie & Corbett (eds.) (2006), the Russian “Con­ditional” is called “Konjunktiv” by Kirschbaum & Kretschmar (1966: 84) and Isačenko (1975: 321), and occasionally “subjunctive” by Hansen (in this volume); the Sorbian “Conditional” is called “Konjunktiv” by Faßke (1981: 274); Szucsich (in this volume) calls the respective mood in BCS “the conditional (subjunctive)”, and Kotyczka (1987: 99) calls the Polish “Conditional” Irrealis, as Holvoet does for Lithuanian and Latvian. These few examples show that the respective authors obviously have difficulties in distinguishing a Subjunctive from a “Conditional”, and the question arises of whether there are such differences at all or if the Eastern Conditional is not just another name for the category called “Subjunctive” in the languages that have a Western Conditional. In order to find an answer to this question, I compare the uses of the Russian ­Conditional with the uses of the Subjunctive in French, Spanish and Italian. The following descriptions and examples for Russian are from Hansen; for the examples from French see de Mulder, from Spanish, Laca, and from Italian, Squartini (all in this volume). The Russian Conditional is used “in potential and irreal contexts” as in (7). (7) Russian Esli by side-l i molča-l, to if cond sit[ipfv]-pst and remain_silent[ipfv]-pst comp vnimani-ja by-l-o by men’še. attention-gen.sg be-pst-n.sg cond less ‘If he remained seated without saying a word, there would be less attention.’

The Subjunctive is used in the same way in Spanish and Italian: (8)

Spanish Aunque Pedro confesara, yo seguiría negando. even_that Pedro confess.sbjv.impf.3sg I follow.cond.1sg deny.ger ‘Even if Pedro confessed, I would go on denying it.’

(9)

Italian Se fosse qui, finiremmo. if be.sbjv.impf.3sg here finish.cond.1pl ‘If s/he were here, we would finish it.’

In Russian, “in complement clauses governed by volitional verbs, the con­ditional is used if the subject of the main clause does not control the subject of the subordinated clause, i.e.





Rolf Thieroff

if the subjects refer to different entities” (Hansen in this volume). This also holds for the Subjunctive in French and Spanish: (10)

Russian Ja xoč-u, čtoby ty menja pocelova-l. I want[ipfv]-1sg comp.cond you i.acc kiss[pfv]-pst ‘I want you to kiss me.’

(11)

French Il exige que tu partes maintenant. he demand.ind.prs.3sg that you leave.sbjv.prs.2sg now ‘He demands that you go now.’

(12)

Spanish Quiere que hablen de él. want.ind.prs.3sg that talk.sbjv.prs.3pl of him ‘He wants people to talk about him.’

In Russian as well as in Spanish and Italian with “modal verbs and pre­dicatives denoting possibility and necessity” (Hansen) the Conditional and the Subjunctive are used respectively: (13) Russian Teper’ nado, čtoby podobn-yj dokument now necessary comp.cond similar-n.sg document pojavi-l-sja v Evrop-e. appear[pfv]-pst-refl in Europe-prep.sg ‘Now it’s necessary that a similar document show up in Europe.’ (14) Spanish Es probable / usual / erróneo que be.ind.prs.3sg likely / usual / mistaken that surjan conflictos. arise.sbjv.prs.3pl conflicts ‘It is likely/ usual/ false that conflicts (should) ensue.’ (15)

Italian È necessario che A. parta. be.ind.prs.3sg necessary comp A. leave.sbjv.prs.sg ‘It’s necessary for A. to leave.’

In Russian, the Conditional is used in adjunct clauses denoting purpose, as is the Subjunctive in Spanish:



Moods, moods, moods

(16) Russian Ja by zaplati-l bol’š-ie den’g–i, čtoby I cond pay[pfv]-pst big-acc.pl money-acc.pl comp.cond on do aprelj-a ne vozvrašča-l-sja. he until April-gen.sg not return[ipfv]-pst-sg-refl ‘I would pay a lot of money to make sure he doesn’t come back until April. (17)

Spanish Lo hice para que se enterara. it do.ind.pret.1sg for_that refl inform.impf.sbjv.3sg ‘I did it so that he would notice it.’

The Russian Conditional is also used in independent clauses, where its main function is the optative. The same function is also found in Italian: (18) Russian Ax, esli by naš-i fantaz-ii oh, if cond our-nom.pl phantasy-nom.pl voplošča-l-i-s’ sam-i! become.real[ipfv]-pst-pl-refl self-nom.pl ‘If only our dreams came true on their own!’ (19)

Italian Almeno piovesse! if_only rain.sbjv.impf.3sg ‘If only it would rain!’

The examples in (7)–(19) clearly show that there is no difference between the Subjunctive in the Romance languages and the Conditional in Russian. Since we find more or less the same uses of both the Subjunctive and the Eastern Conditional in the other languages that have one of the two moods, it is obvious that indeed we are dealing with one and the same cross-linguistic category: The Eastern Conditional is nothing but a Subjunctive. Map 4 shows again the languages with an Eastern Conditional and the languages which have a Subjunctive. A comparison of Maps 3 and 4 shows that the area with the Western Con­ditional is almost identical with the area of the Subjunctive. There are only two languages that have a Subjunctive but no Western Conditional (Welsh and Greek), and there are three languages that have a Western Conditional but no Subjunctive (Breton, Bulgarian and Macedonian). All other languages with a Subjunctive also have a Western Conditional and vice versa. What is more important, however, is the fact that the Subjunctive and the Eastern Conditional cover two distinct areas – one more hint that we are dealing with only one category. There is only one language which, according to de Groot (in this volume), has both a Subjunctive and an (Eastern) Conditional, namely Hungarian. The Hungarian





Rolf Thieroff

Ice Nor

Fin Swd

Ir

Est Lat

Dan

Lith

Eng

Srb

Dut

Wel

Grm

Brt Fr

Cz

Pol

Hng

Bsq Ctl

Prt Spn

Rus

Slk

BCS It

Rum Blg

Arm

Mcd Trk

Alb Mlt

Geor

Grk

Subjunctive “Eastern Conditional” Map 4.  Subjunctive and Eastern Conditional

Subjunctive has almost all the uses we find with the Subjunctives in the other subjunctive languages, minus the use in counterfactual conditional sentences, where the Conditional is used (see de Groot). This means that the Hungarian Conditional is used like a Western Conditional, though it is not a tense but a mood. This situation is very similar to the situation in Finnish, whose Conditional also behaves more like a Western Conditional than like an Eastern Conditional, although the Finnish Conditional is a mood too. In conclusion we may say that the vast majority of the European languages not only  have exactly one non-indicative, non-imperative mood, but that this mood is one and the same in almost all these languages. Given the uses of this mood exemplified by sentences (7)–(19), this mood could well be termed “Irrealis” as Holvoet suggests. If the Western Conditional is correctly termed Past Future (or Future-in-the-past), the name Conditional could be reserved for the Conditionals of Finnish and Hungarian,  which differ morphologically from the Past Futures and semantically from the Irrealis in the other languages in that they are largely restricted to counter­factual conditional sentences.



Moods, moods, moods

7.  Moods and tenses It is important to note that, at least in the European languages, if a language has mood at all, a finite verb form always has a tense and a mood category. There cannot be such a thing as a verb form in a certain mood without it being at the same time in a certain tense and vice versa. If there is mood at all, then each form which has a certain tense category also has at the same time a certain mood category. Among the 36 languages described in the present volume there are only two languages in which all tenses of the Indicative also exist in the Sub­junctive. These are Icelandic and German. A third language which comes close to this pattern is Portuguese, where only one tense, the Aorist, is lacking in the Subjunctive. The paradigms of these languages are presented in Table 6. Table 6.  Languages with Subjunctive in all tenses including future Icelandic kalla ‘call’ (3rd sg)

PRS PRS PRF FUT FUT PRF PRET PLUP

German singen ‘sing’ (3rd sg)

Indicative

Subjunctive

Indicative

Subjunctive

kallar hefur kallað mun kalla mun hafa kallað kallaði hafði kallað

kalli hafi kallað muni kalla muni hafa kallað kallaði hefði kallað

singt hat gesungen wird singen wird gesungen haben sang hatte gesungen

singe habe gesungen werde singen werde gesungen haben sänge hätte gesungen

Portuguese cantar ‘sing’ (3rd sg)

PRS PRS PRF FUT FUT PRF IMPF PLUP AOR

Indicative

Subjunctive

canta tem cantado cantará terá cantado cantava tinha cantado cantou

cante tenha cantado cantar tiver cantado cantasse tivesse cantado –

In all other languages certain restrictions as to the tenses in the non-indicative moods are to be found. In eight languages – Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Basque, Hungarian, Albanian, Armenian, and Turkish – the non-indicative moods appear in the non-past as well as in the past tenses, but not in the future tenses. In Table 7 the paradigm of Italian is presented as one example for this group of languages.





Rolf Thieroff

Table 7.  A language with Subjunctive in non-past and past tenses Italian cantare ‘sing’ (3rd sg)

PRS PRS PRF FUT FUT PRF IMPF PLUP AOR AOR PRF

Indicative

Subjunctive

canta ha cantato canterà avrà cantato cantava aveva cantato cantò ebbe cantato

canti abbia cantato – – cantassi avessi cantato – –

In seven languages – Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, French, Rumanian, and Greek  – the non-indicative mood is restricted to the non-past tenses. Table 8 presents French as a transitional system (from the Italian to the Rumanian pattern),6 Rumanian, and, as an example of a language with two non-indicative moods, Finnish (see the discussion in Section 4). Table 8.  Languages with non-indicative moods in non-past tenses only

PRS PRS PRF FUT FUT PRF IMPF PLUP AOR AOR PRF

French chanter ‘sing’ (3rd sg)

Rumanian a ajuta ‘help’ (3rd sg)

Indicative

Subjunctive

Indicative

Subjunctive

chante a chanté chantera aura chanté chantait avais chanté chanta eut chanté

chante ait chanté – – †chantât †eût chanté – –

ajută a ajutat va ajuta va fi ajutat ajuta ajutase ajută

să ajute să fi ajutat – – – – –

Finnish vetää ‘pull’ (3rd sg)

PRS PRS PRF PRET PLUP

Indicative

Conditional

Potential

vetää on vetänyt veti oli vetänyt

vetäisi olisi vetänyt — —

vetänee lienee vetänyt — —

.  In French, an Imperfect and a Pluperfect Subjunctive can still be formed, but they are no longer in use today even in the written register (see de Mulder, in this volume).



Moods, moods, moods

Finally, in nine languages – all Slavic languages plus Georgian – the non-indicative mood exists only in the past tense(s).7 In Table  9 the Russian paradigm is given as an example. For the verbal paradigm of Georgian, see Section 3. Table 9.  A language with non-indicative mood in past tenses only Russian delat’ ‘do’ (3rd sg masc)

PRS IPFV PRS PFV FUT (IPFV) PRET IPFV PRET PFV

Indicative

Conditional

delaet sdelaet budet delat’ delal sdelal

– – – delal by sdelal by

Map 5 gives an overview of the geographical distribution of the tense restrictions observed in the languages in question. Ice Nor

Fin Swd

Ir

Est Lat

Dan

Lith

Eng

Srb

Dut

Wel

Grm

Brt

Cz

Fr

Pol

Rus

Slk Hng

Bsq Clt

Prt Spn

BCS It

Rum Blg

Arm

Mcd

Alb Mlt

Geor

Trk Grk

mood decreasing past and non-past non-indicative mood non-past non-indicative mood only past non-indicative mood only non-indicative mood in all tenses including future

Map 5.  Tense restrictions in non-indicative moods

.  In addition, there are also some non-finite Conditional forms at least in Russian and Polish (see Hansen, in this volume, on Russian and Polish).





Rolf Thieroff

In the Romance languages past subjunctives may have past time reference, as for example in (20a) in Catalan, quoted from Quer (in this volume): (20) a.

No crec que ho fes amb not believe.ind.prs.1sg that it do.sbjv.pst.3sg with



mala intenció. bad intention



‘I don’t think s/he did it with bad intentions.’

In a case like (20a), with the matrix verb creure ‘believe’ in the present tense, the Subjunctive is possible in the subordinate clause in all four tenses, as (20b–d) show.8 (20) b. No crec que ho faci amb not believe.ind.prs.1sg that it do.sbjv.prs.3sg with

mala intenció. bad intention



‘I don’t think s/he does it with bad intentions.’

c.

No crec que ho hagi not believe.ind.prs.1sg that it have.sbjv.prs.3sg



fet amb mala intenció. do.ptcp with bad intention



‘I don’t think s/he has done it with bad intentions.’

d. No crec que ho hagués not believe.ind.prs.1sg that it have.sbjv.pst.3sg

fet amb mala intenció. do.ptcp with bad intention



‘I don’t think s/he had done it with bad intentions.’

Abraham (2009: 287) gives a Catalan example with the matrix verb desitjar ‘wish’ in the past tense, which does not tolerate the Present and Perfect Subjunctive in the complement clause, and he concludes from this that “the tense realizations in the complement clause are defective” (my translation). (20) shows that this “deficiency” is not a property of the Subjunctive, but that it depends on the matrix verb. In almost all the languages, however, the time reference of the tenses in the non­indicative mood differs (or, for the Romance languages, may differ) from that in the Indicative. So, in French and in Rumanian the non-past Subjunctives can be used with past time reference, in the Slavic languages, the (past) Subjunctive can have past as well as non-past time reference, and in Georgian the (past, non-perfect) Subjunctive is even restricted to non-past time reference (compare the discussion in Section 2). .  I would like to thank Raphal Sichel-Bazin for helping me with the Catalan examples.



Moods, moods, moods

Even in languages which do have non-past and past Subjunctives, the past Subjunctives are usually also or even exclusively used with non-past time reference. In the Germanic languages, where (with the exception of Icelandic and German) the Subjunctive is vanishing, the difference between the non-past and the past Subjunctive is a modal one: The non-past Subjunctive is used with an optative meaning (e.g. in phrases like English Long live the Queen!; Bergs & Heine; see also Eide for Norwegian, Heltoft & Christensen for Danish, Boogaart & Janssen for Dutch, all in this volume), and the past Subjunctive is used in counterfactual sentences (as in German Wenn doch die Sonne schiene [pret sbjv] ‘If only the sun were shining’; see Sigurdsson for Icelandic, Thieroff for German, Rothstein for Swedish, all in this volume; compare also Thieroff 2004). In the Romance languages, too, the non-past Subjunctives can be used with an optative meaning (cf. French Vive [prs sbjv] le roi ‘(Long) live the King’) and the past Subjunctives can convey non-past counterfactual meanings, such as for instance in Italian Se lo potessi [impf sbjv] ‘If I could’. Since the plain past (or, for the Romance languages, the imperfect) Subjunctive has in most cases non-past time reference, for past time reference the Pluperfect is used; in languages lacking a past non-indicative mood, the Perfect is used, as for example in Finnish and Estonian (Tommola and Metslang & Sepper, in this volume). In the Slavic languages, which lack a Perfect, the Conditional can have both non-past and past time reference.

8.  If I had a hammer… In Section 4 we saw that most Germanic and all the Celtic languages are losing or have lost their Subjunctives, and are thus developing towards or have developed into languages without a non-indicative non-imperative mood (like Maltese). In Section 7 we have seen that most languages do not have the non-indicative mood in all tenses, with the nonindicative often being restricted either to the non-past or to the past tenses. Given such restrictions, the question arises as to how certain non-factive or non-real situations are expressed in these languages. The answer to this question is given in the individual papers of the present volume. In this section, I am going to give one example of how a specific non-real situation is expressed in the languages of the sample, namely counterfactuality with present time reference in if-clauses as in English If I had money (I would buy a car). In 30 out of the 36 languages of our sample, a past tense is the only choice in ­counterfactual if-clauses. Only in Latvian, Lithuanian, Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian (the latter three languages with two non-indicative moods) do we find a present tense in  these clauses. The sixth language is Maltese, which has an aspectual rather than a tense system.





Rolf Thieroff

In the languages lacking a non-indicative non-imperative mood, the counterfactual if-clause is of course in the past indicative as in (21)–(24).9 (21) English If I had (pret ind) money now, I would buy (fut pret) a car. (22) Danish Hvis Carina havde (pret ind) penge nok, ville hun købe (fut pret) en computer. ‘If Carina had enough money, she would buy a computer.’ (23) Dutch Als je echt van mij hield (pret ind), zou je dat niet zeggen (fut pret). ‘If you really loved me, you would not say that.’

In the languages lacking a past non-indicative (cf. Section 7), the past indicative is chosen too, as in examples (24)–(26). (24) French S’il pleuvait (impf ind) maintenant, je resterais (fut impf) à la maison. ‘If it were raining now, I would stay at home.’ (25) Rumanian (Beyrer et al. 1987: 348, cited by Becker, in this volume) Dacă aveam (impf ind) bani, aş pleca (fut impf) în Bulgaria. ‘If I had some money, I would travel to Bulgaria.’ (26) Greek An íxa (impf ind) tóra aftá ta leftá aghóraza (impf ind) éna spíti. ‘If I had that money now, I would buy a house.’

In Bulgarian and Macedonian, the Imperfect Indicative is the mood of the counterfactual if-clause too, although these languages do have a past non-indicative. Similarly, in Basque, which has a past non-indicative mood too, the Past Indicative is chosen. (27) is an example from Bulgarian. (27) Bulgarian Ako imax (ipfv impf ind) vreme, štjax da dojda. ‘If I had time, I would come.’

In most of the remaining languages that have a past non-indicative, this tense-mood is obligatory in counterfactual if-clauses, as in (28)–(32). (28) Icelandic Ef ég væri (pret sbjv) yngri skuldi ég fara (fut pret) til Vesterheims. ‘If I were younger, I would go to America.’

.  If not indicated otherwise, the examples in (21)–(37) are taken from Thieroff (1999: 147–149); see the references there).



Moods, moods, moods

(29) German Wenn jetzt die Sonne schiene (pret sbjv), ginge (pret sbjv) ich spazieren. ‘If the sun were shining now, I would go for a walk.’ (30) Italian Se potessi (impf sbjv), lo farei (fut impf). ‘If I could, I would do it.’ (31) Russian (see Hansen on Russian, in this volume) Esli by (cond) side-l (pst) i molča-l (pst), to vnimani-ja bylo (pst) by (cond) men’še. ‘If he remained seated without saying a word, there would be less attention.’ (32) Armenian Et’e xoser (impf sbjv), kmatner ir huzum6. ‘If he spoke, he would reveal his alarm.’

In Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, and Albanian the Imperfect Subjunctive is the preferred (and for the written register the only) choice, as in the Portuguese and Spanish examples in (33) and (34). (33) Portuguese Se eu a visse (impf sbjv), não a reconheceria (fut impf). ‘If I saw her, I would not recognize her.’ (34) Spanish Si estuvieras (impf sbjv) de acuerdo, lo contrataría (fut impf). ‘If you agreed, I would employ him.’

However, in spoken varieties of these languages the Imperfect Indicative is also found, as in the Portuguese and Catalan examples in (35) and (36). (35) Portuguese Se eu a via (impf ind), não a reconhecia (impf ind). ‘If I sang, I would act in some ensemble.’ (36) Catalan Si jo cantava (impf ind), actuaria (fut impf) en algun conjunt. ‘If I sang, I would act in some ensemble.’

Finally, in (37) one of the few languages with a present tense in the counterfactual if-clause is given. (37) Finnish Jos nyt aurinko paistaisi (pres cond), jäisin (pres cond) kotiin. ‘If the sun were shining now, I would stay at home.’

In Map 6 the geographical distribution of the three kinds of languages is presented: languages using a past indicative tense in counterfactual if-clauses, languages using a past non-indicative, and languages using a non-past non-indicative. As already mentioned





Rolf Thieroff

there are four languages (Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, and Albanian) in which the past occurs in both the Indicative and the Subjunctive. Ice Nor

Fin

Est

Swd Dan

Ir

Lith

Eng

Srb

Dut

Wel

Lat

Grm

Brt

Cz

Fr

Pol

Hng

Bsq Ctl

Prt

BCS It

Spn

Rus

Slk

Rum Blg

Alb Mlt

Mcd

Geor Arm Trk

Grk

past indicative past non-indicative non-past non-indicative Map 6.  Tense-mood in counterfactual if-clauses

The apodoses of the counterfactual conditional sentences are, in almost all languages, in the Future-in-the-past tense (“Western Conditional”) if the language has this tense. This is true irrespective of whether the protasis is in the Indicative or in the Subjunctive, as can be seen from the examples in (21)–(37). Exceptions are Icelandic and German (for the latter see (29)), where the apodosis, too, can be in the Preterite Subjunctive. Languages without the Future-in-the-past tense mostly have the same tense-mood form in both the apodosis and the protasis, as for example Greek (see (26)), Russian (see (31)), and Finnish (see (37)).

9.  Summary: That’s the way it is Summing up the major observations of the present article, we may conclude that the ­morphological make-up and the semantics and pragmatics of the non-indicative moods in most languages of Europe follow similar patterns. There are rather large areas with



Moods, moods, moods

l­anguages displaying more or less the same constructions, showing identical uses and like restrictions. The major points of coincidence and distinction are: 1. All 36 languages investigated have an Imperative mood. 2. All languages have at least one non-indicative non-imperative mood. The only exception is Maltese, whose only non-indicative mood is the Imperative. In addition, the Subjunctive is vanishing in the north-west of the continent, i.e. in the Germanic languages, except Icelandic and German, and in the Celtic languages. 3. The majority of the European languages have exactly one non-in­dicative non-imperative mood. Languages with two such moods are Basque, Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, and Armenian. The only languages with more than two non-indicative non-imperative moods are Albanian and Turkish. 4. There are three languages in the north-east (Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian) and four languages in the south-east (Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Turkish) which, in addition to the moods mentioned, have so-called evidential categories. 5. With very few exceptions the grammars of all languages investigated assume the existence of a “Conditional”. However, it could be shown that a “Western Conditional” has to be distinguished from an “Eastern Conditional”. Whereas the “Western Conditional” is not a mood, but a tense composed of a past (preterite or imperfect) and a future mor­pheme, the “Eastern Conditional” is indeed a non-indicative mood. 6. The western equivalent of the “Eastern Conditional” is not the “Western Conditional”, but the Subjunctive. In fact, the Subjunctive and the “Eastern Conditional” are instances of one and the same cross-linguistic category. A possible term for this category could be “Non-realis”. The “Conditionals” of Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian are somewhat different from this cross-linguistic category. 7. There are only two languages, Icelandic and German, in which all tenses in the Indicative also appear in the Subjunctive. Portuguese is a language which comes close to this pattern, with only one tense, the Aorist, restricted to the Indicative. In all other languages there are no non-in­dicatives of the Future. In Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian, but also in French, Rumanian, and Greek, the non-indicative moods are restricted to the non-past tenses. In the Slavic languages and in Georgian, there are, by contrast, only non-indicative forms of the past tenses. 8. In counterfactual conditional sentences, a past tense is the rule even with non-past (present or future) time reference. Here the only exceptions are Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Hungarian. In the other languages, in the protasis the verb can be in the Indicative or in the non-indicative; in the apodosis the verb is normally in the Future-in-the-past if the language has that tense, or otherwise it is usually in the same form as in the protasis. I have tried to show major similarities and major differences between the 36 languages described in the present book. Among the questions not addressed in this article are finer similarities and differences such as the specific uses of the Subjunctives and the “Eastern





Rolf Thieroff

Conditionals” in each individual language. Although I believe to have shown that indeed both are instances of one and the same linguistic category with many identical uses, it is to be expected that there are many minor differences in their uses in the individual languages. For a fine-grained analysis of these differences, much additional work remains to be done.

References Abondolo, D. 1987. Hungarian. In The World’s Major Languages, B. Comrie (ed.), 577–592. London: Croom Helm. Abraham, W. 2009. Die Urmasse von Modalität und ihre Ausgliederung. Modalität anhand von Modalverben, Modalpartikel und Modus. Was ist das Gemeinsame, was das Trennende, und was steckt dahinter? In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (eds), 251–302. Abraham, W. & Leiss, E. (eds). 2008. Modality-Aspect Interfaces. Implications and Typological Solutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Abraham, W. & Leiss, E. (eds). 2009. Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Bánhidi, Z., Jókay, Z. & Szabó, D. 1975. Lehrbuch der ungarischen Sprache. München: Hueber. Bense, G. 1996. Skizze einer Grammatik der litauischen Gegenwarts­sprache. Litauisch für Deutsche. Zweite durchgesehene und erweiterte Fassung. Halle: Martin-Luther-Universität HalleWittenberg. Beyrer, A., Bochmann, K. & Bronsert, S. 1987. Grammatik der rumänischen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Buchholz, O. & Fiedler, W. 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Comrie, C. & Corbett, G.G. (eds). 2006. The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. Faßke, H. 1981. Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. Morphologie. Bautzen: VEB Domowina. Fromm, H. 1982. Finnische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Hansen, B. & de Haan, F. 2009. Modals in the Languages of Europe. A Reference Work. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Holst, J.H. 2001. Lettische Grammatik. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Isačenko, A.V. 1975. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Formenlehre. München: Hueber. Karlsson, F. 2000. Finnische Grammatik 3. durchgehend bearb. Aufl. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Kirschbaum, E.-G. & Kretschmar, E. 1966. Kurze russische Sprachlehre. Berlin: Volk und Wissen. Kotyczka, J. 1987. Kurze polnische Sprachlehre. Berlin: Volk und Wissen. Leiss, E. 2009. Drei Spielarten der Epistemizität, drei Spielarten der Evidentialität und drei Spielarten des Wissens. In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (eds), 3–24. Mathiassen, T. 1996. A Short Grammar of Lithuanian. Columbus OH: Slavica Publishers. Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP. Rehder, P. (ed.). 1991. Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Russell, P. 1995. An Introduction to the Celtic languages. London: Longman. Szent-Iványi, B. 1995. Der ungarische Sprachbau. Eine kurze Darstellung mit Erläuterungen für die Praxis. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.



Moods, moods, moods

Thieroff, R. 1994. Inherent verb categories and categorizations in European languages. In Tense Systems in European Languages, R. Thieroff & J. Ballweg (eds), 3–45. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Thieroff, R. 1999. Preterites and imperfects in the languages of Europe. In Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity. Essays in Honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov, W. Abraham & L. Kulikov (eds), 141–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Thieroff, R. 2004. The Subjunctive mood in German and in the Germanic languages. In Focus on Germanic Typology, W. Abraham (ed.), 315–357. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Watkins, T.A. 1993. Welsh. In The Celtic Languages, M.J. Ball (ed.) with J. Fife, 289–348. London: Routledge.



part i

Germanic

Mood in Icelandic Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson Lund

1.  Introduction Icelandic is spoken by most of the 300.000 inhabitants of Iceland (2005) and some ­thousands of Western Icelanders in Canada and USA. It enjoys a strong status as a national and a cultural language, with a rich literary heritage, from the 12th century onwards. Historically, Icelandic is Indo-European, Germanic, North Germanic (Nordic, Scandinavian), West Scandinavian. Its closest relatives are Faroese and West Norwegian varieties. In comparison with Mainland Scandinavian and most West Germanic varieties, Icelandic is a conservative language that has preserved most of the morphological complexity of Old Norse. Phonologically, Icelandic has undergone numerous radical changes. The syntax is still similar to Old Norse syntax, although it has changed more than the morphology.

2.  Verbal categories 2.1  An overview The categories in the Icelandic verb inflection system are the following: –– –– –– –– –– ––

Person Number Finite tense Non-finite categories Finite mood “Middle” -st formation

1, 2, 3 singular, plural present, past infinitive, present participle, past participle imperative, indicative, subjunctive (and optative) (most commonly forming anticausative verbs)

In addition, Icelandic has periphrastic expressions (with auxiliary verbs) for: ––

Tense, voice, aspect, modality

Voice includes passives (personal and impersonal) and causative and anticausative (or  “middle”) constructions that will not be discussed here (but see Sigurðsson 1989; Thráinsson 2007).



Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

2.2  Inflection Tense/mood and person/number markers show considerable allomorphy, yielding inflectional classes. Traditional grammar distinguishes between 4 classes of weak verbs and 6 or 7 classes of strong verbs. In addition, there are ten or eleven so-called preterite-present verbs. Some examples illustrating the classification are given in (1). The pst ptcp form given is the most common n.sg.nom/acc form, sometimes referred to as the “supine”:

(1) Verb classification inf

1sg.pres

1sg.pret

1pl.pret

pst ptcp

vekja ‘wake up’ gera ‘do’ þola ‘endure’ hafa ‘have’ leita ‘search’

vek ger-i þol-i hef leit-a

vak-t-i ger-ð-i þol-d-i haf-ð-i leit-að-i

vök-t-um ger-ð-um þol-d-um höf-ð-um leit-uð-um

vak-ið ger-t þol-að haf-t leit-að

S6 S7

líta ‘look’ bjóða ‘offer’ verða ‘be(come)’ bera ‘carry’ gefa ‘give’ vera ‘be’ taka ‘take’ láta ‘let’

lít býð verð ber gef er tek læt

leit bauð varð bar gaf var tók lét

lit-um buð-um urð-um bár-um gáf-um vor-um tók-um lét-um

lit-ið boð-ið orð-ið bor-ið gef-ið ver-ið tek-ið lát-ið

PrPr

þurfa ‘need’

þarf

þurft-i

þurft-um

þurf-t

W1 W2 W3 W4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Hafa ‘have’ and vera ‘be’, are usually classified as a W3 and an S5 verb, respectively, but both inflect irregularly. Numerous other verbs also inflect more or less irregularly. The present and past tense inflection is illustrated for the weak verb leita ‘search’ (W4) in (2) and for the strong verb taka ‘take’ (S6) in (3):

(2) Present and Past of the weak verb leita ‘search’

present tense

sg

pl

1 2 3 1 2 3

past tense

Indicative

Subjunctive

Indicative

Subjunctive

leit-a leit-ar leit-ar leit-um leit-ið leit-a

leit-i leit-ir leit-i leit-um leit-ið leit-i

leit-að-i leit-að-ir leit-að-i leit-uð-um leit-uð-uð leit-uð-u

leit-að-i leit-að-ir leit-að-i leit-uð-um leit-uð-uð leit-uð-u





Mood in Icelandic

(3) Present and Past of the strong verb taka ‘take’

present tense sg

pl

1 2 3 1 2 3

past tense

Indicative

Subjunctive

Indicative

Subjunctive

tek tek-ur tek-ur tök-um tak-ið tak-a

tak-i tak-ir tak-i tök-um tak-ið tak-i

tók tók-st tók tók-um tók-uð tók-u

tæk-i tæk-ir tæk-i tæk-j-um tæk-j-uð tæk-j-u

As seen, tense is a higher ranked category in the inflectional paradigm than mood, the whole present tense being based on the infinitival root, whereas the past has a different base, formed with a suffix, /leit-að/, or Ablaut, /tók-/.1 In addition, past participles inflect for case (nom, acc, dat, gen), number (sg, pl) and gender (m, f, n).

2.3  Auxiliary verbs Like many other languages, Icelandic has four major types of auxiliaries: (4)

a. b. c. d.

modal auxiliaries: temporal auxiliaries: aspectual auxiliaries: copular auxiliaries:

eiga ‘have to, have the obligation to’, etc. hafa ‘have’ (perfect), munu ‘will’ (future) fara ‘go to, begin to’, etc. vera ‘be’, verða ‘become, get, will be’ (future)

One lexical verb (e.g. verða) may ‘serve’ in more than one of these categories. In addition to these simple cases, Icelandic has many temporal/aspectual “complexes” such as vera búinn ‘have; be done’, to be described shortly. The copula vera ‘be’ is the basic passive auxiliary, used both in past and present tense. In future tense it is replaced by verða ‘will be’ in both copular and passive constructions: (5) a.

Hann verður áreiðanlega ríkur. he will_be surely rich ‘He will surely be(come) rich.’

b. Hún verður víst kosin í stjórnina. she will_be allegedly elected to bord.the ‘They say she will be elected to the board.’

.  The e in the singular present indicative of taka and the æ in the past subjunctive arise through two of several i-mutation processes in the language, a > e (/tak-/ > /tek-/), and ó > æ (/tók-/ > /tæk-/), respectively. The ö in first person plural tökum is formed by u-mutation, a > ö (/tak-/ > /tök-/). The alteration -að-/-uð- in (2) also arises through u-mutation (a > u in unstressed syllables).





Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

2.4  Imperatives and exhortatives Most main verbs have 2sg imperatives as well as 1pl and 2pl exhortatives. The singular imperatives have a special form, derived from the infinitive form (of most verbs) by truncating the infinitive -a-marker (with W4 verbs as the main exception). Plural exhortatives are homophonous with 1pl and 2pl indicatives/subjunctives:

(6) Imperatives (sg) and exhortatives (pl) W1

W2

W3

W4

S1

S6

vekja ‘wake up’

gera ‘do’

þola ‘endure’

leita ‘search’

líta ‘look’

taka ‘take’

sg

2

vek

ger

þol

leita

lít

tak

pl

1 2

vekj-um vek-ið

ger-um ger-ið

þol-um þol-ið

leit-um leit-ið

lít-um lít-ið

tök-um tak-ið

The expression of the subject in imperative and exhortative clauses is quite variable. The possibilities are illustrated in (7); the most neutral colloquial forms are underlined, whereas the stars indicate absent, ungrammatical options: (7) a. a null subject b. a full clitic c. a full pronoun d. a heavy pronoun f. a cut clitic + a heavy pronoun

2sg.imp tak tak-tu ?tak þú tak ÞÚ tak-t ÞÚ

1pl.hort tökum * * * *

2pl.hort takið takið-i ?takið þið takið ÞIÐ *

The bare null-subject imperative (tak, etc.) is largely confined to biblical and poetic language, and the heavy pronouns are contrastively focalized. Examples with the underlined, common forms are given in (8): (8) Taktu / Tökum / Takiði þátt í þessu. take-you / take.1pl / take.2pl_you part in this ‘Take part in this.’/‘Let’s take part in this.’/‘Take part in this (, you guys).’

Some verbs do not easily form imperatives/exhortatives, either for phonological reasons (the singular imperative) or for semantic reasons (both the singular imperative and the plural exhortatives). Negative infinitives with imperative or pleading force are common in Icelandic (as in many other languages): (9) Ekki taka þátt í þessu! not take.inf part in this ‘Do not take part in this!’



Mood in Icelandic

2.5  Participles and infinitives The present participle is formed with an -andi suffix. It is indeclinable, but it has several syntactic functions: verbal (passive or middle as well as active), adjectival and adverbial (in addition there are declinable deverbal nouns in ‑andi). The most central one is the active verbal function illustrated in (10): (10) Þarna kemur hún hlaupandi. there comes she running ‘There she comes running.’

The present participle is “present” or unshifted in the sense that it always has a temporal reading that is simultaneous with the temporal reading of some other predicate (such as kemur in (10)). The central syntactic functions of the past participle are:

A. B. C. D.

An indeclinable active, perfect participle An inflected active, perfect participle An inflected verbal, passive participle An inflected adjectival, passive participle

Cf. Engl. have gone, broken Cf. Engl. be gone Cf. Engl. be broken (by sby) Cf. Engl. (be) broken

The active participles are used in perfect constructions, as in (11): (11) a.

Hún hefur oft farið til Reykjavíkur. she has often gone.nom/acc.n.sg to Reykjavik

b. Hún er farin til Reykjavíkur. she is gone.nom.f.sg to Reykjavik

The temporal properties of these constructions are similar as in English, and will be discussed in the next subsection. As for the participle itself, it seems to always be –future, relative to some temporal reference point (reference time). The fact that it is often used about past events stems from the pragmatic inference that –future events are likely to have taken place in the past.2 infinitives commonly have a simultaneous reading, but they may also refer to future eventualities (Stowell 1982, etc.). Thus the infinitive in (12a) describes an event, reading a

.  In one peculiar case the active past participle would seem to have the same temporal reading as infinitives, –past, namely, when it is a complement of the modal geta ‘can, be able to’. This modal might introduce a complex temporal structure that is partly silent or truncated, but I will not pursue the issue here.





Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

book, that lies in the future, relative to the hoping event of the main clause. As seen in (12b), a +past reading is excluded: (12) a.

Í gærdag vonaðist hún til að lesa bókina á_morgun. in yesterday hoped she for to read book.the tomorrow ‘Yesterday, she hoped to read the book tomorrow.’

b. *Í morgun sá hún eftir að lesa bókina í gærdag. in morning saw she after to read book.the in yesterday Intended: ‘*This morning she regretted to read the book yesterday.’

Thus, it seems that infinitives are basically –past. In sum: (13) a. Present participles: b. Past participles: c. Infinitives:

Unshifted –future –past

Two modal verbs, munu ‘will’ and skulu ‘shall’, are exceptional in having special, morphologically past (but semantically non-past) infinitival forms, mundu/myndu and skyldu, sometimes used in formal language in raising or Exceptional Case Marking constructions (Accusative or Nominative with an Infinitive), taken by verbs like telja ‘believe, consider’ virðast ‘seem’ and segjast ‘say oneself ’ in the past tense. That is, munu and skulu can show tense agreement even in certain infinitives. This is illustrated for present infinitive munu vs. past infinitive mundu in (14): (14) a.

Hún segist munu koma. she says.herself will.inf come ‘She says that she will come.’

b. Hún sagðist mundu koma. she said.herself would.inf come ‘She said that she would come.’

Tense agreement copies the morphological tense of a matrix clause into its subordinate clause, without also copying its tense semantics. I will discuss tense agreement further in relation to the subjunctive, in Section 3.

2.6  The (indicative) tense system As in many other languages, the past and present tenses in Icelandic can be analyzed simply as ±past. Icelandic does not have an inflectional future tense, but, as already mentioned, it has future auxiliaries, the copula verða ‘will be’ and the formal munu ‘will’ (which is more commonly used as an evidentiality (inference/hearsay) modal). In addition, Icelandic has developed a complex future auxiliary, koma til með að + infinitive, literally ‘come towards



Mood in Icelandic

with to’, meaning simply ‘will’. However, expressing future time with the simple present is also an available strategy for many verbs.3 As commonly in other languages, the simple present tense gets several non-past readings, including present, future, generic and habitual/iterative. Each of these readings are facilitated or disambiguated by various factors, including adverbial modification and the verb’s aktionsart (internal aspect). The present time reading is natural for the temporal auxiliaries hafa ‘have’ and vera ‘be’ and for stative and durative verbs like liggja ‘lie’, sitja ‘sit’, sofa ‘sleep’, but for most dynamic verbs the present time reading has to be expressed with the progressive vera að + infinitive construction. In English, the gerund (be + V-ing) is commonly used for the same purpose: (15) Hún er að mála (núna). she is to paint now ‘She is painting (now).’

Icelandic has three distinct perfect constructions, exemplified in (16) (the subject Ólafur is nom.m.sg and hence búinn in (16b) and kominn in (16c) are nom.m.sg forms): (16) a.

Ólafur hefur komið hingað. Olaf has come to_here ‘Olaf has come here (at some time)’.

hafa + uninflected ptcp

b. Ólafur er búinn að koma hingað. vera + agreeing búinn að + inf Olaf is finished to come to_here ‘Olaf has come here (already).’ c.

Ólafur er kominn hingað. Olaf is come to_here ‘Olaf has come here (and he is still here).’

vera + agreeing ptcp

The hafa perfect is most commonly existential, as in (16a), the vera búinn að perfect is resultative, whereas the agreeing participle perfect is stative (on the first two notions, see, e.g. Kiparsky 2002, and, with respect to Icelandic, Jónsson 1992).4 These notions are not very precise or pertinent (in a sense, all perfects are resultative, to mention just one caveat). The existential perfect is unbounded (generic, non-specified), whereas the resultative and stative perfects are situation bounded. In all cases, the perfect behaves as predicted by the so-called extended now theory, i.e. it locates an eventuality in a time span that reaches

.  English will and be going to commonly translate as ætla ‘intend, plan’. However, the future interpretation of ætla is derivative of its subject oriented modality (intentions and plans cannot be carried out but in the future). That is, its meaning is not purely or primarily ­temporal. .  The hafa perfect may also express inferential evidentiality (in a similar way as described for Mainland Scandinavian in Rothstein 2006; cf. Thráinsson 2007: 12).





Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

from the event time (E) to the speech time or the time of utterance (S) (see below on these notions). While the existential perfect only indicates that an eventuality has pertained at some time within this time span, the so-called universal perfect expresses that the eventuality holds for all subintervals of this period.5 The stative perfect describes an event or a process that results in a changed state that pertains at a time point X (reference time). Thus, as indicated, the sentence in (16c) necessarily implies that ‘Olaf is still here’ (as a result of his arrival). Adding a clause like ‘but he isn’t here now’ inevitably leads to a contradiction. The stative perfect is limited to motion verbs, like fara ‘go’ and koma ‘come, arrive’, and other intransitive verbs that denote a change of state, like detta ‘fall’, deyja ‘die’, drukkna ‘drown’, hverfa ‘disappear’. English has a stative perfect with the verb go (not discussed by Kiparsky 2002) as in She is gone to England (so she isn’t here now). Compare: She has gone to England (on some occasion(s), but she might be back now). The other two perfects are compatible with most main verbs. The resultative perfect is spreading in the language (the oldest attested examples are from the 17th century). It is the unmarked alternative for easily separable eventualities (but its domain is expanding, see Wide 2002), and the eventuality is situation bounded, that is, linked to a specific situation. Accordingly, it is either recent or relevant with respect to the reference time. In contrast to the stative perfect, however, the vera búinn að perfect does not necessarily imply a still holding change of state, as the following contrast illustrates: (17) a.

Ólafur er búinn að bíða hér í fjóra tíma og bíður hér enn. Olaf is finished to wait here in four hours and waits here still ‘Olaf has been waiting here for four hours, and he is still waiting here.’

b. *Ólafur er kominn hingað og kemur hingað enn. Olaf is come to_here and comes to_here still

Progressive and perfect constructions illustrate that the tense system is twofold, consisting of a finite and a non-finite part. The non-finite part relates event time, E, to reference time R, yielding a relation between the two, E ↔ R, that can have an unshifted value, a –past value, as in infinitives, or a –future value, as in past participles. The finite part relates the resulting relation, E ↔ R (or E/R), with the speech time, S, yielding a second order relation, S ↔ (E ↔ R), or S ↔ (E/R), most commonly having a +past, –past or a +future value. Using English glosses, the tense system can thus be described as in (18):

.  The universal reading is compatible with both the hafa perfect and the vera búinn að perfect (although there are cases where only the vera búinn að perfect yields an unambiguously universal reading, including the reference time). In spite of its prominence in the perfect tense literature, the distinction between the universal and non-universal readings is not an inherent property of the perfect construction as such.



Mood in Icelandic

(18) The tense system of Icelandic Finite T Non-finite T S ↔ (E/R) E ↔ R Construction: Past (simple): +past Unshifted Present (simple): –past Unshifted Future (simple): +future Unshifted Past progressive: +past –past Present progressive: –past –past Future progressive: +future –past Past perfect: +past – future Present perfect: –past – future Future perfect: +future – future

English glosses

she was here she is here she will-be here she was to paint (≈ ‘painting’) she is to paint (≈ ‘painting’) she will-be to paint (≈ ‘painting’) she was finished to paint / had painted she is finished to paint / has painted she will-be finished to paint / will have painted

This is a novel analysis (to the best of my knowledge), although it is based on the classical Reichenbachian understanding of tense (see Reichenbach 1947, Giorgi & Pianesi 1997; Cinque 1999; Julien 2001, among many). For further discussion, see Sigurðsson (2008).

3.  The subjunctive 3.1  Morphology Reconsider the finite inflection illustrated in (2)–(3) above. There is considerable syncretism in the endings, but it is reasonable to assume the following analysis of the basic order of the grammatical markers T(ense), M(ood), N(umbe)r, and P(erso)n, shown for the strong verb taka ‘take’ in (19) (see Sigurðsson 2001): (19) Root T a. tak (tók) b. tak (tók)

M – i

Nr u u

Pn m m

> tókum (pst.ind.1pl) ‘took’ > tækjum (pst.sbjv.1pl) ‘would take’

The subjunctive -i- marker triggers i-mutation (/tók/ → /tæk/) and palatalizes preceding /k/ (and /g/), yielding kj (and gj) in spelling (when directly in front of an -a or -u). In addition to the inflectional past subjunctive, Icelandic has periphrastic subjunctives with the past subjunctive forms of the modal munu ‘will’. Compare the simple subjunctive in (20a) with the periphrastic one in (20b):6

.  The past subjunctive forms of skulu ‘shall’ can also build a periphrastic subjunctive, but it adds subject or speaker oriented modality (often voluntariness/advice) that is absent in other subjunctives (this is another phenomenon than the skulu-subjunctives in complements of true factives, described in Section 3.3 below).





Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

(20) a.

Ég færi ef hún bæði mig. I went.sbjv if she asked.sbjv me

b. Ég mundi fara ef hún bæði mig. I would.sbjv go if she asked.sbjv me ‘I would go if she asked me.’

The periphrastic subjunctive would be somewhat less natural in the conditional ef- ‘if ’ clause. The copula vera ‘be, stay’ has not only an indicative and a subjunctive paradigm in the present tense but also an optative one (often used as an exhortative in the 2nd person and in the 1st person plural): (21) Present tense of vera ‘be, stay’ Indicative Subjunctive sg 1 er sé 2 er-t sér-t 3 er sé pl 1 er-um sé-um 2 er-uð sé-uð 3 er-u sé-u

Optative ver-i ver-ir ver-i ver-um ver-ið ver-i

Morphologically, the optative is formed in the same way as regular subjunctives, whereas the subjunctive forms, sé, etc., are highly irregular. All other verbs in the language use the present subjunctive to express the optative: (22) a.

Fari hann og veri! go.sbjv he [to place X] and be.opt (i.e. stay) [there] ‘May he be damned/go to hell!’

b. Guð sé oss næstur! God be.sbjv us next ‘May God be with us.’ c.

Lengi lifi kóngurinn! long live.sbjv king.the ‘Long live the King!’

As seen in (22b), even the verb vera ‘be, stay’ can use subjunctive forms as optatives. The division of labor between its present subjunctive and optative forms is largely idiosyncratic.

3.2  Main clause subjunctives As just illustrated, subjunctives are used as main clause optatives. That seems to be the only main clause type that is compatible with the present subjunctive. Present subjunctives are also used in certain other independent clauses, with a subordinate form, as in (23):



(23) a.

Mood in Icelandic

Að hún skuli segja þetta! the she shall.sbjv say this ‘[It is incredible/remarkable] That she says this!’

b. Kannski (að) hún komi hingað. maybe (that) she comes.sbjv here ‘[It] May be [that] she will come here.’

As seen in (20) above, past subjunctives are used in counterfactual sentences, not only in the (protasis) conditional clause, but also in the (apodosis) main clause. In addition, past subjunctive modals are commonly used in declarative main clauses, as in (24) (similarly: mætti ‘might’, kynni ‘could’, gæti ‘could’, þyrfti ‘should, would need to’, and [dative taking] bæri ‘ought to’): (24) Hún ætti að fara. she ought.sbjv to go ‘She should go (in my opinion).’

In main clauses of this sort the past subjunctive modal expresses speaker valuation (as indicated in (24)). They can thus be analyzed as being combined with a silent conditional clause, containing, roughly: ‘If I were to spell out my opinion.’ Most of these modals, as well as vilja ‘want’, can also be used in polite questions that have either the force of a mild request, as in (25), or a modest suggestion, as in (26): (25) a.

Vildirðu rétta mér sykurinn? would.sbjv_you hand me sugar.the ‘Would you be so kind as to hand me the sugar?’

b. Gætirðu gefið mér eld? could.sbjv_you give me fire ‘Could you please give me light?’ (26) a.

Ættirðu ekki að  fara? ought.sbjv_you not to  go ‘Don’t you think you should go?’

b. Gætirðu ekki gert þetta fyrir mig? could.sbjv_you not do this for me ‘Don’t you think you could do this for me?’

The suggestion type in (26) commonly contains the negation.

3.3  Embedded subjunctives: Their use and meaning The subjunctive is largely a subordinate clause phenomenon. Subordinate clauses are commonly divided into nominal clauses (or argument clauses), relative clauses, and





Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

adverbial clauses. The distribution of the indicative and the subjunctive across these clause types is roughly as follows: (27) a. Nominal clauses (declarative or interrogative): ind or sbjv, depending on ­properties in superordinate clause(s) b. Adverbial clauses: ind or sbjv, depending on either the connective that ­introduces the clause or on properties in superordinate clause(s) c. Relative clauses: mostly ind, but sbjv is also possible, depending on properties in superordinate clause(s)

The most important factor that correlates with mood selection in nominal clauses is the semantics of the matrix predicate that contains the clause (as a subordinate argument). Following Thráinsson (1976, 1990, 2005, 2007, based on Kiparsky & Kiparsky 1970, see also Sigurðsson 1990), it is useful to make the following classification, for both predicates and nominals that take a clausal arguments (like the idea that …). I illustrate this with only a few examples: (28) a. (Semi-)Factives: b. Non-factives: c. True factives:

discover, know, see; be obvious; the fact, the truth believe, hope, say, think; be thinkable; the idea, the lie deplore, embrace, regret, rejoice; be fun, be deplorable

Items belonging to the first class are called factives or semi-factives because they commonly presuppose the truth of their complement clauses. In contrast, non-factives do not presuppose the truthfulness of their complements whereas true factives always do. True factives are also called emotive factives. We can now state the following descriptive approximations: (29) a. Factives usually take an indicative complement, e.g. 3p brosir ‘smiles’ b. Non-factives usually take a subjunctive complement, e.g. 3p brosi c. True factives usually take a subjunctive with skulu + inf, e.g. 3p skuli brosa

This is illustrated for factives in (30), non-factives in (31) and for true factives in (32): Factives, taking indicatives: (30) a.

Ég veit að tunglið. I know that moon.the



brosir/*brosi/*skuli brosa. smiles.ind/*smiles.sbjv/*shall.sbjv smile



‘I know that the moon smiles.’

b. Það er augljóst að tunglið. it is obvious that moon.the

brosir/*brosi/*skuli brosa. smiles.ind/*smiles.sbjv/*shall.sbjv smile



‘It is obvious that the moon smiles’.



Mood in Icelandic

c.

Ég tala um þá staðreynd að tunglið. I talk about the fact that moon.the



brosir/*brosi/*skuli brosa. smiles.ind/*smiles.sbjv/*shall.sbjv smile



‘I talk about the fact that the moon smiles’.

Non-factives, taking subjunctives: (31) a.

Ég vona að tunglið. I hope that moon.the



brosi/*brosir/*skuli brosa. smiles.sbjv/*smiles.ind/*shall.sbjv smile



‘I hope the moon smiles.’

b. Það er líklegt að tunglið. it is likely that moon.the

brosi/*brosir/*skuli brosa. smiles.sbjv/*smiles.ind/*shall.sbjv smile



‘It is likely that the moon smiles.’

c.

Ég tala um þá hugmynd að tunglið. I talk about the idea that moon.the



brosi/*brosir/*skuli brosa. smiles.sbjv/*smiles.ind/*shall.sbjv smile



‘I am talking about the idea that the moon smiles.’

True-factives, taking skulu-subjunctives: (32) a.

Ég harma að tunglið. I regret that moon.the



skuli brosa/*brosi/?brosir.7 shall.sbjv smile/*smiles.sbjv/?smiles.ind



‘I regret that the moon smiles.’

b. Það er gaman að tunglið. skuli brosa/*brosi/?brosir. it is fun that moon.the shall.sbjv smile/*smiles.sbjv/?smiles.ind ‘It is fun that the moon smiles.’

.  True factives can be interpreted as taking a silent factive NP, like the fact, the silent NP in turn heading the complement clause: (i) a. I regret (the fact) that the moon smiles b. (The fact) that the moon smiles is fun. On a reading where a silent factive NP is semantically present, the complement may at least marginally be indicative (but the fact that this does not yield a perfectly grammatical result suggests that some kind of a grammaticalization of the mood selection has taken place).





Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

Even though factivity seems to be an important criterion for mood selection, it is ­evident from these facts that something more is involved. Thus, clausal arguments of true factives must take the form of a periphrastic skulu-subjunctive, in spite of always being factive. In the classification of predicates developed by Hooper (1975, see also Giorgi & Pianesi 1997: 196), true factives are non-assertive, whereas semi-factives are assertive. Given that distinction, we can state the following generalizations: (33) a. factive assertions usually require the indicative b. factive non-assertions usually require a skulu-subjunctive c. non-factives usually require a plain subjunctive – this includes clauses that pertain to another possible world (of desires, dreams, etc.), as in main clause optatives and in counterfactual conditionals

Valuation (by either the subject or the speaker) is the central factor that leads to non­factivity and/or non-assertion, thus triggering subjunctive marking, in accordance with (33b) and (33c). All these generalizations come close to holding true across the board, but there are also facts that are not easily accommodated by them, as we will now see. Most adverbial clauses are indicative, but three types of adverbial connectives usually require a subjunctive complement: (34) a. The negative conditional nema ‘unless, except’ b. Purposives like til að ‘in order to’, svo að ‘so that’, etc. c. Concessives like þó að ‘although’ (lit. ‘though that’), etc.

Both conditional and purposive connectives introduce clauses that pertain not to our real world but to another possible world, so they would be expected to be subjunctive, given the generalization in (33c). Unexpectedly, however, the positive conditional ef ‘if ’ usually requires the indicative, at least in the standard language (some speakers accept or prefer the subjunctive, but this is not indicated): (35) a.

Ég fer ekki þangað ef Ólafur er/*sé þar. I go not to_there if Olaf is.ind/*sbjv there ‘I am not going there if Olaf is there.’

b. Ég fer ekki þangað nema Ólafur sé/*er þar. I go not to_there unless Olaf is.sbjv/*ind there ‘I am not going there unless Olaf is there.’

Given the otherwise valid generalizations in (33), it is also unexpected that concessive connectives select the plain subjunctive, as illustrated in (36): (36) Ólafur er óánægður þó að tunglið Olaf is discontent though that moon.the brosi/*brosir/*skuli brosa. smiles.sbjv/*smiles.ind/*shall.sbjv smile ‘Olaf is discontent although the moon smiles.’



Mood in Icelandic

Concessive clauses are factive (as for instance seen by the fact that adding the statement ‘but it does not smile’ to (36) would lead to anomaly). They are arguably non-assertive, though. Given the generalization in (33b), one would thus expect them to have a skulusubjunctive, contrary to fact. Possibly, mood-selection is lexically “frozen” for certain elements, including concessives and conditional ef ‘if ’,8 the otherwise general mood selection processes thus being blocked. It seems likely, though, that something more is involved, but I will not pursue the issue further. Mood selection is not governed by lexical predicates in any straightforward manner. This is seen by the fact that it can be affected by a variety of factors, like tense, evidentiality, negation and person (of a matrix subject). Thus, for instance, factive vita ‘know’ usually takes only indicative complements in the present tense, (37), but in the past it may also take a subjunctive complement, (38b): (37) Jón veit að María kemur/*komi heim. John knows that Mary comes.ind/*sbjv home ‘John knows that Mary comes/will come home.’ (38) a.

Jón vissi að María kom heim. John knew that Mary came.ind home ‘John knew that Mary came home.’ (i.e. ‘John knew about the fact that Mary came home’)

b.

Jón vissi að María kæmi heim. John knew that Mary came.sbjv home ‘John knew that Mary would come home.’ (i.e. ‘John was confident that Mary would come home’)

In (38a), the speaker simply reports the past eventuality of John having known about Mary’s homecoming. In (38b), on the other hand, the speaker reports on John’s past state of mind, that is, on his past confidence that Mary comes home (usually in the future, relative to John’s moment of confidence). The latter phenomenon is known as (subject’s) point of view (see, e.g. Thráinsson 1976; Sigurðsson 1990). Like other factives the verb sjá ‘see’ normally takes only indicative complements, as in (39): (39) Ólafur sér að þú ert/*sért mikilvægur. Olaf sees that you are.ind/*sbjv important ‘Olaf sees/realizes (the fact) that you are important.’

.  Similarly as case-selection is “frozen” for many prepositions.





Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

When negated, however, sjá may also take a subjunctive complement, as illustrated in (40b): (40) a.

Ólafur sér ekki að þú ert mikilvægur. Olaf sees not that you are.ind important ‘Olaf does not see/realize (the fact) that you are important.’

b. Ólafur sér ekki að þú sért mikilvægur. Olaf sees not that you are.sbjv important ‘Olaf cannot see that you should be important.’

This extends to stage level factives like taka eftir ‘notice’ and átta sig á ‘realize’, as opposed to individual level factives like (present tense) vita ‘know’. By using the indicative, as for instance in (40a), the speaker is making a factive assertion about (what he or she considers to be) the real world: ‘(It is a fact in the real world that) you are important, but Olaf doesn’t see/realize it.’ Accordingly, first person matrix subjects are excluded in this context, as illustrated in (41a): (41) a. *Ég sé ekki að þú ert mikilvægur. I see not that you are.ind important b. Ég sé ekki að þú sért mikilvægur. I see not that you are.sbjv important ‘I cannot see that you should be important.’

By claiming that it is a fact that ‘you are important’, and by also claiming he or she does not realize this, the speaker inevitably contradicts himself or herself in (41a). No such contradiction arises in (41b), where the speaker does not take any responsibility for the truthfulness of the predication ‘you are important’. The speaker seems to always take truthfulness responsibility in indicatives (even when he or she is lying – false truthfulness responsibility is the essence of a lie). The moods have more or less the same distribution in subject clauses as in complement clauses. Accordingly, clausal subjects are indicative if the matrix predicate is factive, subjunctive if it is non-factive, and a skulu-subjunctive if the matrix predicate is a true factive: (42) a.

[Að jörðin er flöt] er staðreynd. that earth.the is.ind flat is fact ‘That the earth is flat is a fact.’

b. [Að jörðin sé flöt] er bara vitleysa. that earth.the is.sbjv flat is just nonsense ‘That the earth is flat is just nonsense.’ c.

[Að jörðin skuli vera flöt] er hörmulegt. that earth.the shall.sbjv be flat is deplorable ‘That the earth is flat is deplorable.’



Mood in Icelandic

The subject c-commands its predicate but not vice versa. This can be described as follows (where there is “room” for several head features in the CP-domain, in the spirit of Rizzi 1997; Sigurðsson 2004 and many others): (43)

CP … Op …

IP Subject

I′ I





PredP Pred

Object

As seen, the predicate c-commands its object, whereas the subject is not in its scope (this is also true, even if the subject is generated in Spec, Pred). Thus, it cannot be the case that the predicate controls or decides the mood of a subject clause under c-command, i.e. the mood must be decided in some different manner. As various other factors than predicates affect mood selection, as we have seen, the mood is not in fact decided by any single lexical item. Rather, it seems to be decided by a non-lexical feature that takes scope over all the elements involved, including both the subject and its predicate. The feature in question is evidently speaker truthfulness responsibility, indicated simply as Op(erator) in the CP-domain in (43). As seen, it takes scope over the subject as well as the predicate, yielding an Op-Subject-Predicate “chain”, where both the subject and the predicate must be compatible with the requirements of Op. In the more common case of a clausal object, the matrix Op scopes over its subject and its predicate, which in turn scopes over Op in the subordinate CP domain as well as over the subordinate subject and predicate, yielding an Op-Subject-Predicate-[CP Op-Subject-Predicate] “chain”. Given this understanding, it is not surprising that even the matrix subject has to be compatible with the subordinate clause mood, as shown in (41) above. Verbs of expression and thinking, such as say, maintain, write, think (verba dicendi, in a slightly extended sense) usually require a subjunctive complement, as illustrated in (44): (44) a. Ólafur fullyrðir að tunglið brosi/*brosir á laugardögum. Olaf maintains that moon.the smiles.sbjv/*ind on Saturdays b. Ólafur heldur að tunglið brosi/*brosir á laugardögum. Olaf thinks that moon.the smiles.sbjv/*ind on Saturdays.





Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

It follows that Icelandic always uses the subjunctive in indirect speech (as opposed to represented speech and thought, see Sigurðsson 1990). In this respect, Modern Icelandic differs from Romance languages, which commonly have indicative in verba dicendi complements (see, e.g. Giorgi & Pianesi 1997: 215), and also from Old Norse (Nygaard 1906: 284ff), which shows considerable mood optionality in complements of this sort. In Modern Icelandic, the most important factor that triggers subjunctive marking in these complements is that the speaker does not take responsibility for their truthfulness, whereas their actual truthfulness (according to the speaker) seems to be more important in Romance languages and to play a certain role in Old Norse too. In other words, the Modern Icelandic speaker makes the matrix subject responsible for the subordinate clause proposition, hence the subjunctive (with absent speaker truthfulness responsibility). However, if the matrix subject refers to the speaker himself/herself, then the speaker can take the truthfulness responsibility and the indicative is possible, as in (45): (45) Ég fullyrði að tunglið brosi/brosir á laugardögum. I maintain that moon.the smiles.sbjv/ind on Saturdays

By using the indicative the speaker asserts that the moon smiles on Saturdays (‘I hereby maintain that it is a fact that the moon smiles on Saturdays’), whereas he or she only tells about his or her claim to this effect when using the subjunctive.9 The domain of a subjunctive taking predicate or structure can extend across clause boundaries, a phenomenon known as the domino effect (Thráinsson 1976), yielding unbroken “chains” of subjunctives, as illustrated in (46b, c): (46) a. Sandra fer alltaf þegar Pétur kemur. Sandra leaves.ind always when Peter arrives.ind b. Hún segir að Sandra fari þegar Pétur komi. she says.ind that Sandra leaves.sbjv when Peter arrives.sbjv c.

Hún segir að þetta sé konan she says.ind that this is.sbjv woman.the



sem fari þegar Pétur komi. who leaves.sbjv when Peter arrives.sbjv

There are no distance limits to this effect, as illustrated in (47), where the square brackets indicate finite clause boundaries: (47) Mary says.ind [that this is.sbjv the woman [who always leaves.sbjv [when Peter arrives.sbjv [because she gets.sbjv angry by hearing him say to the neighbour [that he wishes.sbjv [that she move.sbjv [so that his sister can.sbjv get the apartment [in order for their mother be-able.sbjv to move in [so that she will.sbjv not have to live in the village [which is.sbjv a very dull place to live in, [because … etc., etc. .  The difference between these readings becomes clearer when an adverbial like often is added, in which case only the subjunctive is possible: I often maintain that the moon smiles.sbjv/ *ind on Saturdays. By adding often the speaker makes it clear that he or she is not making a statement for which he or she takes truthfulness responsibility “here and now”.



Mood in Icelandic

The whole passage reports or reflects the point of view of the matrix subject Mary. As soon as the speaker “interrupts” with his or her own truthfulness responsibility in an intervening clause, the “subjunctive spell” is broken. The fact that mood selection is based on the Speaker’s Truthfulness Responsibility and reflects a contrast between the speaker’s and the subject’s point of view shows that the “speaker” is an active category, not only in semantics but also in syntax (see Sigurðsson 2004; Bianchi 2006).

3.4  Tense interpretation in subordinate clauses Embedded indicatives are tense independent of their matrix clauses. This is illustrated in (48)–(49): (48) a.

Ólafur veit að María er/var hérna. Olaf knows that Mary is/was.ind here

b. Ólafur veit að María hefur/hafði verið hérna. Olaf knows that Mary has/had.ind been here (49) a.

Ólafur vissi að María er/var hérna. Olaf knew that Mary is/was.ind here

b. Ólafur vissi að María hefur/hafði verið hérna. Olaf knew that Mary has/had.ind been here

There are some caveats here that I will not discuss (most importantly, semantic properties of many matrix predicates (aspect/aktionsart, etc.) limit the tense freedom in the subordinate clause). When the matrix clause and the subordinate indicative clause have the same tense, as in Olaf knew that Mary was here, the unmarked reading of the embedded indicative is simultaneous with the matrix tense. However, a shifted reading is also possible and can be forced, as in (50) (see Enç 1987, among many): (50) Í morgun uppgötvaði Ólafur að María fór í gær. in morning discovered Olaf that Mary went.ind in yesterday ‘This morning Olaf discovered that Mary went/left yesterday.’

Thus, embedded indicatives are basically tense independent of their matrix clauses. Embedded subjunctives, in contrast, are tense dependent (see also Landau 2004: 819ff). Consider (51): (51) Ólafur hélt að María færi. Olaf thought that Mary went.sbjv ‘Olaf thought that Mary was going/would go.’

Crucially, the preterite subjunctive cannot have a past reading, i.e. (51) cannot mean that Mary left before the moment of Olaf ’s thinking (whereas the indicative in (50) does mean





Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

that Mary left before Olaf ’s discovery). That is, the temporal reading of embedded preterite subjunctives is not +past but –past with respect to the past event time (of Olaf ’s thinking) in the matrix clause, hence its simultaneous and/or future interpretation, seen in the English translation. This is further evidenced by the contrast in (52): (52) a.

Í morgun hélt Ólafur að María færi í_kvöld. in morning thought Olaf that Mary went.sbjv tonight ‘This morning Olaf believed that Mary would go tonight.’

b. *Í morgun hélt Ólafur að María færi í gær. in morning thought Olaf that Mary went.sbjv in yesterday Intended: ‘*This morning Olaf believed that Mary would go yesterday.’

Subjunctives, past and present, share their basic –past reading with the simple present tense in indicatives and with infinitives. Thus, some matrix predicates that require a nonindicative complement clause can select either a subjunctive or an infinitive clause, as illustrated in (53) (where future reading of the –past complement is the natural one, due to the semantics of the matrix predicate):10 (53) a. Ólafur vonaðist til að hann ynni leikinn. Olaf hoped for that he won.sbjv game.the ‘Olaf hoped that he would win the game.’ b. Ólafur vonaðist til að vinna leikinn. Olaf hoped for to win.inf game.the ‘Olaf hoped to win the game.’

Icelandic adheres rather strictly to tense agreement in subjunctive argument clauses (see Anderson 1986; Sigurðsson 1990): (54) tense agreement (sequence of tense, see below): An embedded subjunctive clause copies a tense value from its matrix clause.

This is illustrated in (55): (55) a.

Ólafur heldur að María fari/*færi. Olaf thinks that Mary goes.pres.sbjv/*pst.sbjv

b. Ólafur hélt að María færi/*fari. Olaf thought that Mary went.pst.sbjv/*pres.sbjv ‘Olaf thought that Mary was going/would go.’

There are however also cases where the temporal value copied is not simultaneous with the reference time (i.e. the morphological tense) of the matrix clause but only with its event time (cf. Sigurðsson 1990: 315f), as in (56):

.  However, there are also cases where the matrix predicate must opt for either a subjunctive or an indicative complement.



(56) a.

Mood in Icelandic

Ólafur hefur líklega haldið að María fari. Olaf has probably thought that Mary go.pres.sbjv ‘Olaf (has) probably thought that Mary goes/will go.’

b. Ólafur hefur líklega haldið að María færi. Olaf has probably thought that Mary went.pst.sbjv ‘Olaf (has) probably thought that Mary goes/would go.’

Both the present and the past subjunctives have the usual –past reading of embedded subjunctives. In (56a), Mary’s going is –past relative to the present reference time of the matrix clause, expressed by hefur ‘has’, but in (56b), it is –past relative to the past event time of Olaf ’s thinking, expressed by the past participle haldið ‘thought’. Much as in infinitives, the only way to express a true, shifted past tense in an embedded subjunctive is to use the perfect, as in (57b): (57) a.

Anna sagði að Eiríkur talaði á fundinum. Anna said that Eric spoke.sbjv at meeting.the ‘Anna said that Eric was speaking/would speak at the meeting.’

b. Anna sagði að Eiríkur hefði talað á fundinum. Anna said that Eric had.sbjv spoken at meeting.the ‘Anna said that Eric spoke/had spoken at the meeting.’

Embedded clauses have a conceived speech time (sometimes referred to as perspective time, cf. Kiparsky 2002). Tense dependent clauses set their conceived speech time as simultaneous with either the event time or (more commonly) the reference time in a superordinate clause. This is sketched for (57a) in (58), where the conceived embedded speech time, S2, has been set simultaneous with the past event and reference time of the matrix clause, E1/R1: (58) spoke E that said A E2 ≤ R2 = S2 = E1 = R1 > –past unshifted unshifted unshifted +past

(speaker now) S1

As a result, Eiríkur’s speaking has a –past reading with respect to Anna’s past saying. The preterite form talaði arises by (uninterpretable) agreement in post-syntactic morphology, where the subordinate verb copies morphological preterite from the matrix verb. This is the essence of the widely discussed sequence of tense phenomenon, SOT (pace Enç 1987). Most embedded indicatives, in contrast, set their conceived speech time as simultaneous with the basic speaker now, independently of their matrix clause, thus not showing any sequence of tense phenomena. Non-SOT languages like Japanese and Hebrew (Ogihara 1996; Sharvit 2003), and split SOT languages like Russian (Comrie 1986, etc.), do not apply Tense Agreement in argument clauses like the one in (57a), instead using the simple present tense, type /Anna said that Eiríkur speaks.pres.ind at the meeting/. The tense interpretation of such clauses is however the same as in subjunctives like (57a). These languages simply lack formal (uninterpretable) Tense Agreement in argument clauses of this sort.





Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

In (43) above, it was suggested that the CP-domain of the clause may contain one or more silent operators. Speaker Truthfulness Responsibility seems to be one of these operators, controlling mood selection. Speech time, real or conceived, is another important CP operator or feature, evidently bound by the Speaker Truthfulness Responsibility operator.

4.  Conclusion In this chapter, I have described and analyzed the Icelandic mood system in relation to the verbal system in general, in particular its tense properties. Section 2 describes the nonsubjunctive parts of the verbal system, including an overview of the verbal categories (2.1) and of the finite verb inflection (2.2), a brief description of the auxiliary system (2.3) and of imperatives (2.4), a discussion of participles and infinitives (2.5), and an analysis of the indicative tense system (2.6). Section 3 discusses the major aspects of the subjunctive mood, that is, its morphology (3.1), subjunctives in main clauses (3.2), the use and the meaning of the subjunctive in embedded clauses (3.3), and tense interpretation in subordinate clauses (3.4). A fundamental difference between subjunctives and most indicatives is that subjunctive clauses are tense dependent in the sense that their event time does not relate to the “real” speech time, S, but to a conceived speech time (sometimes referred to as perspective time). Thus, by lacking finite tense linking to S (much like infinitives), subjunctives lack the twofold tense system sketched for indicatives in (18). In embedded subjunctives, the conceived speech time is set as being simultaneous with either the event time or (more commonly) the reference time in the immediate matrix clause. In main clause subjunctives the conceived speech time is understood to be simultaneous with a hypothetical eventuality, defined in (a spelled out or a silent) conditional clause. Hence, “past” subjunctives do not have a past event time but a non-past conceived speech time (and reference time, which in subjunctives is set as simultaneous with the conceived speech time). The semantic primitive that controls both mood selection and speech time setting in Icelandic is the Speaker’s Truthfulness Responsibility. Clauses that are the Speaker’s Truthfulness Responsibility are typically indicative, with an independent speaker anchored speech time. Clauses that are not the Speaker’s Truthfulness Responsibility are most commonly subjunctive (or infinitive), with a conceived speech time that is not the speaker’s. It is thus evident that the speaker is an active category, not only in semantics but also in syntax.11

.  That is, “the speaker” in the logophoric agent sense, defined in Sigurðsson (2004).



Mood in Icelandic

References Anderson, S.R. 1986. The typology of anaphoric dependencies: Icelandic (and other) reflexives. In Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, L. Hellan & K.K. Christensen (eds), 65–88, Dordrecht: Reidel. Bianchi, V. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116: 2023–2067. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Comrie, B. 1986. Tense in indirect speech. Folia Linguistica 20: 265–296. Enç, M. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–657. Giorgi, A. & Pianesi, F. 1997. Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP. Hooper, J.B. 1975. On assertive predicates. In Syntax and Semantics 4, J.P. Kimball (ed.), 91–124. New York NY: Academic Press. Jónsson, J.G. 1992. The two perfects of Icelandic. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 14: 129–145. Julien, M. 2001. The syntax of complex tenses. The Linguistic Review 18: 125–167. Kiparsky, P. 2002. Event structure and the perfect. In The Construction of Meaning, D.I Beaver, L.D. Casillas Martínez, B.Z. Clark & S. Kaufmann (eds), 113–136. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. 1970. Fact. In Progress in Linguistics, M. Bierwisch & K. Heidolph (eds), 143–173. The Hague: Mouton. Landau, I. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811- 877. Nygaard, M. 1906. Norrøn Syntax. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co (W. Nygaard). Ogihara, T. 1996. Tense, Attitudes, and Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York NY: Macmillan Co. Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rothstein, B. 2006. Remarks on the inferential present perfect in Mainland Scandinavian. In New Voices in Linguistics, E.T. Vold, G.I. Lyse & A. Müller Gjesdal (eds), 43–56. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Sharvit, Y. 2003. Embedded tense and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 669–681. Sigurðsson, H.Á. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University. (Republished in 1992. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics.). Sigurðsson, H.Á. 1990. Long distance reflexives and moods in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax, J. Maling & A. Zaenen (eds), 309–346. San Diego CA: Academic Press. Sigurðsson, H.Á. 2001. Inflectional features and clausal structure. In Nordic and Baltic Morphology, J. Niemi & J. Heikkinen (eds) [Studies in Languages 36], 99–111. Joensuu: University of Joensuu. Sigurðsson, H.Á. 2004. The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219–251. Sigurðsson, H.Á. 2008. Tense(s). Ms, Lund University. Stowell, T. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561–570. Thráinsson, H. 1976. Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. NELS 6: 225–239. Thráinsson, H. 1990. A semantic reflexive in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax, J. Maling & A. Zaenen (eds), 289–307. San Diego CA: Academic Press. Thráinsson, H. 2005. Íslensk tunga III: Setningar [Icelandic Language III: Clauses]. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið. Thráinsson, H. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: CUP. Wide, C. 2002. Perfect in Dialogue. Form and Function of the vera búinn að + inf. Construction in Contemporary Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki.



Mood in Norwegian Kristin Melum Eide Trondheim

1.  Introduction Norwegian is a Germanic language spoken by some 4.7 million people at the Western edge of the Scandinavian Peninsula. The common ancestor of the Scandinavian languages split into a West Scandinavian and an East Scandinavian branch; Old Norwegian was in the Western branch, together with the insular Scandinavian languages Old Faroese and Old Icelandic. Due to close contact with and strong influence from the languages that developed from Old East Scandinavian, Norwegian eventually became similar to them. Today, it is a lot more similar to its Mainland Scandinavian neighbours Swedish and Danish than to its genetically closer relatives of insular Scandinavia. Norwegian is one of a few languages with two officially recognized literary varieties, Nynorsk ‘New Norwegian’ and Bokmål ‘Book language’. These names are “misnomers resulting from political conflict and compromise” (Haugen 1987: 147) since both standards are written and Bokmål (BM) is in fact historically more recent than Nynorsk (NN). Nynorsk is currently the preferred written standard for approximately 17% of Norwegians, and official media are supposed to broadcast at least 25% of their programs in Nynorsk. All official documents are supposed to exist in both written standards. To complicate the official linguistic landscape, compared to other language communities Norwegian non-standard dialects have high status. Everyone is supposed to be allowed to speak their native dialect, even public personalities such as television or radio presenters, teachers or university professors. In fact, shedding your own dialect and adopting a standard-like dialect is sometimes seen as a lack of authenticity and a character flaw (Sollid 2007). Norwegians are well adept at coping with the many different language varieties; however, the second language learner of Norwegian faces an almost impossible task, if the ultimate goal is to understand a conversation between two randomly chosen Norwegians.

2.  Verbal categories in Norwegian Norwegian has strong, irregular verbs (with Ablaut) and weak, regular verbs (with the dental suffixes -de, -te, -dde, -et or the ending-a). The regular verbs are the productive group, and each type has a number of subclasses, with a variety of forms within these classes.



Mood in Norwegian

Norwegian has two main types of passive: a periphrastic passive with the auxiliary verte (NN), bli ‘become’ plus the past (“passive”) participle and an s-passive, where the -s (and in NN -st) is a reflexive-like ending stemming from the reduction of the reflexive argument sik ‘oneself ’ in Old Norse; modern Norwegian seg.1 In addition to being used as a passive, the s-form has a range of other uses: reflexive (skilles ‘separate oneself ’), reciprocal (møtes ‘meet each other’), and inchoative (modnes ‘ripen’). The s-passive usually occurs only in the infinitive and the present tense; even then, its domain is more restricted than that of the periphrastic passive with bli. Nynorsk employs the s-passive almost exclusively in the infinitive as the complement of a modal. Bokmål also has restrictions on the s-passive, but they are hard to formulate (Faarlund, Lie & Vannebo 1997: 513). The periphrastic passive, on the other hand, exists in all tenses. For many speakers, the s-passive sounds more generic, scheduled and modal-like than the periphrastic passive, which sounds more eventive. In a construction like Denne bilen [blir nok solgt]/ [selges nok] med god fortjeneste ‘This car will probably be sold/sell with a nice profit,’ the s-passive is acceptable if one is talking about a car to be sold over and over; the periphrastic passive is more felicitous if there is a specific car and a single sale. Both passives may occur with an expletive (impersonal passive) or a full lexical noun phrase subject (personal passive). The noun phrase is sometimes the ‘logical’ direct object, sometimes the indirect object, and sometimes the object of a preposition (“pseudopassive”). (1) a.

Det selges/ blir solgt billetter ved inngangen. There sell.pass/ are sold tickets at entrance.def ‘Tickets are sold at the entrance.’

b. En premie ble tildelt henne for innsatsen. a price was awarded her for effort.def ‘She was awarded a prize for her efforts.’ c.

Hun ble tildelt en pris for innsatsen. she was awarded a prize for effort.def ‘She was awarded a prize for her efforts.’

d. Forslaget ble ledd av. suggestion.def became laughed of ‘One laughed at this suggestion.’

The two main types of auxiliaries are temporal auxiliaries and modals. The temporal auxiliaries are være ‘be’, bli ‘become’, ha ‘have’ and få ‘get’. These auxiliaries take a past participle as their complement and are used to express complex tenses and passives; i.e. the pas-

.  The periphrastic passive in Nynorsk employs the auxiliaries verte ‘become’ or bli ‘become’ and the past participle. This participle agrees with the subject in gender and number. A system with no agreement marking of the past participle is also possible; in that case, the past participle shows up in the neuter form (the supine).





Kristin Melum Eide

sive auxiliaries are regularly considered among the temporal auxiliaries (e.g. Åfarli & Eide 2003: 133). In many contexts, these constructions are ambiguous between a true passive reading and a temporal reading of the same construction; this is especially so for være and bli, and sometimes also with få. (2) a.

Boka er hyppig kritisert. Book.def is frequently criticized ‘The book is often criticized./The book has often been criticized.’

b. Boka blir kritisert (i morgen). book.def becomes criticized tomorrow ‘The book is criticized./The book will be criticized tomorrow.’ c.

Han fikk ødelagt bilen sin. he go destroyed car.def refl.poss ‘He managed to destroy his car./He got his car destroyed.’

The modals take bare infinitives and (seemingly adverbial) directional phrases as complements, and in counterfactual contexts the past participle shows up as the complement of a modal in the preterite form (cf. the discussion in Sections 4.4 and 4.5). (3) a.

Jon vil legge seg. John wants lie refl ‘John wants to go to bed.’

b. Jon vil hjem/ til flyplassen. John wants home/ to airport.def ‘John wants to go home/to the airport.’ c.

Jon ville vært en bedre vert. John would been a better host ‘John would have been a better host.’

There are no aspectual auxiliaries per se, as temporal auxiliaries are used to express voice distinctions and complex tenses, but seemingly not actual aspect. Instead, aspects like ingressive or progressive are expressed by means of compounds such as være i ferd med å ‘be in the process of ’. Progressives in Norwegian are commonly expressed by means of a pseudo-coordinated structure, i.e. the postural verb construction: ligge og sove lit. ‘lie and sleep’, ‘be sleeping’, stå og rope lit. ‘stand and shout’, ‘be shouting’ or sitte og skrive lit. ‘sit and write’, ‘be writing’. There is also a pseudo-coordinated structure with ta ‘take’, providing the event with a perfective (and agentive, intentional) reading; Han tok og ødela den lit. ‘he took and broke it’; ‘he broke it completely (on purpose)’. A construction with være ‘be’ also belongs here: Hun er og fisker lit. ‘she is and fishes’; ‘she has gone fishing’. Through auxiliaries and postural verb constructions, Norwegian can express the full range of aspects and complex tenses. Present and past perfect are expressed through a combination of the present or past form of the auxiliary ha ‘have’ and a past participle (with motion verbs the perfect auxiliary være ‘be’ is also possible, though many speakers



Mood in Norwegian

find it archaic). Modals often substitute for the morphologically lacking future tense; they have root (dynamic and deontic) and non-root (epistemic and evidential) readings. The Norwegian paradigm for morphologically encoded tense consists of finite and non-finite forms in a past/non-past distinction (Eide 2005); exemplified in the following table with strong verbs and weak verbs. Table 1.  Norwegian tense forms

+Past

+Finite

–Finite

preterite

past participle

Strong Verb sang ‘sang’ –Past

Weak Verb likte ‘liked’

Strong Verb sunget ‘sung’

present Strong Verb synger ‘sing(s)’

Weak Verb likt ‘liked’ infinitive

Weak Verb liker ‘like(s)’

Strong Verb synge ‘sing’

Weak Verb like ‘like’

None of these tensed forms are morphologically marked for person, number, mood or aspect. In other languages, the distinction between finite and non-finite forms often corresponds to that of forms inflected and uninflected for person; this does not apply to Norwegian. Also, the finite and, crucially, non-finite forms show tense distinctions; hence, the finiteness distinction is not manifested through the presence of tense markers. Instead, the Norwegian finiteness distinction separates absolute tense forms from relative ones. The non-finite, or relative, tenses encode a temporal reference relative to a governing verb (usually the preceding verb); the finite, or absolute, tenses typically encode a temporal reference relative to the moment of speech.2 This entails that the finite forms may constitute the leftmost, hierarchically topmost, or the only verb in an independent utterance; the non-finite forms are nearly always the complement of a governing verb.3 In addition to the forms in Table 1, there is an imperative, usually considered a finite form, the relics of a subjunctive form that is also finite but no longer productive, and a present participle with the -ende (BM) or -ande (NN) ending. This participle is mostly considered adjectival; cf. e.g. Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo (1997: 468).

.  In so-called Sequence-of-Tenses contexts, even finite tense forms may encode a relative temporal reference, relative to a verb of reporting, thinking or believing. .  Exceptions exist, such as Jeg ikke drikke øl på en fredag? Lite sannsynlig. ‘I (NOM) [me] not drink beer on a Friday? Not very likely.’





Kristin Melum Eide

3.  Mood categories in Norwegian Contemporary Norwegian has almost no morphologically encoded mood distinctions; only the indicative form signalled by the finite forms in Table 1 and a special imperative form can be considered productive moods. In addition, there are relics of an old subjunctive, but they are no longer productive – they are used mostly in idioms, hymns and curses. Otherwise, the tense forms of Table 1, particles, lexical verbs and the modals perform the functions usually encoded by the subjunctive in other languages (cf. Section 4).

3.1  Imperative The Norwegian imperative is usually identical to the stem, i.e. it mostly equals the infinitive minus the -e (or -a) ending; in cases where this strategy would yield phonologically ill-formed results, the imperative is usually identical to the infinitive.4 Table 2.  Infinitives and imperatives Infinitive

Imperative

Gloss

elske leve illustrére ta klatre

elsk lev illustrér ta klatre

‘love’ ‘live’ ‘illustrate’ ‘take’ ‘climb’

Old Norse had three forms for the imperative: 1st person plural, 2nd person singular and 2nd person plural, as illustrated by the examples in (4) from Haugen (1998: 277–8). (4) a.

Stondum upp ok gongum vestr yfir ána. stand.imp.1pl up and go.imp.1pl west over river.acc ‘Let us get up and go west across the river.’

b. Haf Þú Þat sem ek hefi haft áðr. have.imp.2sg you.sg that what I have had before ‘You (go ahead and) take what I have had before.’ c.

Gangið Þér Þannig í nátt sem skip bónda eru. go.imp.2pl you.pl there in night that ship farmers.gen are ‘Tonight, you (go ahead and) go where the farmer’s ships are.’

The 1st person plural imperative no longer exists in contemporary Norwegian. The 2nd person plural imperative forms were identical to the corresponding indicative (and

.  A phonologically ill-formed result may be, for instance, when removing the infinitival ending would yield a coda cluster with rising sonority as in åpne → *.åpn. ‘open’, klatre → *.klatr. ‘climb’; cf. Rice (2003).



Mood in Norwegian

s­ ubjunctive) present form except in a few verbs (e.g vera ‘be’): also, this plural imperative often occurred with an overtly realized subject (Haugen 1998: 278). These facts ought to imply that the 2nd person plural imperative would easily be reanalysed as a 2nd person plural present and hence destined for oblivion. Thus, it may seem rather surprising that a distinction is maintained in Nynorsk, “at least in principle” (Askedal 1994: 238), between the 2nd person singular imperative and the 2nd person plural imperative. Whereas the 2nd person singular imperative usually consists simply of the verbal stem (cf. above), the plural imperative obligatorily has the ending -e; cf. e.g. the NN imperative singular køyr, gut ‘drive, boy’ versus the imperative plural køyre, gutar ‘drive, boys’. We can also find relics of the plural imperative in hymns written in the Bokmål standard (or rather its ancient predecessor). (5) Kimer, I klokker! Ja, kimer før dag i det dunkle! Chime.imp.pl you bells yes chime.imp.pl before day in the dark ‘Chime, you bells, chime before daylight in the dark.’

The Norwegian imperative does not show morphologically encoded tense distinctions. It is a widespread assumption that it signifies a type of future, but this is likely a consequence of the fact that imperatives always signify future non-realized situations or events, a trait not necessarily connected to the semantic make-up of imperative morphology. The imperative form encodes commands or requests, and it is usually not felicitous to give a command or a request to bring about a situation already existing at the moment of speech (cf. Lyons 1977: 843).5 It is likewise not felicitous to give orders or requests to perform actions in the past.

3.2  Subjunctive In Old Norse, the subjunctive was quite productive and it is used frequently in the old saga texts. Haugen (1998: 274 ff) reports that there were two types of subjunctive: present and preterite. These two morphologically distinct subjunctives split the domain of subjunctive meanings roughly in half: the present subjunctive expressed optative meanings (desires, wants, wishes, demands) and the preterite subjunctive usually expressed more hypothetical or potential meanings. In matrix clauses, the preterite subjunctive most frequently occurred in combination with modals and copulas. In clauses embedded under verbs of saying or believing, the subjunctive expressed the speaker’s lack of commitment regarding

.  It is possible to say to an already leaving person: Sure, go ahead, just leave me. However, the present situation is simply not relevant for the imperative or other future-projecting categories, like e.g. deontic modals. Say there is a sign on the door saying This door must always be firmly closed. This obligation holds irrespective of whether the door is presently closed or not. Likewise, the optative reading of the present subjunctive as in Leve kongen ‘Live.SBJV king.DEF; Long live the king’ refers to the speaker’s wish of the king’s future health and well-being, irrespective of his present health or well-being. The same is true for an imperative; the imperative force is relevant for future situations, not for the present situation.





Kristin Melum Eide

the truth of the embedded proposition; the same was the case in quotative contexts and in the reporting of counterfactual situations such as dreams. Restrictive relative clauses and adverbial conditional clauses also occurred with subjunctive morphology. These functions are expressed in contemporary Norwegian by various means, including the two modals skulle ‘should’ and måtte ‘must’; these functions, in fact, constitute one specialized domain for the two modals (cf. Section 4.4). What we refer to as the subjunctive in modern Norwegian is a descendant of the old Indo-European optative (cf. Næs 1972:  267). This mood marking is found almost exclusively in greetings, hymns, proverbs, and curses.6 In Bokmål, this subjunctive is formally identical to the infinitive. In Nynorsk, the infinitive can also have an -a ending while the (albeit rather archaic) subjunctive always has an -e ending, regardless of the ending of the corresponding infinitive; thus the formal difference in contexts such as the following hymn: (6) Gud signe vårt dyre fedreland God bless.sbjv our precious father.country Og lat det som hagen bløma. And let it like garden.def blossom.inf ‘God bless our precious native country and let it blossom like a garden.’

This subjunctive yields only optative readings (desires, wishes, commands) and expresses future unrealized situations, like the imperative. Contemporary Norwegian shows no significant traces of the old preterite subjunctive, according to Næs (1972: 266). Potential voice restrictions on the subjunctive are not addressed in the traditional descriptive overviews. However, it seems that there may be no such restrictions as there are proverbs in the passive with what is clearly a subjunctive/optative reading. In these rare contexts, the subjunctive passive form is identical to the infinitival indicative passive form. (7) Æres den som æres bør! honor.pass.sbjv the.one who honor.pass.inf should ‘The credit should be given to the one who deserves it.’

4.  Substituting for the non-indicative moods Morphological distinctions marking non-indicative moods are scarce in modern Norwegian while the communicative needs to express mood-like functions arguably remain unchanged; therefore, this morphological loss must be levelled out somehow. The indicative tenses, the modals, the particles mon, tro/tru ‘I wonder’, the adverb kanskje ‘maybe’, and certain light

.  According to Julien (2003:  150, 156), certain Norwegian dialects have maintained distinct finite mood forms productive even in other contexts, such as counterfactuals.



Mood in Norwegian

verbs such as la ‘let’ extend their semantic and communicative functions as they take on the role of morphologically encoded subjunctives or imperatives.

4.1  The light verb la The light verb la ‘let’ in modern Norwegian has a variety of functions; in (8b) it substitutes for the Old Norse 1st person plural imperative (8a). (8) a. Sjám fyrst! see.imp.1pl first ‘Let us see first.’ b. La oss se først. let us see first ‘Let us see first.’

Likewise, in the 1978 version of The Lord’s Prayer, the same light verb la (9b) substitutes for the old subjunctive (optative) verbs in the 1930 version of the same prayer (9a). (9) a.

Helliget vorde ditt navn; komme ditt rike. holy be.sbjv your name; come.sbjv your kingdom ‘Holy be Thy name; Thy kingdom come.’

b. La ditt navn holdes hellig. La ditt rike komme. Let your name keep.pass holy. Let your kingdom come ‘Let your name remain holy. Let your kingdom come.’

4.2  Kanskje, mon and tro/tru The modal particles mon ‘I wonder’, tro (BM)/ tru (NN) ‘I wonder’, and kanskje ‘maybe’ are sometimes mentioned as substitutes for morphological mood. Faarlund et al. (1997: 945) describe the particles mon, tru as mood (interrogative) particles. For the adverb kanskje, cf. Vikner (1995: 45) and the references there. Mon is a reduced form of the Old Norse modal munu ‘may’, kanskje is a compound consisting in the modal kan ‘may’ and the verb skje ‘happen’. Tro/tru in other contexts is simply a verb meaning ‘believe’. A peculiar trait of these particles is that they may give rise to exceptional non-V2 word order in main clauses; the data in (10a) and (10b) are from Faarlund et al. (1997: 946). (10) a.

Kven tru som har gjort dette? (NN) who tru that have done this ‘Who did this, I wonder?’

b. Hvem mon har vært her før oss? (BM) who mon have been here before us? ‘Who have been here before us, I wonder?’ c.

Kanskje Ola kommer også? (BM) maybe Ollie comes too? ‘Maybe Ollie comes too?’





Kristin Melum Eide

4.3  Tenses In many languages, the subjunctive is obligatory in complement clauses of directive and comissive verbs (persuade, order, promise, etc.). Temporally, these subjunctives must be construed as future relative to the governing verb, and usually the event encoded in the subjunctive verb must be unrealized at the evaluation time of the governing verb. These are all semantic properties that apply to infinitives in contemporary Norwegian. It is not uncommon for the infinitive to take on the function of a subjunctive, and the reverse is also documented: in Balkan languages, the subjunctive form has taken over for the infinitive in most domains of clausal complementation (cf. Landau 2004: 820). Verbs that select for ‘future, unrealized’ complements, such as directive verbs, regularly take infinitival complements in Norwegian. In addition to the ‘future, unrealized’ reading, the infinitive may also yield a ‘present, realised’ reading. Both readings are relative to the evaluation time of the selecting verb, and the selecting verb determines to a large extent which reading the infinitive gets. Future-projecting verbs such as comissives and directives trigger the ‘future, unrealized’ reading of the infinitival complement; epistemic and perception verbs trigger the ‘present, realized’ reading; cf. (11). (11) a.

De lot henne svømme. they let her swim ‘They let her swim.’

b. De så henne svømme. they saw her swim ‘They saw her swim.’

These two readings are naturally present in the infinitive, a relative non-past form (cf. Table 1). The present is the corresponding finite form, and, like the infinitive, it has two readings: ‘present, realized’ and ‘future, unrealized’. However, the present is an absolute tense; hence, the readings are relative to the moment of speech, not an embedding verb. (12) a.

Hun kommer i morgen. she arrive.prs in morning ‘She will arrive tomorrow.’

b. Hun kommer nå. she arrive.prs now ‘She is arriving now.’

Many languages use an irrealis form, not a future tense, to encode future events (cf. Comrie 1985: 43 ff), and it is not uncommon to assume that future-denoting tenses always have a mood-like quality. If so, in modern Norwegian this quality is expressed via the present tense as well as by means of modals (cf. Section 4.4). Cross-linguistically, the preterite is frequently used for modal purposes. Langacker (1978: 855) dubs such forms distal, i.e. forms covering both past tense and unreality. In



Mood in Norwegian

Norwegian, the preterite may very well signify counterfactuality; admittedly not in isolation, but in specific contexts, as in conditionals. These conditionals may be verb-first structures or subordinate clauses headed by a conditional complementizer. (13) a.

Var jeg deg, ville jeg kjøpe den. be.pret I you, would I buy it ‘If I were you, I would buy it.’

b. Hvis jeg var deg, ville jeg kjøpe den. if I be.pret you, would I buy it ‘If I were you, I would buy it.’

Many speakers find this use of the preterite with main verbs somewhat archaic and prefer the past perfect if the finite verb of the counterfactual is not a modal (for the latter case, cf. Section 4.4). Thus, to most younger speakers, (14) sounds better than (13). (14) a.

Hadde jeg vært deg, ville jeg (ha) kjøpt den. Had I been you, would I (have) bought it ‘If I were you, I would have bought it.’

b. Hvis jeg hadde vært deg, ville jeg (ha) kjøpt den. If I had been you, would I (have) bought it. ‘If I were you, I would have bought it.’

In non-standard dialects in the Northern and Western parts of Norway, the present perfect may be used in counterfactuals instead of the past perfect, as in (14). This phenomenon is not well studied, although it is mentioned in several works (Iversen 1918 a.o.); it is clearly a dialectal phenomenon. The past perfect is also used in quotatives to signify that the speaker is unwilling to guarantee the truth of the reported proposition, as in (15) from Fretheim (1977). (15) a.

Ser du noe til Johan for tiden? see you something to Johan for time.def ‘Do you see anything of Johan these days?’

b. Han var faktisk i begravelsen til Oscar. he was in.fact in funeral.def of Oscar ‘In fact, he was present at Oscar’s funeral.’ c.

Han hadde faktisk vært i begravelsen til Oscar. he had in.fact been in funeral.def of Oscar ‘In fact, he had been present in Oscar’s funeral.’

If speaker A utters (15a), and speaker B replies with (15b), speaker A has reason to believe that B (or someone else that B considers trustworthy) was himself present at Oscar’s funeral and observed Johan there. If, however, speaker B replies with (15c), A should draw the conclusion that B was not himself present at Oscar’s funeral (or at least didn’t observe





Kristin Melum Eide

Johan there), but heard from someone else about Johan’s presence. Another example from Fretheim (1977: 55) is (16). (16) Da hun kom inn igjen, hadde jeg slått henne. as she came in again, had I beaten her ‘As she reentered, I had beaten her.’

On a regular, strictly temporal construction, the beating took place before the reentering. However, the quotative reading of the past perfect allows for a construction where the beating happened after the reentering – when the speaker signifies that he has no recollection of the beating event, but someone else has informed him of it. Again, the past perfect signifies lack of commitment to the truth of the proposition denoting the beating event. The past participle also functions as an irrealis infinitive in some contexts. This is an intriguing phenomenon to which we will devote a separate section (cf. 4.5).

4.4  Modals In most European languages, a morphologically encoded imperative cannot be embedded. In English, the infinitive replaces the imperative (He said: go! → He told us to go); in Norwegian, modals substitute for the imperative form in embedded contexts. The choice of modal depends on whether the imperative was used to issue a permission or a command: kunne ‘may’ versus måtte ‘must’ or skulle ‘should’, respectively. (17) a.

Hun sa: bare gå! she said: just go ‘She said: just leave!’

b. Hun sa at vi kunne/måtte/skulle gå. she said that we could/must.pret/should go ‘She told us to leave.’

In languages with productive mood morphology, such as German, a subjunctive can be used as a quotative even in a main clause (Er sei krank ‘He is supposed to be sick’). In contemporary Norwegian, this function is performed by the modal skulle, which has this evidential-quotative function as one of its main functions. Newspaper articles abound in skulle as this is an economical way of expressing ‘according to the accessible information, this is the case, but it remains to be officially confirmed’. Moreover, this is an alternative way of expressing lack of recollection and commitment to the truth; compare (18b) to (16). (18) a.

Kvinnen skal ha vært alene om ugjerningen. woman.def shall have been alone on misdeed.def ‘The woman is supposed to have committed the crime alone.’



Mood in Norwegian

b. Da hun kom inn igjen, skal jeg ha slått henne. as she came in again, shall I have beaten her ‘As she reentered, I am supposed to have beaten her.’

The modal ville encodes ‘prediction’ on its non-root reading (Dette vil bli et problem ‘This will become a problem’). Thus, this modal (and to some extent the possibility modal kunne ‘can’) also performs the ‘future tense + irrealis modality’ function expressed by irrealis morphology in many languages. Since all root modals are directive, hence future-projecting, they induce this ‘future, unrealized’ reading in their infinitival complement. In addition, the modal skulle has a specific subjunctive-like use in finite clauses selected by verbs of wanting and requesting (e.g. ville ‘want’, ønske ‘wish’, forlange ‘demand’). In these complement clauses, the modal skulle functions similarly to the subjunctive marking in other languages. (19) De vil/ ønsker/ forlanger at vi skal gå. they want/ wish/ demand that we shall leave ‘They want/would like/require us to leave.’

As mentioned in Section 3.2, restrictive relative clauses and conditional adverbial clauses were domains of the preterite subjunctive in Old Norse. These two domains have been shouldered by the two modals måtte ‘must’ and skulle ‘should’ in modern Norwegian. The reading of the modal måtte in these cases is very different from its root or non-root reading in any other context. Everywhere else, måtte has a reading of obligation or necessity. Only in this context does it get the reading ‘might’ (Eide 2005: 44). Skulle, on the other hand, acts as a subjunctive marker in other contexts beside adverbial conditionals (cf. e.g. (19)). However, in these contexts, skulle and måtte are mutually exclusive; måtte is ungrammatical in adverbial conditionals, and skulle is ungrammatical in restrictive relative clauses (the same pattern seemingly exists in English, cf. glosses). (20) a.

De situasjoner som måtte/ *skulle oppstå The situations that must.pret/ should occur ‘Those situations that might occur…’

b. Skulle/*måtte en slik situasjon oppstå Should/must.pret a such situation occur ‘Should such a situation occur…’

As mentioned above, most speakers will use the past perfect, not the preterite, to express counterfactuality with main verbs. Modals may also occur in the past perfect and thus yield a counterfactual reading. In contrast to main verbs, however, modals are also perfectly fine as expressions of counterfactuality in the preterite. In this case, the construction will display a gradually increasing perceived distance to reality as the number of past (finite and non-finite) verb forms increases; (21a) yields a potential reading, (21b) yields a hypothetical reading, and (21c) yields a counterfactual reading (cf. Eide 2005).





Kristin Melum Eide

(21) a.

Dette kan være en løsning. this may be a solution ‘This may be a solution.’

b. Dette kunne være en løsning. this might be a solution ‘This might be a solution.’ c.

Dette kunne vært en løsning. this might been a solution ‘This might have been a solution.’

4.5  Past participle Norwegian modals, like their Swedish and Faroese counterparts, productively take past participle complements, provided the modal has a preterite form, as demonstrated in (21c). In these constructions, an auxiliary ha ‘have’ may be inserted between the modal and the perfect participle; however, the construction without ha is subject to certain restrictions. Firstly, the modal must have a preterite form to take a perfect participle complement; a present form does not license the participle. Secondly, the participle is only licit on a counterfactual reading of the modal; whenever the preterite marking signals ‘past’, not counterfactuality, the past participle is illicit. Julien (2003) and Eide (2002, 2005) thus analyze the past participle as an irrealis marker. Revisiting the tense forms in Table 1, we can see why this should be a logical function for the past participle. Table 1.  Norwegian tense forms +Past

+Finite

–Finite

preterite

past participle

Strong Verb sang ‘sang’ –Past

Weak Verb likte ‘liked’

Strong Verb sunget ‘sung’

present Strong Verb synger ‘sing(s)’

Weak Verb likt ‘liked’ infinitive

Weak Verb liker ‘like(s)’

Strong Verb synge ‘sing’

Weak Verb like ‘like’

Just like the preterite form encodes a counterfactual version of the present, the participle form encodes a counterfactual version of the infinitive. This irrealis infinitive optionally occurs not only as the complement of counterfactual modals (21c), but in all kinds of nonfinite counterfactual contexts: negated domains (22a), complements of adjectives  (22b), adverbials (22c) or subject clauses (22d) of counterfactuals. All data are given in Nynorsk, quoted (and in part adapted) from Julien (2003); originally from Sandøy (1991).



Mood in Norwegian

(22) a.

Eg har ikkje vunne anna enn å sprunge/springe I have not made other.thing than to run.ptcp/run.inf



i heile dag. in whole day



‘I haven’t had time for anything but running all day.’

b. Det hadde vore best å reist/ reise no. It had been best to leave.ptcp/ leave.inf now ‘It would have been best to leave now.’ c.

Har de levd ei heil veke utan å kokt/ koke kaffe? have you lived a whole week without to boil.ptcp/ boil.inf coffee? ‘Have you lasted for a whole week without making coffee?’

d. Å sprunge/ springe 60-meteren på 7,5 hadde ikkje to run.ptcp/ run.inf 60-meter.def on 7.5 had not

vore nokon kunst da. been any trick then



‘To run 60 meters in 7.5 wouldn’t have been much of a trick then.’

5.  Expression of mood in Norwegian Unlike Old Norse, modern Norwegian no longer employs a productive mood system in which mood inflections are overtly different from tense inflections. It has retained a ­productive distinct imperative form (which in Nynorsk even maintains a singular-­plural distinction), but overt subjunctive morphology is mostly found in hymns and curses and even then only in optative interpretations, i.e. the functions of the Old Norse present subjunctive. To substitute for the loss of the morphological subjunctive, Norwegian uses a range of means: lexical verbs (la ‘let’), modal auxiliaries, particles (tro/tru, mon, kanskje), and tense marking. The last category includes quotative and counterfactual constructions morphologically expressed as the preterite (if the head of the construction is a modal), the past perfect (if the head of the construction is a main verb), and the present perfect (in the Northern and Western dialects). Another very productive development is the use of the past participle as an irrealis infinitive, a phenomenon to which we devoted particular attention.

References Åfarli, T.A & Eide, K. 2003. Norsk Generativ Syntaks. Oslo: Novus. Askedal, J.O. 1994. Norwegian. In The Germanic Languages, E. König & J. van der Auwera (eds), 219–270. London: Routledge. Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: CUP. Eide, K.M. 2002. Norwegian Modals. Ph.D. dissertation, NTNU.





Kristin Melum Eide Eide, K.M. 2005. Norwegian Modals [Studies in Generative Grammar 74]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Faarlund, J.T., Lie, S. & Vannebo, K.I. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Fretheim, T. 1977. Kort merknad om bruken av pluskvamperfektum. Norskrift 17. University of Oslo. Haugen, E. 1987. Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. In The Major Languages of Western Europe, B. Comrie (ed.), 147–169. London: Routledge. Haugen, O.E. 1998. Grunnbok i norrønt språk. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal. Iversen, R.1918. Syntaksen i Tromsø bymål. Kristiania: Bymaalslagets-Forlag. Julien, M. 2003. Dobbelsupinum og irreal modus. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 21: 135–161. Landau, I. 2004. The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811–877. Langacker, R.W. 1978. The form and meaning of the English auxiliary. Language 54: 853–882. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. Næs, O. 1972. Norsk grammatikk. Elementære strukturer og syntaks. Oslo: Fabritius forlag. Rice, C. 2003. Dialectal variation in Norwegian imperatives. Nordlyd 31(2): 372–384. Sandøy, H. 1991. Attraksjon av supinum i færøysk og norsk. Danske Folkemål 33: 251–262. Sollid, H. 2007. Autentisitet på nordnorsk. Målbryting 9: 69–91. Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: OUP.

Mood in Swedish Björn Rothstein Bochum

1.  Introduction Swedish is a Germanic language mainly spoken by some 9 million people in Swe­den (according to the fact sheet Swedish Economy from June 2006 from the Swedish Institute). There is also a minority of native Swedish speakers in Fin­land. Swedish belongs to the Eastern branch of the Scandinavian lang­uages and is quite similar to the two other Mainland Scandinavian languages Da­nish and Norwegian. It displays a poor morphological system in both the ver­bal and the nominal domains. Swedish lacks verbal agreement marking and only distinguishes between finite and non-finite verb forms in certain tens­es. There is a morphological case distinction only between the un­mark­ed case and the genitive. It is worth noting that Swedish is one of the best documented and des­crip­tively analysed languages in the world (Dahl 2000). In 1999, the Swe­dish academy published its grammar of Swedish (Svenska akademiens gram­matik = SAG; Teleman et al. 1999) with more than 2,500 pages. This paper is based on Teleman et al. 1999 and other grammars of Swedish. It also presents new data which is re­le­vant to the correct description of the Swedish mood system, especially in the domains of the preterite subjunctive and the present subjunctive. The data was collected from PAROLE, a public corpus of Modern Swedish.1 The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 will present the verbal ca­te­gories of ­present day Swedish. Section 3 will explore the Swedish mood sys­tem. In Section  4 ­substitute

.  The texts found in PAROLE were collected for the EU.project PAROLE until 1997 by the University of Gothenburg and partners. PAROLE is a free database at http://spraakbanken.gu.se/ parole/. There are approximately 19 to 19.4 million words in PAROLE (depending on what is counted as a word. The text material is specified in Table I: Table I.  Data sources in PAROLE Text category Novels daily journals magazines Other

Texts Bonniers Grafiska Industrier Svenska Dagbladet; Göteborgs.posten; Dagens Nyheter; Arbetet Forskning och Framsteg Webb-texter

time

number of words

1976–1981 1976–1997

4.4 mill. 13.6 mill.

1995–1996 1997

0.4 mill. 1 mill.

If not indicated otherwise, the data presented in this paper is taken from PAROLE.



Björn Rothstein

forms for the non-indicative verb forms will be presented. Section 5 will conclude the paper.

2.  Verbal categories in Swedish Swedish has strong, irregular verbs (with Ablaut) and weak, regular verbs with the dentals -de, -te and -dde in the preterite. Only the weak verbs are pro­duc­tive. Each type of verb class has subclasses which are irrelevant to the description presented here. There are basically four different types of con­ju­gations in Modern Swedish:2 Table 1.  Swedish active verb forms infinitive type 1 type 2 type 3 type 4

kalla köpa tro skriva

‘call’ ‘buy’ ‘believe’ ‘write’

present tense

preterite

participle

imperative

kallar köper tror skriver

kallade köpte trodde skrev

kallat köpt trott skrivit

kalla köp tro skriv

Types 1 to 3 belong to the weak verbs and type 4 to the strong. The tense sys­tem of Swedish comprises the following forms (cf. Andersson 1991; Dahl 1995 and Teleman et al. 1999 for more detailed overviews): Table 2.  The tenses of Swedish tense form

example

English

present tense preterite present perfect past perfect

jag sover jag sov jag har sovit jag hade sovit

‘I sleep’ ‘I slept’ ‘I have slept’ ‘I had slept’

The Swedish tense system does not drastically differ from the ones found in Nor­we­gian and Danish (cf. Christensen & Heltoft and Eide, this volume). The present tense normally locates situations at or after the moment of speech (cf. (1) to (2)) and the preterite normally locates them before the mo­ment of speech; see (3). The Swedish preterite and past perfect are also used to express non-factual and counterfactual meaning. I will present the data in more detail in Section 4.1. .  The traditional Swedish grammars and also some modern linguists use the term supine for what is traditionally known as the perfect participle. The supine is the participle found in the present perfect (jag har ätit ‘I have eaten’), past perfect (jag hade ätit ‘I had eaten’) and non-finite perfect (ha ätit ‘to have eaten’).



Mood in Swedish

(1) Nu kommer dom! now come.prs they ‘They are coming.’ (2) Imorgon publicerar Der Tagesspiegel en nyhetsartikel. tomorrow publish.prs Der Tagesspiegel a newspaper-article ‘Tomorrow, Der Tagesspiegel will publish an article.’ (3) … då han igår hissade EU-flaggan. … when he yesterday hiss.pret EU-flag.def ‘… when he hissed the flag of the European Union.’

The present perfect and the past perfect behave in many ways like the Eng­lish present perfect and past perfect. Like English, Swedish displays the pre­sent perfect puzzle in purely temporal contexts: although the present perfect ex­presses some kind of anteriority, it does not allow for event time modi­fi­ca­tion by positional temporal adverbials denoting a definite position on the time axis; see (4). In contrast to English, the present perfect can also be used as a future perfect (cf. (5)). In inferential and evidential contexts, the Swe­dish present perfect can be used to indicate the speaker’s degree of con­fi­den­ce in a present inference about past events. The eventuality in (6) is not pre­sen­ted as a fact, but as an inference. Imagine the following (invented) story: Swedish hunters are looking for a bear who has escaped several times. They find tracks in the snow. One of the hunters tells the others that these tracks are not older than one day. This has been called the inferential pre­sent perfect (cf. Haugen 1972: 135). In this use, the present perfect puzzle dis­appears. I will come back to this in Section 4.2. (4) *Han har varit här igår. he have.prs be.ptcp here yesterday ‘He was here yesterday.’ (5) Imorgon har konferensen redan slutat. tomorrow have.prs conference.def already end.ptcp ‘The conference will have ended by tomorrow.’

(Rothstein 2008)

(6) Björnen har tydligen gått här igår. bear.def have.prs probably walk.ptcp here yesterday ‘Yesterday, the bear walked here probably.’

(Rothstein 2008)

Apart from the present tense as in (7), Swedish has no synthetic future tense, but there are several periphrastic constructions to express future time re­fe­rence, including the constructions ska(ll) plus infinitive ‘shall plus in­fi­ni­ti­ve’ in (8) to (10) and komma(er) att plus infinitive ‘will plus infinitive’ in (11) and (12). These constructions vary in their modal meaning. ska(ll) plus in­fi­nitive is normally only used when the described situation is intended, plan­ned or ­obligatory. By using komma(er) att plus infinitive, the speaker claims to be sure that the described situation will occur or he is making a prog­nosis about whether it will obtain. I will not take up the





Björn Rothstein

question as to whether these constructions have a purely temporal or also a modal meaning (see Rothstein 2007 for the interplay of temporal and modal meaning with fu­ture tenses). The unmarked modal form to express future time reference is the present tense. (7) Imorgon drar han tillbaka till Sverige. tomorrow go.prs he back to Sweden ‘Tomorrow, he will leave for Sweden.’ (8) Jag ska ut och ta en rök. I want.prs out and take.prs a smoke ‘I want to go out and smoke.’ (9) Är det ingen som vet att ni ska skiljas? be.prs there no one who know.prs that you will.prs divorce.inf.pass ‘Isn’t there anyone who knows that you will divorce?’ (10) Mamma vill jämt att vi ska göra mum want.prs always that we must.prs do.inf tavlor åt dej. paintings for you ‘Mum always wants us to make paintings for you.’ (11) Han kommer att lämna mej. he will.prs ptl leave.inf me ‘He is going to leave me.’ (12) Du kommer nog att bli en stor spjutkastare. you will.prs certainly ptl become.inf a big javalin-thrower. ‘You will certainly become a big javalin thrower.’

It is not clear to what extent Swedish grammaticalizes aspect. There are some constructions like the pseudo-coordinated progressive markers in (13) and (14) that are sometimes considered to be instances of aspect (cf. Dahl 1995, but see Henriksson 2006 for another opinion). For the analysis of the Swe­dish mood system, the question of whether aspect is fully gram­mati­ca­li­z­ed in Swedish or not is irrelevant. (13) De sitter och väntar. they sit.prs and wait.prs ‘They are waiting.’ (14) Hon ligger och läser. she lay.prs and read.prs ‘She is reading.’

To analyse the Swedish mood system, it is necessary to distinguish between the semantic and the morphological subjunctive. The latter has special verb forms that are morphologically distinct from the imperative and indicative pa­ra­digms, although morphological homonymy is possible in some forms. The semantic subjunctive are basically all verbal forms expressing sub­junc­tive



Mood in Swedish

meaning, respectively. For instance, the Swedish preterite can be in­ter­pre­ted as a semantic subjunctive, although it belongs to the indicative para­digm from a morphological point of view. The preterite in (15) is a mor­pho­lo­gical preterite, but functions as a subjunctive. (15) Det var som om jag hade blivit helt utan vilja. it be.pret as if I have.pret got.ptcp completely without will ‘It felt like I had lost my will.’

When we speak of the subjunctive in the following, we will refer to it as the mor­pho­logical subjunctive. The existence of a morphological preterite sub­junc­tive in Swedish has also been the subject of discussion (cf. Ewerth 1993 and Pihlström 1994). Traditional Swedish grammars claim that the preterite sub­junctive of the strong verbs in Swedish is still used, but this form is of very low frequency. I will discuss the status of the Swedish preterite sub­ junc­tive in more detail in Section 3.

3.  Mood categories in Swedish 3.1  The imperative The Swedish imperative has no inflectional endings; in types 1 and 3 it is iden­ti­cal to the infinitive, and in types 2 and 4 it is identical to the verb stem of the infinitive (cf. Table 1). The Swedish imperative expresses commands and requests, which are normally only related to the addressee. (16) Katrin, sa hon. Kom in! Katrin say.pret she come.imp in ‘She said: Katrin! Come in!’ (17) Sätt er ner. sit.imp you down ‘Sit down!’

The first person plural is normally expressed by låta ‘let’ plus in­fini­tive: (18) Sitt här och låt oss tala som man till man. sit.imp here and let.imp us talk as man to man ‘Sit down and let us talk from man to man.’

There is also a very low frequency first person in the imperative which is on­ly derived from the verb låta. In contrast to the other imperative forms, lå­tom is thus derived by suffixation. (19) Låtom oss bedja! let.imp.1pl us pray ‘Let us pray!’





Björn Rothstein

A cross-linguistically interesting feature of the imperative is the so-called double or ­parasitic imperative, which can be defined as a discrepancy be­tween form and meaning in certain morphosyntactic contexts, where verbal en­tities copy the inflection of their c-commanding verb, but keep their orig­i­n­al meaning (cf. Wiklund 2001). Hence, the meanings of (20) and (21) are i­den­ti­cal despite their different forms. (20) Sluta drick kaffe med oss. stop.imp drink.imp coffee with us ‘Stop to drink coffee with us.’ (21) Sluta dricka kaffe med oss. stop.imp drink.inf coffee with us ‘Stop to drink coffee with us.’

Swedish has a number of analytic constructions to modify the basic deontic mean­ing of the imperative form. The coordination with ta och ‘take and’ al­lows the hearer to refuse the command or to interpret the command as a piece of advice (cf. (22)). The deontic meaning of the imperative can be re­duc­ed to a request by using var snäll och ‘be nice and’ as in (23). Var god och ‘be good and’ allows the command to be formulated in a more polite way (cf. (25)) or to express an offer by adding så ‘so’; see (24). (22) Men ta och flytta på dej nu. but take.imp and move.imp ptl you now ‘Move!’ (23) Var snäll och hör på mig. be.imp nice and listen.imp to me ‘Please, listen to me!’ (24) Men var så god och stig in. but be.imp so nice and come.imp in. ‘Please, come in!’ (25) Var god vänta. be.imp nice wait.inf ‘Please wait!’

3.2  The preterite subjunctive In present day Swedish, there is a morphological preterite subjunctive only of the strong verbs. Grammar books like Teleman et al. 1999 call this verb form konjunktiv ‘con­junctive’. According to Teleman et al. (1999:II:549), the present-day preterite sub­junctive is derived either from the supine (cf. (26)) or the preterite (see (27)), or by suppletion as in (28). Historically, these forms seem to go back to preterite morphology in most cases. The morphological preterite sub­junc­ti­ve will be glossed as pret.sbjv.



Mood in Swedish

(26) sprung-e run.pret.sbjv [< sprung-it (supine)] (27) blev-e get.pret.sbjv [< blev (preterite)] (28) vor-e be.pret.sbjv [< suppletion from vara]

There is no morphological preterite subjunctive from the weak verbs. In­stead, the preterite indicative is used. The Swedish preterite subjunctive can be used in conditional, concessive, comparative and hypothetical sentences and in indirect speech (cf. Section 4.1). As mentioned in Section 2, it is not clear to what extent the preterite subjunctive can still be regarded as a fully gram­maticalized category in Modern Swedish. Ewerth (1993/1995) claims that the preterite subjunctive is extinct. He found in two corpora of 15 daily jour­nals and 12 magazines 5,411 and 2,326 strong verbs in the preterite, res­pec­tively. Besides vore (the Swedish preterite subjunctive of vara ‘be’), there were only two other forms: finge ‘get.pret.sbjv’ and funnes ‘find.pret.sbjv.pass’. Pihlström (1994) criticizes Ewerth’s study, but he offers no evidence to prove the productivity of the preterite subjunctive in Mo­dern Swedish. There are further studies by Nordmann, Welin and Teleman. Welin (1970) calls the Swedish preterite subjunctive a “mor­pho­lo­gi­cal dead category” and Nordmann (1986), who offers a detailed study of mo­dal expressions in specialized or technical texts, does not even mention the preterite subjunctive. Finally, there is no preterite subjunctive in Modern Swe­dish according to Teleman (1991). According to Andersson (1994), Dahl (1995) and Thieroff (2004: 336), the preterite subjunctive of other verbs than ‘be’ is very rarely used in modern Swedish. An empirical study on the existence of the preterite subjunctive is thus ne­ces­sary. A study based on PAROLE gave the following results. The data was found on April 4, 2006 by using the search command [msd=“V@SIAS”], which lists all occurrences of the preterite subjunctive in the active voice: (29) måtte3 ‘may.pret.sbjv’, finge ‘got.pret.sbjv’, välsigne ‘bless.pret.sbjv’, bleve ‘get.pret. sbjv’, månde ‘may.pret.sbjv’, såge ‘see.pret.sbjv’, ginge ‘go.pret.sbjv’, vore ‘be.pret.sbjv’, varde ‘become.pret.sbjv’.

The forms had a very low frequency as search requests for the individual verbs showed. An exception is vore: (30)

vore måtte månde finge bleve välsigne ginge såge varde

‘be.pret.sbjv’ ‘may.pret.sbjv’ ‘may.pret.sbjv’ ‘got.pret.sbjv’ ‘get.pret.sbjv’ ‘bless.pret.sbjv’ ‘go.pret.sbjv’ ‘see.pret.sbjv’ ‘become.pret.sbjv’

2,903 entries 148 entries 34 entries 26 entries 12 entries 11 entries 8 entries 1 entry 1 entry

Searching for the passive voice with [msd=“V@SISS”] gave only one verb: (31) funnes ‘find.pret.sbjv.pass’

23 entries

.  Some scholars consider måtte to be a present subjunctive (cf. Hammar 1958: 178). In PAROLE, however, it seems to be analysed as a preterite subjunctive.





Björn Rothstein

It is difficult to tell from this data whether the preterite subjunctive is a pro­duc­tive category in Modern Swedish or not. Low frequency does not ne­ces­sar­ily mean unproductivity. One feature often associated with productivity is the ability to form new words, but no new words are built with in­flec­tion­al suffixes, these are rather forms of words. According to the literature, the Swe­dish preterite subjunctive is restricted to strong verbs, a group of verbs which is unproductive in Modern Swedish. It is therefore not possible to show that new Swedish verbs like zappa ‘zap’ can be used in the preterite sub­junctive, because all new verbs are weak. From the data presented here, it is therefore not possible to tell whether Swedish still grammaticalizes the pre­terite subjunctive as a morphological category or whether the preterite sub­junctive forms are relics of a no longer productive morphological rule. The fact that the preterite subjunctive is only available from the un­pro­duc­tive strong verbs is, however, conspicuous. Moreover, a random test with Swe­dish native speakers indicates that most of them are note able to give the forms of the preterite subjunctive.

3.3  The present subjunctive The present subjunctive, also called the optative by Teleman et al. (1999), is no lon­ger productive in Modern Swedish. It was derived from the verb stem (for strong verbs from the present tense stem) by suffixation with -e and o­mis­sion of the unstressed vowel in the type 1 conjugation. The present sub­junc­tive will be glossed by using prs.sbjv. (32) kast-e ‘throw-prs.sbjv’, vänd-e ‘turn-prs.sbjv’, läs-e ‘read-prs.sbjv’, spring-e ‘run-prs.sbjv’, vet-e ‘know.prs.sbjv’.

In contrast to the preterite subjunctive, traditional grammars agree on the loss of the present subjunctive (Andersson 1993:  149; Pettersson 1997:  163). Ac­cording to ­Pettersson (1992:  58), the frequency of the present subjunctive di­mi­nishes continuously in law texts until it disappears completely around 1950. Hellquist (1967: 9) claims that Ärvdabalken from 1958 is the first law text without the present subjunctive (see also Pettersson 1997: 163). Search­ing for the present subjunctive in PAROLE gives only four verbs: vare ‘be’, må ‘may’, bevare ‘keep/save’ and göra ‘do’: (33)

vare må4 bevare göre

‘be.prs.sbjv’ ‘may.prs.sbjv’ ‘keep/save.prs.sbjv’ ‘do.prs.sbjv’

1,832 entries 756 entries5 29 entries 21 entries

.  In PAROLE, må ‘may’ is considered to be a present subjunctive. According to what has been said about the distinction between the semantic and the morphological present sub­junctive, må ‘may’ is probably not a morphological present subjunctive, because it is homonymous to the modal present tense form må ‘may’. .  Searching for må ‘may’ and göre ‘do’ gives the homonymous abbreviations for måndag ‘Monday’ and the dialectal version göre of göra (‘to do’). Therefore, the real num­ber of occurrences for må and göre is even lower than indicated in (33). There also exist homonyms of vare (be.prs.sbjv).



Mood in Swedish

The present subjunctive is used in fixed expressions in main clauses to ex­press a wish, the speaker’s opinion or an order: (34) Ära vare Gud i höjden. glory be.prs.sbjv God in heaven ‘Glory be to God in heaven.’ (35) Gud vare mig nådig! God be.prs.sbjv me merciful ‘God have mercy on me.’ (36) Gud nåde oss. God have.mercy.prs.sbjv us ‘God have mercy upon us.’

4.  Substituting for the non-indicative moods 4.1  The indicative Given that the present and the preterite subjunctive seem to be un­pro­duc­tive, the modal meanings of these verb forms must be expressed differently. One possible and cross-­linguistically often attested way is the substitution of the preterite subjunctive by the indicative (cf. Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994). In Modern Swedish, the preterite indicative in particular has taken over the function of the preterite subjunctive, but also periphrastic con­struc­tions like skulle plus infinitive ‘should plus infinitive’ are possible sub­sti­tu­tes. In indirect speech, Swedish displays sequence of tense. If the utter­ance is quoted at a later point in time than it was originally made, the tense of the quoted utterance changes (cf. Teleman et al. 1999:IV: tempus §31): (37) Hon kom och sade att doktorn ville she come.pret and say.pret that doctor.def want.pret tala med Nicklas. talk.inf with Nicklas. ‘She said that the doctor wanted to speak to Nicklas.’

The preterite is also used to express non-factuality and counterfactuality. The preterite subjunctive leads to the same meaning effects. The pluperfect has the same meaning for a past situation or clearly indicates coun­ter­fac­tual­ity. The periphrastic constructions skulle plus infinitive ‘would plus in­fi­ni­ti­ve’ or skulle ha plus infinitive ‘would have plus infinitive’ are other possi­bi­li­ties to express unreal and potential or counterfactual situations (cf. Teleman et al. 1999:IV: tempus §42):





Björn Rothstein

(38) a.

I så fall satt han inte här. in so case sit.pret he not here ‘If so, he would not sit here.’

b. I så fall sutte han inte här. in so case sit.pret.sbjv he not here ‘If so, he would not be sitting here.’ c.

I så fall hade han inte suttit här. in so case have.pret he not sit.ptcp here ‘If so, he would not be sitting here/would not have sat here.’

d. I så fall skulle han inte sitta här. in so case would he not sit.inf here ‘If so, he would not be sitting here.’ e.

I så fall skulle han inte ha suttit här. in so case would he not have.inf sit.ptcp here ‘If so, he would not have sat here.’

The preterite and the preterite subjunctive are used in conditional, con­ces­sive, comparative and hypothetical sentences: (39) Om hon fick det här jobbet skulle hon inte if she get.pret this here job.def would she not behöva be honom om extra pengar. have.to.inf ask.inf him for more money.pl ‘If she got that job, she would not have to ask him for more money.’ (40) Tänk om jag vetat hur jag skulle imagine.imp if I know.ptcp how I should hantera min karl när jag gifte mej! handle.inf my man when I marry.pret me. ‘Imagine that I knew how to handle my man when I married him.’ (41) Om han bara ringde, då skulle jag kunna behärska if he only call.pret then would I can.inf control mej mycket bättre. myself much better ‘If only he called, I could control myself better.’ (42) Även om Anders missade båda cupfinalerna för två år even if Anders miss.pret both cup.finals for two years sedan, är Wembley ingen ny bekantskap. ago be.prs Wembley no new acquaintance ‘Even though Anders missed the two finals two years ago, Wembley is nothing new to him.’



Mood in Swedish

The past perfect can be used to make clear that the present situation is coun­ter­factual: (43) Det var som om jag hade blivit helt it be.pret as if I have.pret got.ptcp completely utan vilja. without will ‘It felt like I had lost my will.’

A further, cross-linguistically well attested use of the preterite subjunctive is to in­dicate politeness. Alternatively, the past perfect is also possible: (44) a.

Det vore trevligt. this be.pret.sbjv nice ‘This would be nice.’

b. Det hade varit trevligt. this have.pret be.ptcp nice ‘This would be nice/This would have been nice.’

4.2  The evidential present perfect Although the present perfects in English and Swedish denote anteriority, they cannot be modified by certain positional temporal adverbials ex­pres­sing pastness (cf. (45) and (46)). Klein (1992) dubbed this phenomenon the pre­sent perfect puzzle (PPP). (45) *Björnen har gått här igår. bear.def have.prs walk.ptcp here yesterday (46) *The bear has walked here yesterday.

There is an interesting contrast between the Swedish and English present per­fects which has remained unnoticed in the literature on the PPP. Imagine the following (invented) story: Swedish hunters are looking for a bear who has escaped several times. They find tracks in the snow. One of the hunters tells the others that these tracks are not older than one day: (47) Björnen har tydligen gått här igår. bear.def have.prs probably walk.ptcp here yesterday

This is not possible in English: (48) *The bear has probably walked here yesterday.

The eventuality in (47) is not presented as a fact, but as an inference. This has been called inferential present perfect, where a present perfect sentence is us­ed to indicate the speaker’s degree of confidence in his inference (cf. Haugen 1972: 135). The contrast between (47) and (48) is that the present per­fect puzzle disappears in Swedish in certain uses, but not in English. This has been called the lost present perfect puzzle (cf. Rothstein 2008). Haugen (1972) shows that the lost present perfect puzzle exists in all Mainland Scan­di­navian languages.





Björn Rothstein

(50) always has the modal interpretation that there might have been at some time in the past a bear that left. (49), on the other hand, has no such read­ing unless there occur additional modal markers such as tydligen ‘pro­bab­ly’ as in (51). (49) Björnen har gått. bear.def have.prs leave.ptcp (50) The bear might have left. (51) Björnen har tydligen gått. bear.def have.prs probably leave.ptcp

Without tydligen ‘probably’, the modal interpretation is impossible to get. The inferential reading of a present perfect is therefore either licensed by cer­tain adverbials or in contexts whose evidentiality is common ground (his­tori­cal contexts, archaeological reports); cf. the following example from Kinnander (1974: 133): (52) Över huvud har Margareta under hela sin bana efter on whole have.prs Margareta during whole her reign after Falköpingsslaget kappast någonsin hotats av Falköpingsslaget hardly some-time threat.ptcp.pass by större faror än under dessa månader närmast efter greater danger than under these months immediately after 1393 års Falsterbomöte. 1393 year’s Falsterbo.meeting ‘On the whole, Margareta throughout all of her reign after the Battle of Falköping was hardly threatened by any greater dangers than during these months immediately after the Falsterbo meeting of 1393.’

There are examples where the English present perfect sentence also has an in­fer­ential reading. Again, this reading depends on certain adverbials. For a more general picture on the interaction of temporal, aspectual, evidential and modal expressions see Abraham and Leiss (2008, 2009). (53) The invasion of Iraq has probably begun. (www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20021219.asp) (54) I think Spain has maybe had its days in the sun. (www.xtratime.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-109690.html) (55) The concept of European Research Area has certainly served as a platform for launching a renewed debate on European research policy. (www.6cp.net/documents/Abstract_Boekhult2003.doc)

But the inferential use in English does not license a lost present perfect puzzle: (56) *The invasion of Iraq has probably begun in 1991.



Mood in Swedish

5.  Conclusion Modern Swedish seems to have no productive morphological preterite sub­junc­tive and present subjunctive. There is, however, a productive imperative form. To substitute for the loss of the morphological preterite subjunctive, Swe­dish uses a variety of different categories, including the indicative. Besides its temporal meaning, the present perfect can be used to express evidentiality and inferentiality. From a typological point of view, the Swedish mood system is therefore relatively close to the ones of Danish and Norwegian.

References Abraham, W. & Leiss, E. (eds). 2008. Modality-aspect Interfaces. Implications and Typological Solutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Abraham, W. & Leiss, E. (eds). 2009. Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Andersson, E. 1991. Om svenskans tempus. Språkbruk 1: 7–13. Andersson, E. 1993. Grammatik från grunden. En koncentrerad svensk satslära. Uppsala: Hallgren & Fallgren. Andersson, E. 1994. Swedish. In The Germanic Languages, E. König & J. van der Auwera (eds), 271–312. London: Routledge. Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The Chicago University Press. Dahl, Ö. 1995. The tense system of Swedish. In Tense systems in European languages II, R. Thieroff (ed.), 59–68. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Dahl, Ö. 2000. Ett av världens bäst beskrivna språk. Språkvård 2: 8–14. Ewerth, S. 1993. Har vi konjunktiv i svenskan? Språkvård 4: 9–14. Ewerth, S. 1995. Mer om konjunktivens död. Språkvård 3: 22–23. Hammar, E. 1958. Schwedische Grammatik für Deutschsprachige. Stockholm: Norstedts. Haugen, E. 1972. The inferential present perfect in Swedish. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17(2): 132–139. Hellquist, C.G. 1967. Lagspråk. Språkvård 3: 9–16. Henriksson, H. 2006. Aspektualität ohne Aspekt. Progressivität und Imperfektivität im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Kinnander, B. 1974. Perfektum i sekundär användning. Nysvenska studier 53: 127–172. Klein, W. 1992. The present perfect puzzle. Language 68: 525–552. Nordmann, M. 1986. Modalitet i några facktexter. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 101: 194–210. Pettersson, G. 1992. Lagspråk och samhällsutveckling. Studier över svenskt lagspråk efter 1734. Lund: Lund University Press. Pettersson, G. 1997. Svenska språket under sjuhundra år: En historia om svenskan och dess utforskande. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Pihlström, S. 1994. Konjunktiv i nutida svenska. Språkvård 3: 20–21. Rothstein, B. 2007. Tempus. Heidelberg: Winter. Rothstein, B. 2008. The Perfect Time Span. On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.





Björn Rothstein Teleman, U. 1991. Guds ord och människornas meningar. In Språket i bibeln – bibeln i språket, C. Åsberg (ed.), 86–105. Arlöv: Norstedts. Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. & Andersson, E. (1999): Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts. Thieroff, R. 2004. The subjunctive mood in German and in the Germanic languages. In Focus on Germanic Typology, W. Abraham (ed.), 315–357. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Welin, C.W. 1970. Om konjunktiv i svenskan. Stockholm: Institute of Linguistics. Wiklund, A.-L. 2001. Dressing up for vocabulary insertion: the parasitic supine. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 199–228.

Mood in Danish Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft Roskilde

1.  Introduction Danish is one of the Mainland Scandinavian languages, the other two being Norwegian and Swedish (see Eide and Rothstein, both this volume). Danish is a strict word order language, and most of the nominal and verbal inflexional systems found in older IndoEuropean languages had been drastically reduced already by the 14th century. Mood in Danish combines a set of inflexional paradigms and word order paradigms. Our treatment of the category conforms to tradition in that we identify mood with an inflexional category manifesting modality, but it transcends tradition by including in the category of mood also the basic word order patterns of Danish. Our reason for doing so is a striking similarity between the paradigmatic structures of Danish word order and the inflexional paradigms of mood in the Romance languages Italian, Spanish, and to some extent also French.

2.  Inflexional mood Modern Danish has a maximally reduced inflexional mood system, consisting in the opposition between a zero imperative form and a so-called indicative form in -er. The example is the verb hente ‘fetch, bring’. Table 1.  Verbal mood expression content

imperative

indicative

Ø hent-Ø directive potential

-er hent-er non-directive

The imperative encodes directive illocutionary potential, meaning that its relation to the tense system is restricted to the present tense. (1) a.

Stå-Ø stille! stand-imp still ‘Stand still!’

(order)



Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft

b. Hent-Ø bare bilen! fetch-imp just the car ‘Just fetch the car!’ c.

Tag-Ø en kage til. take-imp one cake more ‘Have another biscuit.’

d. Sov-Ø godt. sleep-imp well ‘Sleep well.’

(request)

(permission, encouragement)

(wish)

In relation to the imperative, the function of the form -er is to be the semantically unmarked opponent, the non-directive form. This form will normally occur in constative utterances, but can be used in directive contexts as well: (2) a.

Han stå-r stille. he stand-ind still ‘He is standing still.’

(assertion)

b. Hun hent-er bilen. she fetch-ind the car ‘She is fetching the car.’

(assertion)

c.

(assertion)

De tag-er en kage til. they take-ind one cake more ‘They will have another biscuit.’

d. Han sov-er godt. he sleep-ind well ‘He is sleeping well/he sleeps well.’

(assertion)

a′. Du stå-r stille! you stand-ind still ‘You stand still!’

(order)

b′. Du hent-er bilen! you fetch-ind the car ‘Fetch the car!’

(order)

c′. I tag-er bare en kage til! you.pl take-ind just a cake more ‘Just take another biscuit!’ d′. Du sov-er nu! you sleep-ind now ‘You go to sleep now!’

(permission)

(order)

The system in Table 1 is the one found in Diderichsen (1946), except that we have omitted the highly marked optative form in -e, in the modern language restricted to certain genres and registers, esp. religious ones.



(3) a.

Mood in Danish

Herren løft-e sit åsyn på dig og giv-e dig fred! the lord lift-opt his face upon you and give-opt you peace ‘May the lord cast his face upon you and give you peace!’

b. Helliget bliv-e dit navn, komm-e dit rige! hallowed become-opt thy name come-opt thy kingdom ‘Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come!’

3.  Distality The tense system of Danish is not a classical tense system in the sense of expressing time distinctions. When put to use, it can anchor utterances not only in factual worlds, i.e. in time, but also in hypothetical and counterfactual worlds, see below. By the end of the 16th century, Danish had lost its former Germanic mood distinction between the indicative mood and the subjunctive mood, except for the marked uses of the former present subjunctive in optative functions mentioned above. In the active voice former indicative expressions prevailed. The inflexional passive in -(e)s, however, is a direct continuation of the former subjunctive, see 3. The better part of Danish tradition has recognised long since that Danish tense was eo ipso reanalyzed as an overall category encompassing both time and modality (Wiwel 1901; Diderichsen 1946). The semantic core of this category is not time, but distality (Danish Afstand, German Entfernung, Distanz), and apart from very frequent time anchorings modal uses are readily produced (examples are hente ‘fetch/bring’ and købe ‘buy’): Table 2.  Inflexional tense1 voice active distality

proximal form ‘present’ distal form ‘preterite’

-(e)r1

hent-er, køb-er -ede or -te hent-ede, køb-te

passive -(e)s hent-es, køb-es -ede-s or -te-s hent-ede-s, køb-te-s

.  This analysis is the traditional one, taking -er to be a fusional morpheme expressing both mood and tense. The passive, however, reveals that the present tense is really zero. If generalised to the active, this analysis would leave the morpheme -er as a purely agglutinating marker of ­non-directive potential (Heltoft 1998).





Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft

Examples of the modal uses are (4)–(6). Example (4) has an initial group of three temporally interpreted past forms, continuing with an additional three past forms, this time modal ones. (4) Hun vidste, at hun ikke kunne noget dansk, she knew that she not knew any Danish men hun overbeviste sig selv om, but she convinced her self that at hvis hun nu sagde noget, der kunne that if she now say.pret something that can.pret være dansk, så ville hun lære det. be Danish, then will.pret she learn it. ‘She knew that she did not know any Danish, but she convinced herself that if she said something that could be Danish, then she would learn it.’  (hypothetical scenario) (5) Hvem der bare forstod Fransk! who there only understand.pret French ‘Just wish I understood French.’

(counterfactuality, irrealis)

(6) De hav-de vel ikke en tændstik? you have-pret ptl not a match ‘You wouldn’t have a match, would you?’ (distance of required world, for politeness)

4.  The secondary mood system: S-passive and periphrastic passive 4.1  Old Danish Mood Old Scandinavian and thus Old Danish retained its Germanic mood system, contrasting an indicative and a subjunctive (Indo-European optative). The subjunctive had both epistemic (doxastic), optative, and deontic (hortative/jussive/permissive) senses. The system is the following, for the 3rd person sg. of a strong verb. Notice that all indicative forms of the passive are monosyllabic, whereas the corresponding subjunctives are disyllabic forms. Table 3.  Mood in Old Danish indicative

present preterite

subjunctive

active

passive

active

passive

takær tok

taks toks

taki toke

takis tokes

The Old Danish mood system was formally best retained in the strong verbs and in one weak class (the jan-verbs). The majority of the weak classes merged all persons except for the



Mood in Danish

3rd sg. active because of reductions of vowel qualities to schwa in all non-stressed syllables. Oppositions in the passive of weak verbs like kalla ‘call, name’, høra ‘hear’ are merged as a result of this vowel reduction, the first step toward the formation of the modern distality paradigm:

indicative subjunctive kallas (3. sg./pl. pres.) kallis (3.sg./pl. pres.) hørthos (3.pl. pret.) hørthis (3.pl. pret.)

↓ indicative/subjunctive kalles/hørthes (modern spelling kaldes, hørtes).

The most marked formation of the mood distinction in the passive was the opposition between monosyllabic indicatives and disyllabic subjunctives.

indicative gafs ‘was given’ nyts ‘is used’ dyls ‘is denied’ lægs ‘is laid, placed’

subjunctive gafuis nytis dylis læggis

By the 16th century, s-forms of the passive were in general reinterpreted as having a modal non-indicative value (normative, instructional), see 4.2. This led to the abolition of the monosyllabic indicatives, so that all Danish inflexional passives are polysyllabic in the modern language strikingly different from Swedish which retains the old monosyllabic indicatives.

4.2  The modern passive mood In modern Danish, the so-called s-passive functions as a mood in relation to the system of periphrastic passives. The system is exemplified in Table 4: Table 4.  Modern Danish verbal mood: subjective and objective present preterite

periphrastic mood

s-mood

bliver/er + supine bliver/er hent-et, spis-t blev/var + supine blev/var hent-et, spis-t

-(e)s hent-es, spis-es -ede-s/-te-s hent-ede-s, spis-te-s

The reanalysis of the s-morpheme as having an additional modal function must affect its counterpart, the periphrastic passive, as well. The s-passive functions as an objective mood in the sense that it introduces a point of view or perspective that is different from that of the speaker.2

.  The analysis of Danish passives as a mood system was presented in Heltoft & Jakobsen (1996) and in Heltoft (1996). Among the modern Scandinavian languages, this function is peculiar to





Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft

(7) Tysklands mest aktive nazi-organisation blev Germany’s most active nazi organisation become.pret i går forbudt af indenrigsminister Kanther. yesterday forbid-supine by home secretary Kanther. Dets ejendom beslaglægg-es af staten… Its property confiscate-prs.s-mood by the state… ‘Germany’s most active nazi organisation was forbidden yesterday by home secretary Kanther. Its property is to be confiscated by the state…’

The periphrastic passive, by contrast, describes a situation or action on behalf of the speaker only. If the speaker wishes to implicate a modal agent or modal factor different from himself, the s-mood must be used. In (7), the initial periphrastic mood describes the event on behalf of the speaker alone, the s-mood, on the contrary, renders the content of the decision made by the home secretary. Likewise, senses that are not descriptive, call for the s-mood. In (8), the s-form is instructional in that it renders a set of rules or norms in a cookery book. (8) a.

Retten krydr-es med safran. the dish season-prs.s-mood with saffron ‘The dish is to be seasoned with saffron.’

b. Retten bliv-er krydr-et med safran. the dish become-prs season-supine with saffron ‘The dish is (being) seasoned with saffron.’

Similarly, the s-mood is the performative mood (a periphrastic mood would turn example (9) into reported speech). (9) Apoteket er lukket. Der henvis-es til nærmeste the pharmacy is closed. There refer-prs.s-mood to closest døgnapotek. 24_hour_pharmacy ‘The farmacy is closed. You are referred to the closest 24 hour pharmacy.’

The semantic function of the passive mood system with modal verbs in Danish is to introduce, at the constructional level, differences of subjectivity that are not found within the lexical system of the modal verbs. Modal verbs combining with a periphrastic mood are thereby specified for subjective epistemic or subjective volitional readings. Modal verbs combining with the s-mood are specified for objective (nonsubjective) readings, deontic as well as causal: Deontic readings are neutral with respect to the modal factor or modal agent

Danish and to Norwegian as well, due to historical influence from Danish. Nothing similar is found with the Swedish s-passive.



Mood in Danish

(they can be performative or non performative), causal readings can only have objective modal factors, namely a propositionally located cause, different from the speaker (examples from Heltoft 2005): (10) a.

Formuleringen kan misforstå-s. this wording can misunderstand-inf.s-mood ‘This wording can be misunderstood.’

b. Formuleringen kan blive misforstå-et. this wording can become misunderstand-supine ‘This wording may be misunderstood.’ (11) a. Disse roser må snart beskær-es. these roses must soon prune-inf.s-mood ‘These roses must be pruned soon.’ b. Disse roser må snart blive beskår-et. these roses must soon become prune-supine ‘These roses must be pruned soon.’ (12) a.

(causal)

(subjective epistemic)

(causal/teleological)

(subjective epistemic)

Den lille sorte høne må ikke spis-es. the little black hen must not eat-inf.s-mood ‘The little black hen must not be eaten.’

(deontic)

b. Den lille sorte høne må ikke blive spis-t. the little black hen may not become eat-supine ‘May the little black hen not be eaten.’ (subjective volitional: wish) (13) a. Dette problem skal løs-es snarest. this problem must solve-inf.s-mood as soon as possible ‘This problem must be solved at soon as possible.’

(deontic)

b. Dette problem skal blive løs-t snarest. this problem shall become solve-supine as soon as possible ‘This problem will be solved as soon as possible.’(subjective volitional: promise)

Danish modal verbs differ from English in being neutral with respect to speaker involvement or subjectivity. It is the function of the passive mood system to specify this dimension.

5.  Morphology prompts word order The distinction between imperative and indicative is basic to the Danish mood system. Once the language user selects the imperative only one type of word order is possible. The indicative and the distal system, however, leave several options open, all related to mood in one way or another. In the following, a simplified version of the Danish ‘sentence frame’ (Diderichsen 1946; Heltoft 1986) will be presented, allowing for a clear and simple survey of the word order options for each of the verbal mood types.





Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft

Two caveats must be made: One, the exposition is strictly language specific. No claims are made about similar word orders in, for instance, German. And two, the reader should not map models of ‘underlying structure’ and ‘surface structure’ onto our exposition, but read our word order templates as complex signs. Word order differences are the level of expression, distinctions of mood (‘realis’, ‘subjectivity’, and ‘factivity’) the content level. Modern Danish is a language with a strict word order where two main ‘fields’ or domains can be identified. One (the field for the sentence nucleus, traditionally ‘the content field’) contains the verb phrase (such as the main verb in compound constructions, direct and indirect object, manner adverbs etc.) and one has a more grammatical function, the modal field. The latter contains the leftmost part of the sentence and the former the rightmost, the demarcation line being the position of the negation. Table 5 illustrates how two word order patterns can be distinguished, for the moment simply labelled a and b. Note that in such models of the word order of a language, not all positions are necessarily occupied; many sentences consist of just two or three elements (e.g. subject and verb: Solen skinner ‘The sun is shining’). Table 5.  Simplified version of the modern Danish sentence frame3 mood a b

F

nucleus Vf

Subject

negation

Vi

P

Subject

negation

VfVi

Objects

Adverbs

The main differences between pattern a and pattern b can be summed up as follows: 1. Pattern a exhibits a specific First Position, referred to by Diderichsen as ‘the Fundamental Field’ (1946: 185) to signal that it constitutes not just the syntagmatic starting point, but the information structural basis of the sentence. This position does not exist in pattern b. 2. The finite verb is placed differently in the two patterns; in pattern a it precedes the ordinary subject position, thus occupying the Second Position (V2). In pattern b it is placed together with the infinite verb(s), after the subject and possible sentence adverbs, here represented by the negation. 3. The position P for modal particles or conjunctions in pattern b is functionally related to the position for the finite verb in pattern a in that they both participate in signifying the reality value, or Realitätswert, of the clause, i.e. the distinction between a realis and a non-realis value.

.  F = First Position or Fundamental Field, Vf = finite Verb, S = Subject, Vi = infinite Verb.



Mood in Danish

We shall claim that both patterns occur in main clauses as well as in subordinate clauses, thereby contesting a wide-spread belief in Danish grammatical tradition stating that pattern a is a main clause pattern (MC) and pattern b a subordinate clause pattern (SC) (e.g. Wiwel 1901: 305–6; Diderichsen 1946: 185). Our view yields four possible combinations, as seen in Table 6. Table 6.  Sentence patterns + sentence hierarchy MC SC

F Vf (S) Neg. Vi

P S Neg. Vf Vi

i. De er ikke flyttet ii. at de er ikke flyttet

iii. Bare de ikke er flyttet iv. at de ikke er flyttet

The examples used read: i. De er ikke flyttet ‘they haven’t moved’; ii. at de er ikke flyttet ‘that they haven’t moved’; iii. Bare de ikke er flyttet ‘hopefully they haven’t moved’; iv. at de ikke er ikke flyttet lit: that they not have moved. (Note that examples conforming to the V2-pattern a can have alternative fillings of their Fundamental Field: Flyttet er de ikke; at flyttet er de ikke. The difference in meaning relates to the information structure of the sentence, making syntactic elements other than the subject the starting point of the sentence).

5.1  Mood in subordinate clauses Tradition maintains that subordinate clauses conforming to pattern a are mainly instances of reported (indirect) speech, thereby explaining the word order as a reflection of main clause use proper. However, examples of other uses abound in the Danish corpora. All examples in (14a–c) are extracted from the modern Danish text corpus, Korpus 2000. (14) a.

Resultatet er, at borgerne få-r ikke den hjælp, the result is that the.citizens get-prs not that help



de ha-r brug for. they have-prs need for



‘The result is that citizens do not get the help they need.’

b. EU er et værn mod at vi blive-r EC is a safeguard against that we become-prs

hæmningsløst tramp-et ned af amerikansk kultur. unrestrainably trample-ptcp down by American culture

‘The EC is a safeguard against our being trampled unrestrainably down by American culture.’ c.

Problemet var, at hun fik aldrig betal-t raterne. the problem was that she get.pret never pay-ptcp the rates



‘The problem was that she never got around to paying the instalments.’





Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft

Semantically, Danish subordinate clauses contrast an informative form and a neutral form. Pattern a, which we may generally call the declarative pattern, signifies that the content of this clause is informative (compatible to a declarative speech act). Consider example (14a) from above, here repeated unglossed: (14) a.

Resultatet er, at borgerne får ikke den hjælp, de har brug for. ‘The result is that citizens do not get the help that they need.’

It is definitely the content of the subordinate clause that is informationally more important. The speaker wants to convey what the result is, not that such a result exists. In markedness terms, pattern b is neutral and, accordingly, it can be used in all subordinate clauses, including factive and interrogative, see examples (15a) and (16a). Factive clauses are neither informative nor foregrounded, and thus, they cannot follow the declarative pattern (15b); interrogative subordinate clauses do not contain new information and must therefore follow the neutral pattern as well (16a). (15) a. Det er underligt at jeg nu ha-r taget it is strange that I now have-prs take.ptcp

skridtet fuldt ud. the step fully out



‘It is strange that I have now taken the step completely.’

(K2000)

b. Det er underligt *at jeg ha-r nu taget it is strange that I have-prs now take.ptcp

skridtet fuldt ud. the step fully out

(16) a. Flere har spurgt mig, om jeg ikke kan several have asked me whether I not can.prs

importere nogle cabrioleter import.inf some convertibles



‘Several people have asked me whether I could import some convertibles.’

(K2000)

b. Flere har spurgt mig, *om jeg kan ikke several have asked me whether I can.prs not

importere nogle cabrioleter. import.inf some convertibles

It is the emotive predicate underlig ‘strange’ in (15a) that renders the subordinate clause factive and this clause must therefore follow the neutral sentence pattern. A commutation test with the declarative pattern (15b) simply yields an ungrammatical subordinate clause. Our analysis is based on the so-called assertive theory of mood (Hooper 1975, elaborated for French by Korzen 1999). This theory shows how the inflexional indicative is actually the marked mood form in French complement clauses and the subjunctive the unmarked: Where verbal mood is not strictly governed by the predicate of the main clause,



Mood in Danish

a functional difference obtains between the two mood forms. Broadly speaking, the subjunctive can be used everywhere, but the indicative only in certain contexts. An indicative in a complement clause signifies that the content of the clause is the more important information compared to the main clause. In other words, it is being presented as new information for the addressee. This also explains why the indicative is impossible in presuppositions; presuppositions are factive, not informative, and are thus not presented as important information for the addressee.

5.2  Mood in main clauses The declarative pattern and the neutral pattern also occur in main clauses. Markedness relations change as the neutral pattern is raised to the level of a main clause: Main clauses of the declarative pattern are unmarked and have a very wide illocutionary potential, whereas main clauses of the neutral pattern belong to a very specific type, namely emotives (cf. Christensen 2007: 154f). They are always construed with an initial particle, often from a closed set of modal particles, but also with quite a few of the ordinary conjunctions. The particles specify the type of emotive, ranging from wishes over surprised exclamations to intensified personal judgments. The modal particles are almost untranslatable into English; some are reduced forms of historically richer verbal phrases, others are particles reanalysed over time to cover more subjective meanings. Gid signals a wish and is a grammaticalised form of the expression Gud give at… ‘God give that…’ (17a). Sikke(n) functions as an intensifier indicating that the sentence is a personal judgment; it is the result of a process of univerbation and bleaching from an imperative sentence Se hvilke(n) ‘See what/ how’ (17b). On the other hand, bare used to have just the concrete meaning of English bare ‘naked/uncovered’, but later developed senses similar to English only or just, and as a modal particle introducing a main clause of the neutral pattern it compares to if only, thereby signalling a wish (17c). (17) a.

Gid jeg var hjemme på Bornholm. ptl I be.pret home on Bornholm ‘I wish I were back on Bornholm.’

b. Sikke dejligt her er. ptl lovely here be.prs ‘How lovely it is here.’ c.

Bare nu høsten ikke slå-r fejl. only now the.harvest not hit-prs wrong ‘If only the harvest doesn’t go wrong, now.’

The conjunctions seem to obtain quite different meanings when used in main clauses, hvem ‘who’ indicating the speaker’s wish that something were the case (18a), at ‘that’ shock or surprise (18b), om ‘if/whether’ endorsement of a judgment or valuation (18c), and som ‘as’ simply offering a strong opinion of something (18d).





Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft

(18) a.

Hvem der hav-de været til stede!4 who that have-pret be.ptcp at present ‘If only I had been there!’

b. At du tør! that you dare.prs ‘I can’t believe you dare to do that!’ c.

Om jeg vil. if I will.prs ‘You bet I will.’

d. Som han dog kunne snakke. as he yet can.pret talk ‘How he talked!’

Obviously, the use of the different sentence patterns in main clauses entails the addition of an illocutionary value to the clause. This affects the interpretation of the resulting utterances, also explaining the marked readings of the conjunctions.

6.  Mood in the declarative pattern: Realis vs. Non-realis An additional opposition is found within the declarative pattern where the Fundamental Field can be left empty. Table 7 outlines these options, here with a diminished sentence frame, restricted to the mood domain: Table 7.  Oppositions of mood in the declarative pattern F

Vf

Vf

S

(S)

A few examples of the different types will demonstrate their functional span as well as their mutual differences. (19) a.

Solen skinn-er fra en skyfri himmel. the sun shine-prs from a cloudfree sky ‘The sun is shining from a clear sky.’

b. Hvorfor putt-er du mælken i fryseren, far? why put-prs you the milk in the freezer dad ‘Why are you putting the milk in the freezer, Dad?’

.  Compare this example with the following: Hvem(F) havde(V) der(S) været tilstede? ‘Who had been present there’. The latter is a wh-question, following the declarative pattern. This opposition offers a clear-cut example of a commutation test where the difference is isolated to the sentence patterns alone: the declarative pattern yields a question, the neutral pattern an emotive utterance.



c.

Mood in Danish

Så spis-er vi! then eat-prs we ‘We are eating now!’

(20) a. Skinn-er solen? shine-prs the sun ‘Is the sun shining?’ b. Skinn-er solen på det, (så bliver det meget lyst). shine-prs the sun on it … ‘If the sun shines on it, (it will become very light).’ c.

Rækk-er du mig lige fjernbetjeningen? pass-prs you me just the.remote control ‘Can you hand me the remote, please?’

Examples (19a–c) are all in the indicative and show the wide meaning potential for this form, here with a filled-in First Position: (19a) is a simple statement; (19b) is a question and (19c) functions as a directive. With an empty First Position the indicative still has a very wide meaning potential, but there is a clear difference in meaning from the examples with a filled-in First Position. Example (20a) is an ordinary yes/no question; (20b) is the antecedent of a conditional clause – formally indistinguishable from the yes/no question, were it not for the fact that it is embedded in the clause manifesting the consequent. Antecedents of this type (without an if) are analysed as subordinate clauses dependent on a main clause, in contradistinction to the yes/no question which of course constitutes a main clause in itself. Formally, (20c) is also a question, but parallel to (19c) it functions as a directive, here a request for the addressee to pass the remote control.

6.1  Filled-in Fundamental Field Sentences with a filled-in Fundamental Field always signify the very abstract grammatical notion of Realis. This is in no way a referential phenomenon; it does not refer to the status of states-of-affairs in the real world. It involves purely grammatical meaning and indicates whether or not the propositional content of a sentence is presented as the basis for further development (argumentation, narrative or other). Sometimes it will be used to state a fact about the textual or extra-textual (‘real’) world, but this is far from always the case. Compare example (19b) above, a wh-question, repeated here for convenience: (19) b. Hvorfor putter du mælken i fryseren, far? ‘Why are you putting the milk in the freezer, Dad?’

The propositional content is not questioned here, on the contrary it is presupposed (in an everyday sense of the term, at least) that the speaker’s father is placing a carton of milk into the freezer. It is not asserted, either. But it retains a certain ‘constative’ quality which is included in the abstract notion of Realis. Similarly, for sentences of the type in (19c), i.e. sentences of





Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft

the declarative pattern that are used directively. As Diderichsen remarks: “The indicative can enter the domain of the imperative, in the sense that the speaker can phrase his request as if he found that his will had already been realised” (1946: 125, our translation).

6.2  Empty Fundamental Field The declarative pattern may also exhibit an empty Fundamental Field which always signals Non-realis.5 In main clauses this gives rise to ordinary yes/no-questions as well as to other pragmatic functions of the same form, typically directives (as in (20c) above) or emotives (21). In subordinate clauses the non-realis form is found in conditional sentences (as in (20b) above) and in what has been called ‘comparison sentences’, a specific form of insertion where something is described by reference to another possible state-of-affairs (22). (21) Hav-de jeg dog bare aldrig gjort det!!! have-pret I ptl just never do.ptcp it ‘If only I had never done it!!!’ (22) Han kan sine akkorder, som vækk-ede man en autist he can his chords as wake-pret you an autist klokken tre om natten og bad om 117-tabellen. the.clock 3 in the.night and asked for the 117-table ‘He knows his chords like an autistic person awakened at three in the morning would know his 117 multiplication table.’

As with Realis, Non-realis does not relate to extralinguistic ‘reality’. The topological Nonrealis form merely presents a state-of-affairs for consideration, but does not specify anything about the factual status of the propositional content of the sentence. It covers both counterfactual and hypothetical as well as completely unresolved reality values. Sentences of this type are not asserted, but neither are they denied. Some are offered as possible descriptions of a situation, some are simply outbursts of an emotive character. Imperative sentences might seem to have a parallel topology, but see below for arguments against the existence of a Fundamental Field in front of the imperative verb.

7.  How is it mood? Danish has a very limited verbal mood system, but the opposition indicative vs. subjunctive has been replaced by oppositions of word order that are best analysed as mood systems themselves. There are at least two good reasons for describing them as such:

.  Note that we do not use the term Irrealis here. In our view, this term should be restricted to counterfactual meaning, whereas the term Non-realis, in keeping with general markedness terminology, indicates that the form in question has the wider meaning potential.



Mood in Danish

1. Grammatical status.  Both oppositions are firmly grammaticalised. Each consists of just two paradigmatically opposed members having a typical markedness relation to one another. Also, they are obligatory for Danish sentence formation, and are thus highly functional. 2. Meaning.  The Declarative/Neutral opposition and the Realis/Non-realis opposition both encompass meanings that are typical for verbal mood systems across languages. In subordinate clauses the two sentence patterns are straightforwardly comparable to distinctions in French, Spanish and Italian between the indicative and the subjunctive, indicating whether the content of the clause is presented as informative or not.6 Roughly parallel Italian examples would be, for instance: (23) È chiaro che s’è spagliato. is obvious that refl.be.prs.ind mistaken ‘It is obvious that he is mistaken.’ (24) È strano che se sia spagliato. is strange that refl be.prs.subj mistaken. ‘It is strange that he is mistaken.’

The indicative has the assertive or informative potential, the subjunctive is the unmarked form. The adjective strano takes a factive complement clause. In Danish main clauses the distinction is merged with illocutionary status and gives rise to a marked form, called emotives, and an unmarked form, non-emotives. The Realis/ Non-realis opposition is well-known from languages with a larger verbal paradigm; Realis is comparable to the indicative and Non-realis to some uses of the subjunctive (epistemic ones: hypothetical and doxastic). The modern Danish topological system is a fairly recent development. Word order in Old Scandinavian coded primarily relations of information structure and the oppositions analysed here (interrogative and conditional clauses with an empty first position) are also probably best understood as parts of a wider textual system like the one found in Old French (a verb second language very similar to Old Scandinavian, cf. Buridant 2000). By the late 18th century the old word order system was replaced by the present complex system of hierarchy and word order, indicating mood and illocutionary frame. Modern Danish word order is restricted by verbal mood in that a choice of the imperative limits the topological options radically. Imperative is never found in the neutral pattern, and even though sentences with an imperative verb seem to follow the declarative pattern, certain factors lead to the conclusion that the topological frame for imperative sentences does not contain a Fundamental Field. In stark contrast to what holds for the

.  We must refer the reader to expositions of the so-called assertive theory of mood, see Hooper (1975).



 Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft

indicative, placing a syntactic element in front of the imperative does not alter the illocutionary frame of the imperative sentence. Further, the position to the left of the imperative only allows a minimal group of particles (så ‘so’/‘then’, bare ‘just’ and, rarely, da ‘then’) and nothing else. (25) a.

Spis-Ø bare! eat-imp ptl ‘Please eat!’

(permission, offer)

b. Bare spis-Ø! ptl eat-imp ‘Just/please eat!’

(permission, offer)

The particle så (and da) in front of the imperative verb may function simply as conjunctions adjoining the two parts of a conditional construction (of the type if, then). This type has an antecedent in the indicative, and the consequent in the imperative.7 (26) Hvis du er sulten, så spis-Ø! if you are hungry, then eat-imp ‘If you’re hungry, then/just eat!’

Consequently, even when imperatives are preceded by a particle, their grammatical meaning does not change; they still function as requests, permissions, orders etc. This contradicts what we would expect if the sentence frame of imperatives had a Fundamental Field. As mentioned, the choice between the two verbal mood forms is basic to the Danish mood system as a whole. The imperative restricts word options radically, whereas the indicative allows for a complex system of word order oppositions and oppositions of sentential hierarchy (main clause vs. subordinate clause). A survey of the mood systems presented in this paper is given in table 8a–b. Table 8a.  Verbal mood systems in Danish imperative distinction verbal

passive distinction

imperative -Ø

directive

blive-passive blive + -(e)t

subjective

indicative -(e)r

non-directive

s-passive -(e)s

non-subjective

.  Så + imperative is also found by itself, i.e. without a subordinated conditional clause. In these cases it functions as a more direct order, nevertheless maintaining a sense of conditionality, ­instructing the addressee to locate the condition somewhere in the context (maybe in the speaker’s repeated requests to start eating – in which case the utterance is probably delivered in a distinctively irritated tone of voice).



Mood in Danish

Table 8b.  Topological mood systems in Danish hierarchical distinction

topological

SC

MC

declarative F V S neg V

informative

non-emotive

neutral S neg V V

non-inform.

realis distinction

FV

realis

ØV

non-realis

emotive

Again, the primary distinction lies between imperative and indicative, making inflexional mood a precondition for the further elaboration of modal meaning. A rich array of systems serves as the means for subspecification of mood in modern Danish, ranging from an extensive set of particles through the passive opposition to the complex system of topology and hierarchy. We have only touched briefly on the particle systems in this paper, but in addition to the particles introducing emotive main clauses (gid, bare, sikke(n) etc.) there is also a large set of modal particles that can be combined with the indicative, and a smaller set that can be combined with the imperative, to some degree specifying the function the imperative will serve (encoding of the imperative’s illocutionary frame).

References Buridant, C. 2000. Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: Sedes. Christensen, T. 2007. Hyperparadigmer. En undersøgelse af paradigmatiske samspil i danske modussystemer (Hyperparadigms. An Investigation of Paradigmatic Interplay in Danish Mood Systems), Roskilde: Roskilde University, Department for Culture and Identity. Diderichsen, P. 1946. Elementær dansk grammatik (Elementary Danish Grammar), Copenhagen: Nordisk Forlag. Heltoft, L. 1986. Topologi og syntaks: En revision af Paul Diderichsens sætningsskema (Topology and Syntax: A Revision of Paul Diderichsen’s Sentence Frame). NyS 16/17: 105–30. Heltoft, L. 1996. Paradigms, word order and grammaticalization. In Content, Expression and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 29], E.  Engberg-Pedersen, M. Fortescue, P. Harder, L. Heltoft & L.F. Jacobsen (eds), 469–494. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heltoft, L. 1998. Det danske morfologiske system (The Morphological System of Danish). Årsberetning 1996–1997, 85–99. Copenhagen: Selskab for Nordisk Filologi. Heltoft, L. 2005. Modality and subjectivity. In Modality. Studies in Form and Function, A. Klinge & H.H. Müller (eds), 81–102. London: Equinox. Heltoft, L. & Jakobsen, L.F. 1996. Danish passives and subject positions as a mood system – A content analysis. In Content, Expression and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 29], E. Engberg-Pedersen, M. Fortescue, P. Harder, L. Heltoft & L.F. Jacobsen (eds), 199–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.





Tanya Karoli Christensen & Lars Heltoft Hooper, J. 1975. On assertive predicates. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 4, J.P. Kimball (ed.) 91–124. New York NY: Academic Press. Korpus 2000: http://ordnet.dk/korpusdk. Korzen, H. 1999. Principper for opstillingen af modus i kompletivsætninger på fransk (Principles for an analysis of mood in complement clauses in French), Ny Forskning i Grammatik 6, 181–203. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag. Wiwel, H.G. 1901. Synspunkter for dansk sproglære (Viewpoints on Danish Grammar). Copenhagen: Det nordiske Forlag.

Mood in English Alexander Bergs & Lena Heine Osnabrück

1.  Introduction The English language has gone through most of its historical development in Great Britain from which it finally spread around the world, becoming one of the most important languages of today. Although British and A­me­ri­can English are often considered the most influential varieties, English has a wide range of standards. Besides Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Eng­lish is spoken in India, Africa, the Caribbean and many other parts of the world. These “New Englishes” are currently becoming more and more im­por­tant in the study of the English language, and a description of their gram­ma­tical features shows that they can differ rather much from the English va­rie­ties we are used to hear in the mass media (e.g. Crystal 2003). However, the differences might be strongest on the level of pronunciation, while gram­mar is much more stable from variety to variety (Finegan 1990: 102; Huddleston & Pullum 2005). English is a West Germanic language with strong influences from both North Germanic and Romance languages. Its closest living relative is Fri­sian, spoken on the North German and Dutch coast. Throughout its his­tory English has always been strongly influenced by contact to other lan­gua­ges. This is one of the main factors that finally led to extensive phonological re­ductions and mergers that resulted in extensive syncretism of the formerly di­stinctive inflections; the result was a massive typological change in which Eng­lish turned from a highly synthetic language to a language that is rather iso­lating in nature today. So, compared to other Indo-European languages, Eng­lish has a minimal inflectional system, lacking adjectival agreement and gram­matical gender, and has lost almost all inflectional case markers. Only pro­nouns preserve some features of the inflectional complexity. As a result of these changes, English has gained a rather fixed SVO word order.

2.  The English verbal system Most English verbs are not identifiable from their form; e.g. one typical word formation process in English is conversion from other words. So, verbs are rather recognized as verbs by their syntactic function in context (Carter & McCarthy 2006: 301). The inflectional system of the English verbs is comparatively simple in comparison to many other languages, ma­xi­mally showing six inflectional forms. Commonly, English verbs are ca­te­go­rized as

 Alexander Bergs & Lena Heine

either lexical verbs, or auxiliary (including modal) verbs (Carter & McCarthy 2006: 304; Huddleston & Pullum 2002:  74; Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985:  96). Most verbs in English are lexical verbs. They can stand alone and form an open class, denoting actions, events, and states (Carter & McCarthy 2006: 419), and belong to different inflectional classes. The small group of the (modal) auxiliary verbs, on the other hand, has very specific syn­tac­tic properties and is restricted to can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should, must, ought to and used to. As a third group, the verbs be, have, do, need and dare can function both as main lexical verbs or as auxi­liar­ies (Crystal 2003; Huddleston & Pullum 2005: 40; Quirk et al. 1985: 96). In the lexical verbs, English shares the Germanic verb patterning in strong verbs with ablaut change and weak verbs with dental suffix in the pre­te­rite tense. However, the productiveness of the strong verbs is dimi­ni­sh­ed, leaving only the weak verbs productive today. During the linguistic his­tory of English, many formerly strong inflections have adapted the weak forms, so the strong verbs are considered irregular today (Brinton & Arnovick 2006: 337). Functionally, English has six tense-aspect categories: present in­di­ca­ti­ve, past indicative, future, present perfect, past perfect and future perfect. Still, in the regular verb class, only the third-person singular present in­di­ca­ti­ve in -s, the past tense -ed, the past participle -ed and the present par­ti­ciple/gerund -ing are indicated by distinctive inflectional forms. All other ver­bal categories are expressed periphrastically by means of auxiliaries and modals. The basic form is identical with all forms of the simple present tense except for the third person singular. From this base form, all other forms in the regular verbs are derived by adding suffixes. Irregular verbs have two more forms differing from the infinitive: past indicative and past par­ticiple (see Table 1). Table 1.  Inflectional paradigm for lexical verbs lexical verbs regular base form present form -s form (3rd sg.) past form gerund/participle past participle

want want wants wanted wanting wanted

irregular take take takes took taking taken

hide hide hides hid hiding hidden

The modal auxiliaries differ from the lexical verbs in that they lack some of the above mentioned forms. They do not inflect the third person singular indi­ca­tive active; additionally, because they lack certain forms of the above pa­ra­digm, they cannot be used



Mood in English

in constructions where these forms are re­qui­red. For example, all of them lack the gerund/participle or past participle forms, so constructions like *I regret not canning swim or *I have could swim since I was three are not grammatical (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 75). The primary verb be plays a somewhat special role. Its different forms ori­gi­nate from several independent verbs, which in Old English still were dis­tinct (cp. Table  5 below): wesan and beon. Today, it shows more in­flec­tion­al morphology than any other verb, as shown in Table 2. Table 2.  Inflectional paradigm of be base form

be

present form -s form (3rd sg.) -ing form past form -ed participle

am, are is being was, were been

3.  The development of mood in English The discussion of mood in English is, at least at first sight, very simple and straight­ forward, as there are almost no grammatical exponents with this par­ti­cu­lar function left (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 172). Therefore, it comes hardly as a surprise that most current grammars of English do not ac­tual­ly mention or discuss “mood” as grammatical category, but rather “mo­da­lity” as functional category. Modality in contemporary English is ex­pres­sed by independent auxiliary verbs and other lexical means which will not be discussed here in greater detail, although Huddleston (1989) suggests that the inflectional category of mood should be expanded to include peri­phras­tic constructions under the heading of what he called analytic mood. Palmer (2001: 104) also suggests that in English the appearance of the sys­tem of modal auxiliaries (which express modality) led to, or at least was con­comitant with, the disappearance of the Old English system of gram­ma­ti­cal mood. The two systems, according to Palmer (2001: 104) hardly ever co­exist; this balancing tendency of analytic and periphrastic expressions might be seen as a general design feature of language. In Old English, i.e. before ca. 1100 CE, we can find a more or less full ver­bal paradigm, including morphologically distinct mood markers. In an adap­tation from Hogg (1992: 159–161), Tables 3 and 4 exemplify this para­digm for early West Saxon (c. 800 CE) with the help of the verbs stele ‘steal’, trymme ‘strengthen’ and lufie ‘love’.



 Alexander Bergs & Lena Heine

Table 3.  Mood in Old English in strong verbs Regular, strong verbs stele ‘steal’ Present

Indicative

Subjunctive

1sg 2sg 3sg Plural

stel-e stel-st stelth stel-ath

stel-e stel-e stel-e stel-en

Past

Indicative

Subjunctive

1sg 2sg 3sg Plural

stael stael-e stael stael-on

stael-e stael-e stael-e stael-on

Imperative stel! stel-ath!

Table 4.  Mood in Old English in weak verbs Weak verbs Class I trymme ‘strengthen’

Class II lufie ‘love’

Pres

ind

sbjv

1sg 2sg 3sg pl

trymm-e trym-est trym-eth trymm-ath

trymm-e trymm-e trymm-e trymm-en

Past

ind

sbjv

ind

sbjv

1sg 2sg 3sg pl

trym-ede trym-edest trym-ede trym-edon

trym-ede trym-ede trym-ede trym-eden

luf-ode luf-odest luf-ode luf-odon

luf-ode luf-ode luf-ode luf-oden

imp tryme trymm-ath

ind

sbjv

lufi-e luf-ast luf-ath luf-iath

lufi-e lufie lufie luf-ien

imp lufa! lufiath

As men­tioned before, in Old English we still find distinct verbal paradigms for the primary verb “to be”. The verbs wesan and beon, both meaning “be­come, come to be”, still had distinct forms in indicative and subjunctive as shown in Table 5, which later fell together (cp. Table 2 above). Table 5.  Mood in wesan, beon ‘to be’ Indicative 1sg 2sg 3sg pl

eom eart is synd(on)

Subjunctive beo bist bith beoth

si si si syn, syndon

beo beo beo beon



Mood in English

As these tables illustrate, apparently we find some distinct forms for the strong verbs, but also many cases of syncretism. For example, while the im­pe­rative singular in the present is clearly marked by a lack of inflectional end­ings (stel!), the plural imperative has the same form as the indicative. Simi­larly, all subjunctive forms in the present singular have a distinguishing mar­ker -e, which, however, also marks the first person singular. In the pre­te­rite, the subjunctive form can also be found in the second person singular, and the plural forms are identical. The weak verbs of both Class I and II show the same patterns for the singular; in the plural, the subjunctive form can also be found in the first and third person singular indicative. Middle English, i.e. ca. 1100–1500 CE, shows a dramatic loss of gram­mati­cal marking in general (cf. Lass 1992: 134ff). By about 1300, the sub­junctive in the main dialects was marked by variable -e in the singular and variable -en in the plural (see Lass 1992: 137). By 1400, the gram­ma­ti­cal marker for the imperative plural became at least variable, so that singular and plural imperatives gradually merged into final -e. Since word final -e is very unstable and susceptible to change, this also soon disappeared, leaving the simple bare form for both the subjunctive present and the imperative. The preterite subjunctive also merged completely with the preterite in­di­ca­ti­ve form (concomitant with the loss of markers for the preterite plural). As has been pointed out above, the two systems for expressing mood or modality seem to work with some kind of complementary distribution. While there is a system of morphologically marked mood in Old English, but hardly any modal auxiliaries, we see the rise of modal auxiliaries in Midd­le English together with the loss of inflectional mood marking. Even­tual­ly, in the fifteenth century, there is a ratio of about 9:1 in favor of modal auxi­liaries versus morphologically marked mood marking in independent claus­es (Mustanoja 1960: 247).

4.  Mood in contemporary English In contemporary English, only three different grammatical moods are com­monly recognized: indicative, subjunctive, and imperative (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002:  172; Depraetere & Reed 2006: 270; Quirk et al. 1985: 149). With the loss of inflections in the development of English (see Table 1 a­bove), these moods are no longer clearly signaled by specialized in­flec­tion­al morphemes, but rather, for example, by the lack of the portmanteau mor­pheme “third person -s” (which actually indicates 3rd person singular, simple pre­sent tense, active, and indicative). Rarely, specialized verb forms, such as were are used for the past subjunctive in the first and second person singular (in­stead of regular preterite was). In the following, each of the different moods will be discussed in de­tail.

4.1  Indicative The indicative in English can be regarded as the “unmarked” mood (Quirk et al. 1985: 149) or  “unmodalised” (Huddleston & Pullum 2002:  174) in con­trast to the subjunctive and





Alexander Bergs & Lena Heine

imperative. Morphologically, the indicative on lexical verbs is only marked on the third person singular present tense. Mo­dal verbs do not show any person marking here, with the exception of the central auxiliaries have and be that show slightly different patterns: have forms the third person singulars has/had, while be forms is/was, as can be seen in Table 1 above. While the indicative essentially signals factuality of the proposition (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 174), it is worth pointing out that due to the very lose form-function fit in English, the (morphological) indicative can also be used in different contexts and for other functions, including mo­dal remoteness as in the following Example (1), or prohibitive and im­per­a­ti­ve, as in (2) and (3); the data examples used in this article stem from the Bri­tish National Corpus (BNC), The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken Eng­lish (MICASE), and the Time Magazine Corpus, if not indicated otherwise. (1) a. 

And unlike many an athlete who turned in a stellar performance at the peak of his career, Tiger should only get better. Don’t be surprised if he wins the British Open in July at St. Andrews in record fashion. (Time Magazine 2000–03–03)

b. Despite Icahn’s denials, TWA feared that if he won control he would dismantle the company by selling off some routes, as well as landing rights and jets. (Time Magazine 1985–06–25)

The preterite indicative form often shows stronger modal remoteness, such as remote possibility versus actual possibility, as in (1a) and (1b): in exam­ple (1a), if he wins seems to suggest much greater possibility and likelihood – i.e. less modal remoteness – than if he won in (1b), the preterite coun­ter­part. Note that both verb forms do not express temporal meaning (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 148). The pluperfect signals even greater re­mote­ ness, i.e. counterfactuality, as in (1c):

(1) c. Peter Hill raised both hands over his head, as if he had won a championship fight. (Time Magazine 1985–10–15)

Examples (2) and (3) illustrate directive readings of indicative forms:

(2) no if someone’s willing to buy it for a lot more than it costs you, you don’t want to stop bidding on your inputs, you wanna, try to, capture that surplus.  (MICASE MTG270SG049)

(3)

S1: oh you mean, don’t leave it in fraction form basically? S2: mhm. S1: yes, that’s a good idea. S2: well it’s still fraction form, but they [S1: oh you ] put the fractions together… oh you’re right. yeah should we, make the fractions go away? S1: yeah you wanna just make sure you don’t want any Is on the bottom. [S2: okay. ] that’s what it is… whoop (MICASE SGR385SU057)

In (2) and (3), we find one occurrence of the positive construction you want to/wanna V and its negative counterpart, you don’t want to/wanna V. In both these cases we can easily



Mood in English 

see the directive, or at least a warning/advising speech act: don’t stop bidding and capture that surplus. The same can be seen in (2). You wanna just make sure can be paraphrased as make sure (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 148). It could be argued that the want to/wanna cons­ truc­tion essentially goes back to an indirect speech act motivated by politeness, and is now gradually being conventionalized in regular discourse as a kind of emerging modal (cf. Krug 2000: 148ff); Quirk et al. (1985: 148) also men­tion that wanna “is particularly conventionalized in informal usage”. (4) and (5) show a related phenomenon.





(4) This consists of three lots of three stitches. For the first crossover you take three stitches from the left and cross them with the three centre stitches. After four rows, you cross the stitches from the right with the three centre stitches. (BNC, CGW, knitting designs periodical) (5) Just before retiring is a good time for hot milk. You take a glass of hot milk, sip slowly, then make one last readjustment of the pillows, snap out the light, pull the coverlets around your shoulders, give a little sigh, the sigh isn’t absolutely necessary (Time magazine 1932–12–26)

Both (4) and (5) show a common construction in recipes and instructions. It shows regular declarative sentence structure, with overt subject you, but ne­ver­theless carries imperative meaning. In fact, in these cases it cannot even be decided whether this actually is a regular declarative clause or an im­pe­ra­tive clause with overt subject. Only with to be do we find clear evidence, as in (6).

(6) That’s it now put your foot right through the window. Look I just did that. You be careful. Leave it. Come on. (BNC, KDY, Conversation)

If the highlighted sentence in (6) were a regular indicative clause, we would ex­pect you are careful. The presence of the plain form be hints at the fact that here we find an imperative clause with overt subject. Note, however, that in (4) and (5) this clear interpretation is not available, since plain form and second person singular indicative are morphologically identical for these lexical verbs. In (4) and (5), however, we find some interesting ir­re­gu­larity regarding tense/aspect marking. The simple present in English usu­ally marks habitual/regular actions and events (“the flight leaves at seven”), ge­ne­ral truths (“the moon revolves around the earth”), and states (“I know what I know”). In (4) and (5) neither of these is the case; we find single, non-habitual events. The directive reading could be based on a coercion pro­cess, which is required by the unconventional use of the simple present here (cf. Michaelis 2004; de Swart 1998; but see also Ziegeler 2007). Coercion es­sentially means that the combination of actually incompatible forms leads to the reinterpretation of one of them: I have had too much book today in an aca­demic context is perfectly transparent and interpretable, even though the un­countable modifier much and the countable book should not be com­bin­able. The same might apply to the use of certain morphosyntatic tenses in in­com­patible contexts. Alternatively, this marking is a sign for a plain form, and thus an imperative clause with overt subject.



Alexander Bergs & Lena Heine

4.2  Subjunctive The subjunctive form has nearly completely vanished from the Modern Eng­lish verbal paradigm, so most grammars of English do not reserve much space for its discussion. ­Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 51/993; 2005: 32) take the subjunctive as a clause construction of “a clause that is finite but tense­less, containing the plain form of the verb” (ibid.: 993), not as verb in­flec­tion. However, the subjunctive is also interpreted as an inflectional cate­ gory that is traditionally subdivided into present subjunctive and past sub­junc­tive. The terms present and past hint at the form that is employed in their construction, not at their time reference (Depraetere & Reed 2006: 270). Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 87–88) point out that both are con­cer­ned with present time but indicate different verb modes in that they express dif­ferent degrees of remoteness. Therefore, they suggest to use the term ir­realis instead of past subjunctive. Still, the present article will use the tra­di­tion­al labels of present and past subjunctive.

4.2.1  Present subjunctive The present subjunctive in English is usually subdivided into two different ca­te­gories: the so-called mandative and formulaic subjunctive (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 155). Both mandative and formulaic subjunctives are essentially form­ed by the so-called base (Quirk et al. 1985) or plain (Huddleston & Pullum 2002) form of the verb. This means that for most persons and verbs we do not see any difference between indicative and subjunctive. The dif­fer­ence only becomes visible in the third person singular, since the present sub­junctive does not show any subject-verb concord and thus lacks the -s form (see Example  7), and in the forms of to be. The base form of the latter is simply be which then appears in the subjunctive uses, in contrast to the u­sual indicative forms (Example 8).

(7) But he insisted she pay him anyway.



(8) You carry any weapon, whether it be a knife, baseball bat or gun, and in the end you’ll use it. (BNC, K5L Social material,)

(BNC, HH3 New Internationalist)

This form of the subjunctive appears mainly in independent formulaic ex­pres­sions such as idioms or semi-fixed expressions like God save the Queen, so be it, or if need be. The mandative subjunctive, which is characterized by Quirk et al. (1985: 156) as the most common use of the subjunctive today, can be found in subordinate that clauses. The that clause needs to be introduced “by an ex­pres­sion of demand, recommendation, proposal, resolution, intention, etc.” (Quirk et al. 1985: 156). Here, Quirk et al. (1985: 157) argue, is a dif­fer­ence between American and British English. The former shows quite fre­quent use of the mandative subjunctive construction, the latter does not, al­though a gradual increase in the frequency of this construction seems to be no­tice­able in British English. According to Quirk et al., British English in ge­ne­ral seems to prefer a modal expression with should (Quirk et al. 1985:  157). Huddleston & Pullum (2002:  995) also claim that in American



Mood in English

Eng­lish the subjunctive is much more common than the should construction – and that British English shows the opposite tendency.

4.2.2  Past subjunctive The past subjunctive can only be seen in the so-called were subjunctive as the only surviving distinct verbal form. As already mentioned above, it ex­pres­ses unreal, counterfactual, or completely hypothetical situations, i.e. mo­dal remoteness rather than past time as in example (9). It only remains in the paradigm for the primary verb be. It resembles the past indicative, but dif­fers from it in that the form were is not inflected in the first and third per­son singular, so were is used throughout all persons. When the past sub­junc­tive is used, a reference to a hypothetical or to a counterfactual situation is made, which may lie in the present, the past or the future (Example 10): 

(9) you could read page one-twenty-four, as if it were all simple past. right? (MICASE LEL300SU076)

(10) […] Jimmie whishes/wished/will wish his girlfriend were with him.  (example by Depraetere & Reed 2006: 271)

The form were is used especially following constructions that express voli­tion, such as the verbs wish and suppose (I wish he were here), the con­junc­tions as if, if only, as, though, whether (if I were you…), and the phrases would rather and would that (would that he were still alive). In non-formal con­texts, however, the past form is often replaced by the past indicative was (I wish he was here) (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 86–89; Quirk et al. 1985: 148; 1013), i.e. modal preterite. So, the past subjunctive counts as the more formal variant. Since the subjunctive inflection has been lost for the main part, dis­tinct­ions in meaning between different kinds of mood are now often trans­por­ted by the application of present and preterite tense forms: (11) If he loves [prs] her he’ll change his job. (12) If he loved [pret] her he’d change his job.  (examples adapted from Huddleston & Pullum 2005: 58)

In contrast to the time-referring examples He loved her and he loves her, which employ the same verb forms, the preterite is used in a modal meaning in (12): the contrast in (11) and (12) is not one of time, but in (12) refers to a somewhat more remote possibility than (11).

4.3  Imperative The imperative in contemporary English is formed with the base or plain form of the verb, i.e. it does not show any inflection as such. However, in con­trast to the subjunctive, the imperative is also often characterized by a spe­cial syntactic configuration. Whereas the inflected verb in regular, un­mark­ed indicative sentences usually follows the subject, the





Alexander Bergs & Lena Heine

verb in the im­perative usually is sentence initial; in other words, in imperatives the subject is not obligatory. Example (6) above shows an imperative with be as the main verb and an overt second-person subject, example (13) below shows an imperative with overt third person subject, (14) and (15) illustrate the more common, regular, subjectless imperatives. (13) A pack of chili sauce, somebody go and get to get it on, it takes about an hour.  (BNC, KDN, conversation) (14) Stay diversified and mainly in blue chips.

(Time Magazine, 2000–12–25)

(15) Mhm. Give that to your mum. That’s a girl.  (BNC, FX9, spoken, medical consultation)

The imperative in English generally expresses wishes and commands of the speaker, i.e. it is closely associated with directive speech acts. Nevertheless, a number of imperative expressions have undergone change processes which turned them into discourse marker – like elements, as can be seen in ex­amp­les (16) and (17). (16) I mean, it may be that. Look, we’re gonna have to stop. we carry on with this next week, as, as you see, we’ve touched on a big topic, (BNC, Hun lecture humanities) (17) S28: okay we’re gonna take you guys all_ like p- p- (Peterson’s) takes everyone to ­Cedar_ or, Disney World for a week at the end of your internship. and i think that S2: it’s almost like having like a reward like (xx) S28: yeah S26: i was gonna s- Cedar Point’s a long drive. 〈SS: LAUGH〉 don’t you think? S28: shut up. yeah. it was Disney World though that’s what it was.  (MICASE LEL185SU066)

The imperative look in example (16) is not meant as a straightforward com­mand for the addressee to actually look, but rather functions as an attention get­ter in a discourse marker sense. Similarly, shut up in (17) is also not a clear directive, but rather expresses the speaker’s feeling, such as surprise and in this case also something like strong agreement. Similar, equally form­ulaic expressions based on imperatives include come on, get lost, tell me about it, and some more. Note that there are also numerous other types of speaker intention possible with imperative structures (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 831, Huddleston & Pullum 929–931 for an overview; Davies 1986 for details).

4.4  Prohibitive A special case of the imperative is the so-called prohibitive, i.e. the explicit com­mand not to do something (cf. van der Auwera & Lejeune 2005). In Eng­lish, the prohibitive is very similar to the negated form of the indicative. This means that do not or don’t is added in initial position, as in (18) and (19). (18) I wonder if there’s a warning on the packet. Do not open this and drive at the same time. (BNC, KD0, conversation)



Mood in English

(19) Burn it tear it up or both. Don’t just put a line through it saying revoked.  (BNC, FMS, speech unscripted)

Usually, structures like (18) and (19) express warning, commands not to do some­thing, to refrain from doing something, etc. This is one of the func­tion­al reasons why the term prohibitive seems more appropriate here (apart from the fact that it aligns English with other languages that have a clear gram­ma­tical marker for the prohibitive as such): the prohibitive is absolutely ap­pro­priate before the action, but also when it is already taking place (i.e. in the sense of “stop doing something!”). Imperatives, on the other hand, usual­ly only make sense when the action has not yet begun. Another reason can be found in the structure of prohibitives. Again, like with positive im­per­ati­ves, they can be used with and without overt subject. Most common, per­haps, are second person subjects, as in (20). (20) and one day she said, Now then John I want to go to the other school to Mr, the schoolmaster to get a book. Don’t you move from your seat. And she got about half a dozen of the strongest boys from standard one to stand guard at the door.  (BNC, HEM, interview oral history)

Other person subjects are equally possible, as in (21) and (22): (21) this is not me san song don’t anybody think it’s me swan song.  (BNC, HDN, speech scripted) (22) “It’s a bust,” he said, slipping a wedge of bank notes into the bed. A few seconds later the cops were in the bedroom: “Police, nobody move!” (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7723)

In (21) we find the regular structure with negated auxiliary, while in (22) we have the incorporated negative in the pronoun nobody. The structurally important point is that with the reduced, informal pro­hi­bi­tive structure don’t there is a possibility of adding a subject as in (20) and (21), while the full structure do not is not readily available for that op­tion: *do not you tell me versus don’t you tell me. Syntactically large and com­plex subjects seem to make this structure with full negation and subject slight­ly more acceptable: do not those of you who have a bus to catch forget their homework!

5.  let One of the most widely discussed points in the discussion of mood in Eng­lish is the status and function of let and related let’s. Quirk et al. (1985: 148) point out that the “Let x be y” construction signals imperative or optative mood, as in example (23). (23) Let the lawyers worry about appeals and remedies.

(Time Magazine 2000–01–08)





Alexander Bergs & Lena Heine

On the one hand, one might be led to think that this is a straightforward case of an imperative as in (14) or (15) above. However, the let construction shows some interesting features. There is a form let’s, which obviously goes back to the full form let us and which now rather functions as an in­de­pen­dent pragmatic marker with possible imperative, optative or hortative read­ings. This use clearly needs to be contrasted with the full verb let in a con­struc­tion like let us go – in the sense of ‘permit us to go’ –, which cannot be ab­breviated as let’s. Moreover, let’s – which can now also be spelled as a single element lets – also no longer shows that it already contains a pro­noun. In informal spoken conversation one might come across utterances like lets don’t forget (US), don’t lets forget (UK), lets us and lets you (see Quirk et al. 1985: 148). All these occurrences indicate that let(s) has become con­ventionalized as a fixed particle. Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 934–937), in an extensive discussion of these issues point out that five facts show that let’s has lost its propositional content, that it is bleached, and only serves as a marker of illocutionary meaning: the contraction of let us to let’s, the impossibility of an initial subject with let’s, a tag question with we, dif­ferences in scope of negation, and the fact that let’s can’t be omitted in el­liptical constructions at all. However, “there is no compelling reason to sug­gest that there has been a reanalysis of the syntactic structure” (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 935). In other words, let’s in this case is still a catenative verb, bleached, and maybe fossilized, but not fundamentally dif­ferent in terms of its syntax. It is only when we find structures like let’s you and me/I make it ourselves (or even better, as Huddleston & Pullum sug­gest: let’s don’t bother) that we get evidence for a reanalysis of this struc­ture. The apostrophe s can no longer be substituted by us, since you and me/I cannot be adpositions to a pronoun. Also, don’t cannot be a com­ple­ment to a catenative verb. All this means that let’s must be regarded as a re­analyzed, new, fused form.

6.  Non-inflectional mood As already noted above, mood in English is only to a minor part expressed by inflection. Mostly, mood is indicated periphrastically by means of modals. According to Palmer (1987: 14–21), modal verbs have invariant forms and show no inflection for person and number and are characterized by the four NICE properties: 1. 2. 3. 4.

they occur in Negative form (auxiliary + not), they can precede the subject in subject-verb Inversion (shouldn’t we…?), they can be used instead of a lexical verb in anaphoric Code (…, but maybe she will), they can be used in Emphatic affirmation and do not require do (she probably won’t, but she might).

Biber et al. (1999: 483–484) name as additional features that modals in verb phrases are ­followed by the bare infinitive (can see, would go), and except for some regional dialects (e.g. Scots, see Bergs 2005) cannot occur in com­bina­tion with other modals (might could).



Mood in English

As helpful as a clear classificatory system like the above might be, it can be useful to regard the classes of lexical and modal verbs as the end points on a continuum in order to describe different kinds of verbs ade­qua­tely. This is because besides the central modals can, could, may, might, shall, should, will, would, and must, there is a group of marginal modals that can­not clearly be located outside the category of modals, nor clearly inside: for instance, (had) better, have to, (have) got to, be supposed to, and be go­ing to can be called “semi-modals”, “quasimodals” or “periphrastic modals” (ibid.) or “modal idioms” (Quirk et al. 1985: 140–148) in that they have simi­lar functions as the modals, but do lack one or more of the above men­tion­ed features; e.g. they can bear person and tense markers and be non-finite, or co-occur with another modal verb (e.g. going to have to) (ibid.). Besides modal and semi-modal verbs, even other verbs can express mo­dal meaning, such as hope, manage, suppose, seem, wish, want, and gram­maticalized phrases like had better and be supposed to (Carter & McCarthy 2006: 638). All these verbs expressing modality can be grouped into different cate­gor­ies according to the modal meaning they express. Usually, modal verbs are subdivided according to their function of expressing modality in epis­te­mic and deontic meaning, although there is variety in classificatory attempts (Huddleston & Pullum 2005: 54; Quirk et al. 1985; for a discussion of different approaches for classification see Depraetere & Reed 2006: 277–282). Epistemic modality is often seen as the opposite of root, or deontic, mo­dality (cf. Depraetere & Reed 2006: 273). Epistemic modality is con­cer­ned with degrees of necessity and possibility; the speaker expresses a judgement of the likelihood that a proposition underlying the utterance is true, the epistemic scale of likelihood ranging from weak epistemic possibilities (That may be John) to epistemic necessity (That must be John = ‘it is necessary that [that is John] is true’ and That can’t be John = ‘it is necessary that [that is not John] is true’)  (Depraetere & Reed 2006: 274, italics in original).

So, in epistemic modality, the judgement concerns possibilities or nec­essi­ties which do not involve human control, typically expressed by must in you must be hungry or may in you may be wrong. In root, or deontic, modality, on the other hand, a judgment about factors that can be influenced by some kind of human control is made. Root modality expresses permission, obli­ga­tion, possibility, necessity, ability or volition (Depraetere & Reed 2006: 274; Quirk et al. 1985: 485). Deontic modality often involves a moral di­men­ sion and implies an authority, with the deontic meaning expressing state­ments of obligation or permission (must in John must go home).

7.  Conclusion As we have stated in this article, inflectional mood plays a comparatively minor role in the English language. While the function of modality in Eng­lish is covered by a wide range of





Alexander Bergs & Lena Heine

constructions, especially modal auxi­liaries, mood in the narrower morphological sense can be regarded as a peri­pher­al feature of English structure.

References Bergs, A. 2005. Modern Scots, 2nd edn. Munich: Lincom. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Brinton, L. & Arnovick, L. 2006. The English Language: A Linguistic History. Oxford: OUP. Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. A Comprehensive Guide: Spoken and Written English, Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Crystal, D. (ed.). 2003. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Davies, E. 1986. The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm. Depraetere, I. & Reed, S. 2006. Mood and modality in English. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, B. Aarts & A. McMahon (eds.), 269–290. Malden MA: Blackwell. de Swart, H. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(2): 347–385. Finegan, E. 1990. English. In The World’s Major Languages, 77–109. Oxford: OUP. Hogg, R. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume I: The Beginnings to 1066, R. Hogg (ed.), 00–00. Cambridge: CUP. Huddleston, R. 1989. An Introduction to English Transformational Syntax. London: Longman. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G.K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G.K. 2005. A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. Krug, M. 2000. Emerging English modals: A Corpus Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lass, R. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, II, N. Blake (ed.), 1066–1476. Cambridge: CUP. Michaelis, L.A. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 1–67. Mustanoja, T.F. 1960. A Middle English Grammar, Part 1: Parts of Speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Palmer, F.R. 1987. The English Verb, 2nd edn. London: Longman. Palmer, F.R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. van der Auwera, J. & Lejeune, L. 2005. The prohibitive. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, M. Haspelmath (ed.), 290–289. Oxford: OUP. Ziegeler, D. 2007. A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics 39(5): 990–1028.

Mood in Dutch Ronny Boogaart & Theo Janssen Leiden/Amsterdam

1.  Introduction In Dutch, modality seems to be expressed by means of modal auxiliaries, adverbs and particles rather than by a morphological verbal category of mood. As a result, the mood system of Dutch has not been discussed at any great length in the literature. This is true in particular for the subjunctive of which it is assumed that it has almost entirely dissapeared from the language and survived only in a limited set of, more or less, fixed expressions. In this chapter, presenting an overview of the mood categories of Dutch, we will focus on the subjunctive mood. Present-day speakers of the language use the subjunctive in a variety of different constructions, some of which seem to be quite productive. The structure of this chapter on mood in Dutch is as follows. Section 2 presents a general sketch of the verbal categories in Dutch. Section 3 deals with the Dutch mood categories, in particular the forms of the subjunctive and imperative mood. In Section 4 we concentrate on the meaning and use of the subjunctive and briefly discuss some alternative expressions that may be used instead of the subjunctive in present-day Dutch. Section 5 summarizes the main points.

2.  The verbal categories Dutch has two types of non-finite and three types of finite verbal categories. All of them have active and passive, non-perfect and perfect forms; the finite categories have both present and preterital forms. A survey of these possibilities is presented in Table 1a. Table 1a.  The non-finite and finite verbal categories in Dutch voice

phase

tense

act.

pass.

non-perf.

perf.

pres.

pret.

a.

b.

a.

b.

a.

b.

nonfinite

infinitive participle

1. 2.

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

– –

– –

finite

indicative subjunctive imperative

3. 4. 5.

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ + +



Ronny Boogaart & Theo Janssen

The verbal system of Dutch comprises a class of simple and a class of composite forms, as will be shown in greater detail in the next subsections. In Table 1a, the combination of the features active and non-perfect concern simple forms (i.e. 1.a.a., 2.a.a., 3.a.a.a./b., 4.a.a.a./b., 5.a.a.a./b.; see Table 1b). The features passive and perfect, both apart and together, concern composite forms, i.e. combinations of a simple (non-)finite form and a past participle.1 Table 1b.  Simple forms of the non-finite and finite verbal categories in Dutch type

form

mood

voice

phase

tense

1.a.a. 2.a.a. 3.a.a.a. 3.a.a.b. 4.a.a.a. 4.a.a.b. 5.a.a.a. 5.a.a.b.

tillen ‘to lift’ tillend ‘lifting’ til ‘lift’ tilde ‘lifted’ tille ‘lift’ ware ‘were’ til ‘lift’ tilde ‘should lift’

1. infinitive 2. participle 3. indicative 3. indicative 4. subjunctive 4. subjunctive 5. imperative 5. imperative

a. act. a. act. a. act. a. act. a. act. a. act. a. act. a. act.

a. non-perf. a. non-perf. a. non-perf. a. non-perf. a. non-perf. a. non-perf. a. non-perf. a. non-perf.

(non-finite) (non-finite) a. present b. preterit a. present b. preterit a. present b. preterit

As is apparent from Table  1a, there is no morphologically distinct future tense in Dutch (see e.g. Janssen 1994; Haeseryn et al. 1997). A situation posterior to a time in the past or posterior to the time of speech can be referred to by means of, respectively, a preterital or present tense form itself or by means of a preterital or present tense form of zullen (‘will’, ‘shall’) combined with an infinitive of the types 1.a.a./b., 1.b.a./b. Since zullen is a weakly epistemic modal, it can serve in periphrastic counterparts of morphologically distinct future tenses in a language such as Latin. Table 2 shows the future tenses in Latin and their Dutch zullen-pendants. (In Latin, only the two forms for the futurum exactum passivum are composites.) All zullen examples in Table 2 are so-called future tenses; so-called, for it should be noted that they can serve to express not only the posibility that the situations of loving, being or having (been) loved occur at a time later than the time of epistemic evaluation, but also the posibility that these situations are a fact at the time of epistemic evaluation (compare famous English examples such as That will be the postman!) (Janssen 1989). What is more, the zou cases can be used to indicate that the situations of loving, being or having (been) loved are potential, but non-real at the speech time. The latter use can be taken to be a periphrastic alternative to subjunctive ways of expression (see Section 4.3).

.  Instead of a participle, a simple infinitival form occurs in some types of perfect formation featuring a second (so-called) auxiliary; see, e.g. leren ‘learn’ in heeft/had leren lopen ‘has/had learned walking’ or proberen ‘try’ in heeft/had proberen te komen ‘has/had tried to come’. See Haeseryn et al. (1997: 954–955).



Mood in Dutch

Table 2.  The system of future tenses in Latin and the so-called future pendants in Dutch

futurum activum

futurum passivum

futurum exactum activum futurum exactum passivum

praesentis (situation seen from the present)

praeteriti (situation seen from the past)

amabo ik zal beminnen I will love ‘I will love’ amabor ik zal bemind worden I will loved be ‘I will be loved’

amabam ik zou beminnen I would love ‘I would love’ amabar ik zou bemind worden I would loved be ‘I would be loved’

amavero ik zal bemind hebben I will loved have ‘I will have loved’ amatus ero ik zal bemind zijn I will loved been ‘I will have been loved’

amaveram ik zou bemind hebben I would loved have ‘I would have loved’ amatus eram ik zou bemind zijn I would loved been ‘I would have been loved’

3.  The mood categories in Dutch 3.1  The non-finite subcategories Examples of the non-finite subcategories of verb forms are presented in Table 3. Table 3.  Forms of the simple and composite types of infinitive and participle in Dutch

infinitive active infinitive passive participle active participle passive

non-perfect

perfect

tillen lift.inf.non-prf ‘(to) lift’ getild worden lift.ptcp.prf become.inf.non-prf ‘(to) be lifted’

getild hebben lift.ptcp.prf have.inf.non-prf ‘(to) have lifted’ getild zijn lift.ptcp.prf be.inf.non-prf ‘(to) have been lifted’

tillend lift.ptcp.non-prf ‘lifting’ getild wordend lift.ptcp.prf become.ptcp.non-prf ‘being lifted’

getild hebbend lift.ptcp.prf have.ptcp.non-prf ‘having lifted’ getild (zijnd) lift.ptcp.prf be.ptcp.non-prf ‘having been lifted’

The right hand column of Table 3, listing the non-finite perfect forms of Dutch, may suggest that active and passive forms of the perfect show a systematic distinction between





Ronny Boogaart & Theo Janssen

hebben (for active) and zijn (for the stative passive) as auxiliaries. However, the past participles of the verbs zijn ‘(to) be’, blijven ‘(to) stay’, and intransitive motion verbs, including verbs which serve as such,2 have the same form as the perfect passive verb forms in Table 3. Without being passive, they are combined with zijn instead of hebben as perfect auxiliary. Examples are gezakt zijn ‘(to) have fallen’ and gezakt (zijnd) ‘having fallen’.3

3.2  The finite subcategories of the indicative Examples of the indicative subcategories are presented in Table 4a, showing the non-­perfect forms, and in Table 4b, showing the perfect forms.4 Table 4a.  Paradigms of the non-perfect finite subcategories of the indicative in Dutch indicative non-perfect active non-perfect passive

present*

preterit*

3sg

tilt

‘lifts’

tilde

‘lifted’

3sg

wordt getild

‘is being lifted’

werd getild

‘was being lifted’

*The features present and preterit pertain to the simple verbs and to the auxiliaries of the composite formations

Table 4b.  Paradigms of the perfect finite subcategories of the indicative in Dutch indicative perfect active perfect passive

present

preterit

3sg

heeft getild ‘has lifted’

had getild

3sg

is getild

was getild ‘had been lifted’

‘has been lifted’

‘had lifted’

All of the composite verb forms both in Table 4a and 4b are based on combinations of a simple form and an infinitive or a simple form and a past participle. We do not go into the distinction between so-called weak and strong verbs, and present only the conjugations of the former type.

.  Various intransitive verbs such as dansen ‘dance’ can be used telicly or non-telicly. When they are used telicly, the perfect auxiliary is zijn (Kern 1912; Honselaar 1987; Shannon 1993); Beliën (2008: 92–96) shows that the distinction between telic and non-telic has to be refined. .  The ending -t of gezakt is an allograph of the ending -d in cases where the consonant of the infinitive directly preceding its suffix -en is voiceless. .  Apart from the informal second person singular personal pronoun jij (and the reduced form je), present-day Standard Dutch has the formal u, serving both as a singular and a plural personal pronoun; this pronoun can also be used highly formally in combination with third person singular finite verb forms (Janssen 1995).



Mood in Dutch

3.3  The finite subcategories of the subjunctive Dutch has a small class of morphologically distinct verb forms indicating the subjunctive mood, which is called the ‘aanvoegende wijs’, ‘conjunctief ’, ‘subjunctief ’, or, for some types of use, ‘optatief ’ in the terminology of the Netherlandic grammatical tradition. Utterances in which a subjunctive form is used are said to belong mainly to formal or archaic speech (Overdiep 1937: 330; de Vooys [1957] 1967: 133, 153; Haeseryn et al. 1997: 103). However, various more or less fixed expressions featuring a subjunctive form occur in informal present-day Dutch (see Section 4). Examples of the subjunctive non-perfect verb forms are presented in Table 5a. Table 5a.  Paradigms of the non-perfect subcategories of the subjunctive in Dutch subjunctive non-perfect active non-perfect passive

present 1sg 2sg 3sg 3sg

tille ‘lift’ worde getild ‘he be lifted’

preterit ware ‘were’ ware ‘were’ ware ‘were’

The forms of the subjunctive can be taken to be related to the plural forms of the indicative present minus the final -n. There are two exceptions. First, the regional form weze ‘be’ (in e.g. Zo weze het! ‘So be it!’) can be taken to be related to the non-regional infinitive wezen ‘(to) be’.5 The subjunctive zij, relatable to zijn as the plural form of the indicative present, is the standard Dutch form (in, e.g. Zo zij het! ‘So be it!’). Second, beter and bewaar can be used instead of betere and beware (in e.g. God beter/betere het ‘For Christ’s sake’ and God bewaar/beware me ‘Lord save me’). There are two morphosyntactic details to be mentioned. First, moge ‘may’ is the only morphologically distinct subjunctive singular present tense form in present-day Dutch that is used not only for the third person singular, but also for the first and the second person singular, such as in (1)–(3).6 (1)

Moge ik gezond, gelukkig en vredig zijn. may I healthy happy and peaceful be ‘May I be healthy, happy, and peaceful.’ <www.simsara.nl/artikelheblief.html>

.  All subjunctive forms could equally well be taken to be related to the form of the simple ­infinitive minus its final -n. However, the preterital form ware is, in that case, an exception to such a generalization. .  The internet data are acquired through Google in the period of May-June 2007. They might illustrate the tenacious vigour of the subjunctive.





Ronny Boogaart & Theo Janssen

(2)

Moge jij winnen. may you win ‘May you be the winner.’

(3)

Moge hij nog lang in onze herinneringen voortleven. may he still long in our memories live_on ‘May he live on in our memories for a long time.’ <www.mandragon.be/rpgs/rocry/4403.topic>

Second, the only preterital subjunctive form in present-day Dutch is the form ware ‘were’. Haeseryn et al. (1997: 99) mention ware ‘were’ only as a third person subjunctive form. However, in present-day Dutch it is also used for first and second person singular cases. See utterances (4)–(6). (4)

Ik werd er behandeld als ware ik een V.I.P. I was there treated if were I a vip ‘I was treated there as if I were a vip.’ <www.privatescan.nl/ervaringen_van_anderen/>

(5)

Je reageert in beide topics als ware jij de grootmeester. you react in both topics if were you the grand master ‘You react in both topics as if you were the Grand Master.’ forum.jijbent.nl/viewtopic.php?t=8297&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60…

(6)

Het ware beter als de rest van de waarheid nu ook verteld wordt. It were better if the rest of the truth now also told is ‘It were better if the rest of the truth would now be told as well.’ <www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Kosovo/000512a.html>

However, the types of construction in which ware agrees with a first or second person subject is restricted to some constructions in subordinate clauses. One of them is the inversion construction introduced by als ‘as if ’, such as als ware sbj… ‘as if sbj were…’ in (4) and (5). Another type of inversion construction will be discussed with regard to (7) below, in which ware + past participle is used in the protasis; the clause of the protasis serves as a subordinate clause, but its internal structure has the characteristics of a main clause, namely a yes/no interrogative clause. The third person use of ware does not really exist anymore outside of these inversion constructions either, except for impersonal constructions such as the one in (6). The perfect verb forms of the subjunctive are presented in Table 5b.7

.  The formal second person singular/plural formation in combination with u (see Note 4) is also possible. For instance, U zij gegroet en gewaarschuwd. ‘I greet and warn you’. <xolopodenco. blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html>.



Mood in Dutch

Table 5b.  Paradigms of the perfect subcategories of the subjunctive in Dutch subjunctive perfect active perfect passive

present 3sg 1sg 2sg 3sg

preterit

hebbe getild ‘have lifted’

zij getild

‘have been lifted’

ware getild ‘had been lifted’ ware getild ‘had been lifted’ ware getild ‘had been lifted’

All verbal forms in Table  5b are composite and based on finite forms as specified in Table 5a. Since a preterital subjunctive form such as hadde is not used in present-day Dutch, it is not surprising that the hypothetical pluperfect subjunctive form hadde getild does not occur either. Since the perfect formations in Dutch are all based on the combination of the auxiliary hebben or zijn and a past participle, one also expects the existence of formations such as ware getild ‘had been lifted’, in which the preterital subjunctive ware is combined with a past participle. Haeseryn et al. (1997: 99) do not mention this type of formation, but it is used in present-day Dutch for first, second, and third person singular cases; witness, for instance, (7)–(9). (7) Ware ik […] een haan geweest, dan hadden de were I a cock been then had the omwonenden zeker geklaagd. neighbours certainly complained ‘If I had been a cock, the neighbours would certainly have complained.’ <www.lievehemel.nl/weekly_flodder_1.htm> (8) De resultaten verschijnen bijna onmiddellijk […], net als the results appear almost immediately just if ware je rechtstreeks naar Google gegaan. were you straight to Google gone ‘The results appear almost immediately, just as if you had gone straight to Google.’ <www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/lang/nl/TidBITS-nl-874.htm> (9) Volgens Locke zijn beide partijen echter aan regels according-to Locke are both parties however to rules gebonden als ware er een contract gesloten. bound if were there a contract made ‘According to Locke, however, both parties are bound to rules as if a contract had been made.’





Ronny Boogaart & Theo Janssen

3.4  The finite subcategories of the imperative The various non-perfect and perfect imperative verb forms are presented in Table 6a and 6b.8 The forms are the same as the first person verb forms. The verb zijn ‘be’ is, in fact, the only verb in Dutch that has a specialized imperative form (wees ‘be’ for the present imperative and wees getild ‘be lifted’ for the perfect passive imperative). It has, therefore, been suggested that the imperative in Dutch is constituted by a specific clause type, characterized not only by the form of the verb, but also by the clause-initial position of the verb and the lack of an explicit subject (Proeme 1984; de Haan 1986). In our discussion and examples we likewise exclude ‘imperative’ forms that are accompanied by explicit subjects (see ­Fortuin 2004). Table 6a.  Paradigms of the non-perfect finite subcategories of the imperative in Dutch imperative non-perfect active non-perfect passive

present

preterit

[2sg/pl]

til

[2sg/pl]

word getild ‘be lifted’

‘lift’

tilde

‘you had to lift’

werd getild ‘you had to been lifted’

Table 6b.  Paradigms of the perfect finite subcategories of the imperative in Dutch imperative perfect active perfect passive

present

preterit

2sg/pl

heb getild ‘you have to have lifted’

2sg/pl

ben/wees getild

had getild ‘you had to have lifted’

‘you have to have been lifted’

The types word getild (passive imperative) and tilde (preterital imperative) from Table 6a are not mentioned by Haeseryn et al. (1997). However, in addition to the active present imperative, as in (10), passive present imperatives and preterital imperatives do occur, as illustrated in (11) and (12), respectively. (10)

Til maar eens een stoeptegel op. lift but once a paving_stone up ‘Just try lifting up a paving stone.’ 〈www.schooltv.nl/nudn/index.jsp?nr=569297〉

.  There also used to be a plural form of the imperative, ending in -t, but this is considered archaic.



Mood in Dutch

(11) Word zelf maar eens zo behandeld, dan weet je hoe be self but once so treated then know you how het echt in elkaar zit. it really in each_other sits ‘Imagine being treated that way, then you will understand what is really going on.’ (12)

Man, werd maar eens boos! man became but once angry ‘Man, you should get angry for once!’ <www.helpende-hand.org/index_bestanden/Vrijwilligers.htm>

As for the passive preterital imperative, the form of which would be werd getild ‘was lifted’, we have not been able to find a single authentic example. It might be argued that the semantics of both preterit and passive are incompatible with the basic, directive meaning of imperatives, so that combining these three features (imperative, passive, preterit) in one form would result in semantic anomaly. This at least could explain why they are so hard to find. However, since preterit as well as passive imperative forms do occur – especially in contexts that are not literally directive but rather urge the hearer to imagine the situation happening (Proeme 1984), as in (11) – we cannot exclude the possibility of such combined passive preterit imperatives being used in similar contexts. The three imperative types from Table 6b can be illustrated by (13)–(15). (13) Heb dat boek maar liever gelezen voor je examen. have that book but rather read before your exam ‘You’d better make sure to have read the book before your exam.’ (Proeme 1984: 248) (14)

Ouders met gamende kids, wees gewaarschuwd.9 parents with gaming kids be warned ‘Parents with gaming kids, you have been warned.’ <mijnkindonline.web-log.nl/mijnkindonline/2006/12/ouders_met_game.html>

(15)

Had dat maar eerder gezegd! had that but before said ‘You should have said that before.’

Again, the imperative types heb getild (active present perfect imperative, as in (13)) and ben/wees getild (passive present perfect imperative, as in (14)) are not mentioned in .  Instead of the more usual wees, ben can be used; witness Ben gewaarschuwd! ‘You have been warned.’ gathering.tweakers.net/forum/list_messages/1132588/3





Ronny Boogaart & Theo Janssen

Haeseryn et al. (1997) and especially the former one is, indeed, rare (the example in (13) is a constructed example from the literature). Semantically, the features ‘perfect’ and ‘imperative’ are not incompatible since the speaker may want to explicitly instruct the hearer to be in the result state of some situation at a specific time in the future, as is the case in (13). However, it could be argued that the addressee has control over the execution of the event rather than over the state resulting from it; the imperative of (non-controllable) stative predicates is rare more generally (except in contexts such as (14) that are not literally directive). In directive contexts such as (13), language users seem to prefer the use of a non-stative imperative construction as in zorg dat je het gelezen hebt (‘make sure to have read it’). Alternatively, the speaker could achieve pretty much the same effect by using the less complex non-perfect imperative form (as in read the book before your exam), which likewise instructs the hearer, albeit less explicitly than by using a perfect, to have finished the activity before the specified time in the future. Haeseryn et al. (1997) do mention the past perfect imperative, illustrated in (15), which is a common way to express a counterfactual wish in Dutch – about a situation that the speaker feels should have happened but did not happen. Although we could not find an utterance with a preterital imperative of the perfect passive form, such as was getild ‘you had to have been lifted’, this type of imperative does, again, not seem impossible when used as an imperative of the ‘just imagine’ kind (cf. (11)). At least an imperative of a preterital perfect intransitive verb is possible in this context; witness (16). (16)

Was zelf maar zo rijk geweest. was yourself but that rich been ‘Imagine you had been that rich yourself.’ <www.quotenet.nl/2007/02/23/111311.php>

4.  Meaning and use of the subjunctive mood The subjunctive mood in Dutch is a category of verb forms which can be used both in main and subordinate clauses (see, e.g. Overdiep 1937: 330–334, 471, 476–480; de Vooys 1967: 152–154; Haeseryn et al. 1997: 1631–1632).10 In subsection 4.1 we discuss various uses of the subjunctive in main clauses; in subsection 4.2 we mention some cases of the subjunctive in subordinate clauses. In 4.3 we discuss some expressions which can be used instead of the subjunctive.

.  With regard to the use of the subjunctive in older Dutch, see particularly Brill ([1860] 1871: 120–121, 308–311, 346–351), Stoett (1923:  209–211, 232–239), Overdiep (1931:  90–91, 1932: 223–226), Weijnen (1971: 90–98), Duinhoven (1997: 408–409, 431–437).



Mood in Dutch

4.1  Subjunctive mood in main clauses The forms of the subjunctive can serve to indicate that the non-factual situation involved is, was, or had been possible. The subjunctive present tense form is used to present a wide range of non-real situations whose realisation is possible, such as polite instructions, polite advice, polite exhortations, hope of approval, wishes, resignations, and concessions. See, for instance, (17)–(22). (17) polite instruction Wie lid wil worden van Inchperfect, wende zich tot who member will be of Inchperfect apply refl to de secretaris. the secretary ‘If you want to be member of Inchperfect your are requested to contact the secretary.’ <www.inchperfect.nl/over/> (18) polite advice Men bedenke wel dat we toen in andere One consider well that we then in other omstandigheden leefden. circumstances lived ‘One should consider that we lived in different circumstances at the time.’ 〈jandirksnel.web-log.nl/jandirksnel/filosofie_waarden/index.html〉 (19) hope of approval

Deze achtergrond diene als inleiding tot een vraag this background serve as introduction to a question ‘This information may serve as an introduction to a question.’ NRC Handelsblad [newspaper], 31/08/2006/p. 7

(20) good wish

Ahmed, het ga je goed in Den Haag! Ahmed it go you well in The Hague ‘Ahmed, all the best in The Hague!’ <www.pvdaamsterdam.nl/nieuwsbericht/4156>

(21) resignation

Sommigen zullen mijn reactie overtrokken vinden, dat zij dan zo. Some will my reaction exaggerated find, that be then so ‘Some will find my reaction exaggerated, let it be.’ <www.helpmij.nl/forum/archive/index.php/t-254003.html>





Ronny Boogaart & Theo Janssen

(22) concession

Veiligheid, het koste wat het kost. safety it cost what it costs ‘Safety, whatever the costs (may be).’ <www.consumentenbedrog.be/page.php?ID=1777&crioc=O>

The preterital subjunctive ware can likewise be used to refer to various types of non-real, but possible situations. See, for instance, (23) and (24), presenting potential situations, both seen from the present: (23) polite suggestion

Maar dan ware het misschien ook beter om meer nieuws te brengen. but then were it perhaps also better prep more news to offer ‘But, then, it would perhaps be better to offer more news.’ <www.intermactivity.be/forum/showthread.php?t=88118&page=2>

(24) polite request

Dat ware wel tof mijns_inziens. that were well great to_my_mind ‘That would be great to my mind.’ <www.synthforum.nl/forums/printthread.php?threadid=36554>

The pluperfect subjunctive ware + past participle can be used to refer to various types of counterfactual situations. See, for instance, (25), whose main situation is evaluated from the present and (26), in which the main situation is seen from a time in the past. (25) mild rebuke, hypothetical alternative

Dat ware wel de moeite waard geweest. that was well the effort worth been ‘That would have been worth the effort.’ <www.dekamer.be/doc/CCRI/html/50/ic552.html>

(26) reproach, hypothetical prediction Als het enkel en alleen aan de supporters lag, dan ware if it simply and solely to the supporters laid then was het al_lang gebeurd. it a_long_time_ago done ‘If it were merely up to the supporters, it would have been done a long time ago.’

Admittedly, the use of ware (+ past participle) is formal, but certainly not formally archaic, as Haeseryn et al. (1997: 104) judge it to be.



Mood in Dutch

4.2  Subjunctive mood in subordinate clauses In present-day Dutch, the subjunctive serves in a small set of subordinate-clause types, such as concessives in the present subjunctive and hypothetical similarities in the preterital subjunctive. They occur in various fixed clausal expressions, for instance, hoe het ook zij ‘whatever the case may be’, wat er ook van zij ‘be that as it may’, hoe het ook moge zijn ‘be that as it may’, wat er ook moge gebeuren ‘whatever happens’, and wat het ook moge zijn ‘whatever it may be’, all indicating a concessive, and als het ware ‘as it were’ indicating a hypothetical similarity.11 Apart from these frequently used expressions, the following types of subjunctive constructions are highly productive. See examples (27)–(29) for a present, preterital and pluperfect case, respectively. (27) concession

Het werkt, hoe raar het ook klinken moge. it works how strange it also sound may ‘It works, strange as it may sound.’ <www.bronzengids.nl/health/?p=150>

(28) hypothetical similarity

Ik werd er behandeld als ware ik een V.I.P. I was there treated if were I a vip ‘I was treated there as if I were a vip.’ <www.privatescan.nl/ervaringen_van_anderen/>

(29) counterfactual hypothesis Ware ik […] een haan geweest, dan hadden de were I a cock been then had the omwonenden zeker geklaagd. neighbours certainly complained ‘If I had been a cock, the neighbours would certainly have complained.’ <www.lievehemel.nl/weekly_flodder_1.htm>

Only the use of the fixed combination ware het niet dat ‘if it were not that’ (‘if not for the fact that’) is explicitly qualified by Haeseryn et al. (1997: 1632) as being not archaic.

4.3  Alternative expressions In all examples of the use of the subjunctive given in the previous subsections, the indicative mood is available as an alternative. It is hard to determine whether the indicative ever functions as a true equivalent for the subjunctive – in those cases in which the subjunctive .  De Vooys ([1957] 1967: 136) considers the fixed expression als ’t ware ‘as it were’ to belong to the living language; Haeseryn et al. (1997: 105) assign to it the status of an adverb.





Ronny Boogaart & Theo Janssen

is still available as an option for present-day speakers of the language – but in some cases the difference is more clear than in others. In (21), replacing subjunctive zij with indicative is alters the interpretation of the sentence only subtly; in any case, the whole construction still expresses resignation. (21′) Sommigen zullen mijn reactie overtrokken vinden, dat is dan zo. Some will my reaction exaggerated find, that is then so ‘Some will find my reaction exaggerated, let it be.’

However, even in such cases the indicative seems in need of some form of compensation. More specifically, the indicative variant is accompanied by the modal particle maar (‘but’), as in dat is dan maar zo, in a large majority of cases. In fact, it is about a hundred times more frequent on the internet than the variant without the modal particle (66.700 vs. 582 instances). In the subjunctive version, the modal particle may be added as well (2.450 instances), but it is usually lacking (5.280 instances). (Google counts 12–07–2007). In other instances, the difference is less subtle. The indicative counterpart of (19), given in (19′), is merely a factive statement and does not suggest any of the ‘hope of approval’ that was expressed by the speaker in the original utterance. (19′) Deze achtergrond dient als inleiding tot een vraag [….] this background serves as introduction to a question ‘This information serves as an introduction to a question.’

Likewise, the speaker in (17) and (18) would definitely be less polite if he had used an indicative rather than a subjunctive form without applying some alternative politeness strategy. Instead of using an indicative form, speakers of Dutch can also use a modal auxiliary – specifically moge and zou(den) – in contexts where older stages of Dutch (and other languages) typically use a subjunctive. In Section 3.3, moge ‘may’ was introduced as a subjunctive form, but it can also be used as part of a perifrastic alternative to the subjunctive in some types of use. The periphrasis keeps the subjunctive load, due to the presence of the subjunctive form moge. This can be illustrated by (19″). (19″) Deze achtergrond moge dienen als inleiding tot een vraag [….] this background may serve as introduction to a question ‘This information may serve as an introduction to a question.’

Whereas we judged the indicative counterpart of (19) in (19′) to be not equivalent to the original utterance, the periphrastic construction with moge in (19″) does seem to express the additional nuance that was lacking from (19′). Such moge-cases are adequate alternatives for the subjunctive, at least in those contexts where the subjunctive serves to present a situation that the speaker wishes to be true, or to become true. Interestingly, also nonsubjunctive forms of the verb mogen can be used – with syntactic inversion – to indicate a



Mood in Dutch

wish (Overdiep 1937: 476); witness (30) with the plural form mogen, which is morphologically not a distinctive subjunctive form.12 (30) Mogen wij wegen vinden om op vreedzame wijze may we ways find to in peaceful manner conflicten op_te_lossen. conflicts to_solve ‘May we find ways to solve conflicts peacefully.’ <www.franciscansinternational.org/resources/soc07/WayofCross_2007 DU.pdf>

Finally, the composite forms featuring zou in Table 2 can be used to indicate that the situations of the main verb are potential, but non-real at the speech time. Since this is exactly what is shared by various uses of the subjunctive discussed in Section 4.1 and 4.2, we may regard this use of the zou form as a further periphrastic alternative to the subjunctive.13 In fact, it is clear that Dutch predominantly uses zou forms in certain contexts where, for instance, German uses a subjunctive (Konjunktiv), such as in the protasis and apodosis of conditional constructions. Many speakers, for instance, nowadays prefer the periphrastic form zou zijn (‘would be’) to subjunctive ware in utterances such as (23)–(26). In other contexts typical for the use of subjunctives in other languages, particularly in indirect speech, Dutch mostly uses indicative forms (Roels, Mortelmans & van der Auwera 2007). All the fine-tuned semantic differences between the alternatives, which are only touched upon in this section, obviously ask for a study of their own and in close relationship between them.

5.  Conclusion By providing a systematic sketch of mood in Dutch, we pointed out some gaps in the existing grammatical description of this category. This is most clear for the subjunctive. Presentday speakers of the language use the subjunctive mood in a range of constructions, some of which are less formal and archaic, and more productive, than grammars of Dutch suggest. In particular, the use of these constructions is not restricted to 3rd person subjects. As for the imperative mood, it remains unclear in particular to what extent, and how exactly, it .  The use in (30) could be based on a reinterpretation of subjunctive moge as the present indicative plural form mogen, that is usually pronounced as moge anyway. Wishes containing the indicative singular form mag are much less frequent, but they do occur, as in mag je maar flink verwend worden. . .  Zou (as well as the plural zouden) is originally a subjunctive form, but serves already in Middle Dutch to indicate a non-real, but potential situation seen from the time of speech ­(Duinhoven 1997: 431–434).





Ronny Boogaart & Theo Janssen

interacts with the other verbal categories (tense, voice, and perfect). Needless to say, we have not completely filled in these gaps in this chapter but we hope to have shown that grammatical mood in Dutch is, at the very least, a topic worthy of further investigation.

References Beliën, M. 2008. Constructions, Constraints, and Construal: Adpositions in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT. Brill, W.G. [1860] 1871. Nederlandsche spraakleer ten gebruike bij inrichtingen van hooger onderwijs, Vol. 2: Leer van den volzin (syntaxis), 4th edn. Leiden: Brill. de Haan, S. 1986. Gebruiksmogelijkheden van de Nederlandse imperatief. In Proeven van Taalwetenschap, C. Hoppenbrouwers, J. Houtman, I. Schuurman & F. Zwarts (eds), 250–260. Groningen: RUG. de Vooys, C.G.N. [1957]. 1967. Nederlandse spraakkunst, 7th edn, rev. by M. Schönfeld. Groningen: Wolters. Duinhoven, T. [A.M.]. 1997. Middelnederlandse syntaxis. Synchroon en diachroon, Vol. 2: De werkwoordgroep. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff. Fortuin, E. 2004. De syntaxis van imperatiefsubjecten en modale partikels: Een pragma-semantische benadering. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9: 355–375. Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J. & van den Toorn, M.C. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff/Deurne: Wolters Plantyn. Honselaar, W. 1987. Zijn vs. Hebben in het samengesteld perfectum. De Nieuwe Taalgids 80: 55–68. Janssen, T.A.J.M. 1989. Die Hilfsverben werden (deutsch) und zullen (niederländisch): modal oder temporal? In Tempus-Aspekt-Modus. Die lexikalischen und grammatischen Formen in den germanischen Sprachen, W. Abraham & T. Janssen (eds), 65–84. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Janssen, T.A.J.M. 1994. Tense in Dutch: Eight ‘tenses’ or two tenses? In Tense Systems in European Languages, R. Thieroff & J. Ballweg (eds), 93–118. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Janssen, T.A.J.M. 1995. Deixis from a cognitive point of view. In Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Sign-Based Linguistics, E. Contini-Morava & B. Sussman Goldberg (eds), 245–270. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kern, J.H. 1912. De met het participium praeteriti omschreven werkwoordsvormen in ’t Nederlands. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe Reeks. Vol. 12(2). Amsterdam: Johannes Müller. Overdiep, G.S. 1931–1932. Zeventiende-eeuwsche syntaxis. Vols. 1–2. Groningen: Wolters. Overdiep, G.S. 1937. Stilistische grammatica van het moderne Nederlandsch. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. . Proeme, H. 1984. Over de Nederlandse imperativus. Forum der Letteren 25: 241–258. Roels, L., Mortelmans, T., van der Auwera, J. 2007. Dutch equivalents of the German past conjunctive: zou + infinitive and the modal preterit. In Tense, Mood and Aspect. Theoretical and Descriptive Issues [Cahiers Chronos 17], L. de Saussure, J. Moeschler & G. Puskas (eds), 177–196. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Shannon, T.F. 1993. To be or not to be in Dutch: A cognitive account of some puzzling perfect auxiliary phenomena. In The Low Countries and Beyond, R.S. Kirsner (ed.), 85–96. Lanham MD: University Press of America.

Mood in German Rolf Thieroff Osnabrück

1.  Introduction Together with Icelandic, German is the only Germanic language having preserved Subjunctive forms for all tenses, at least with strong verbs. In Section 2 I analyze the morphological make-up of the Subjunctive forms of weak and strong verbs in the different tenses and persons (2.1) and I discuss the functions of the Subjunctive in present day German (2.2). Section 2 is a shortened and modified version of Thieroff (2004). Section 3 deals with the morphology (3.1. and 3.2.) and the use (3.3.) of the second non-indicative mood in German, the Imperative, followed by a short conclusion (Section 4).

2.  The subjunctive 2.1  Morphology In each of the traditionally assumed six tenses a formally differentiated Subjunctive form is opposed to the respective Indicative form as shown in Table 1 for the 3rd person singular of the strong verb singen ‘sing’. Table 1.  Indicative and subjunctive, 3rd person singular singen ‘sing’

Indicative

Subjunctive

present present perfect future future perfect preterite pluperfect

singt hat gesungen wird singen wird gesungen haben sang hatte gesungen

singe habe gesungen werde singen werde gesungen haben sänge hätte gesungen

In present day German, the forms of the Subjunctive do not differ in all tenses, persons, and numbers from the forms of the Indicative. As in the other Germanic languages, with respect to the formation of the Preterite, weak verbs have to be distinguished from strong verbs.



Rolf Thieroff

2.1.1  Present Subjunctive In person marking in both the singular and the plural a (marked) 2nd person is opposed to the (unmarked) non-2nd person. This holds for the Preterite Indicative as in Table 2 and for the Subjunctive. Table 2.  Person-number marking in the Preterite Indicative singen ‘sing’

sg

pl

non-2 2

sang sang-st

sang-en sang-t

Only the singular of the Present Indicative differs from the pattern in Table 2 in that there are two suffixes for the non-2nd person: 1st person singular -e and 3rd person singular -t (table. 3). Table 3.  Person-number marking in the Present Indicative singen ‘sing’ 1sg 3sg 2sg non2pl 2pl

sing-e sing-t sing-st sing-en sing-t

In the Present the Subjunctive is marked by schwa (written e) which is inserted between the verb stem and the person-number suffix. In the non-2nd person singular, there is no person-number suffix (as in the Preterite Indicative). Thus, -e in lebe.ind is the personnumber suffix for the 1st person singular, whereas -e in lebe.sbjv is the Subjunctive suffix. If the person-number suffix already contains e, a second e (to mark the Subjunctive) cannot be added. As a result, in the first person singular and in the non-second person plural, the forms of the Subjunctive do not differ from the forms of the Indicative. This holds for weak as well as for strong verbs (Table 4). Table 4.  Present indicative and present subjunctive of weak and strong verbs weak verb (leben ‘live’) Indicative 1sg 2sg 3sg non-2pl pl

leb-e leb-st leb-t leb-en leb-t

= =

strong verb (singen ‘sing’)

Subjunctive

Indicative

leb-e-_ leb-e-st leb-e-_ leb-e-n leb-e-t

sing-e sing-st sing-t sing-en sing-t

Subjunctive = =

sing-e-_ sing-e-st sing-e-_ sing-e-n sing-e-t



Mood in German

The Future and the Future Perfect are built with the auxiliary werden ‘become’ in the finite form. The auxiliary werden is itself a strong verb, conjugated like singen. Consequently, in the Future and in the Future Perfect too, the Indicative and the Subjunctive are homonymous in the first person singular and in the non-second plural (ich/er werde leben/ singen ‘I/he will live/sing’ etc., ich/er werde gelebt/gesungen haben lit. ‘I/he will lived/sung have’ i.e. ‘I will have lived/sung’ etc.). The Perfect is built with the auxiliary haben ‘have’ (transitive verbs and intransitive atelic verbs) or with the auxiliary sein ‘be’ (telic intransitive verbs). The auxiliary haben is again conjugated like singen, with the result that the Perfect of the verbs forming their Perfect with haben have again homonymous forms in the Indicative and Subjunctive of the first singular and the non-second plural (ich/er habe gelebt/gesungen etc. ‘I have/he has lived/sung’ etc.). The only verb whose Present Subjunctive forms differ in both numbers in all persons from the Indicative forms is the verb sein ‘be’, whose Present Subjunctive forms are built with the stem sei. As a result, there are no Indicative/Subjunctive homonymies in the Perfect of telic intransitive verbs (ich bin gekommen vs. ich sei gekommen ‘I have [lit.: am] come’ etc.; Table 5). Table 5.  Present Indicative and Present Subjunctive of the verb sein ‘be’ 1sg 2sg 3sg non-2pl 2pl

Indicative

Subjunctive

bin bist ist sind seid

sei seist sei seien seiet

2.1.2  Preterite Subjunctive With weak verbs, in the Preterite the Indicative and the Subjunctive are not morphologically differentiated. The answer to the question whether there are homonymous forms of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in all persons and numbers or if there is simply no mood distinction here is not straightforward. In Table 6, the traditional view of the ­German grammars is presented. Table 6.  Preterite Indicative and Preterite Subjunctive of weak verbs (traditional view) leben ‘live’

Indicative

non-2sg 2sg non-2pl 2pl

lebte lebtest lebten lebtet

Subjunctive = = = =

lebte lebtest lebten lebtet





Rolf Thieroff

One reason for the analysis according to Table 6 is the fact that in strong verbs, the Indicative and the Subjunctive are well distinguished in the Preterite. As in the Present, the Subjunctive is marked by -e, inserted between the stem and the person/number suffix. Only if the vowel of the preterite stem is a front vowel is there a homonymy of the nonsecond person singular (Table 7).

Table 7.  Preterite Indicative and Preterite Subjunctive of strong verbs with front vowel fallen ‘fall’

Indicative

Subjunctive

non-2sg 2sg non-2pl 2sg

fiel fiel-st fiel-en fiel-t

fiel-e fiel-e-st fiel-e-n fiel-e-t

=

If the vowel of the preterite stem is a back vowel, the Subjunctive is always umlauted. Thus with back vowel preterite stems, all forms are distinguished between Indicative and Subjunctive (Table 8).1 Table 8.  Preterite Indicative and Preterite Subjunctive of strong verbs with back vowel kommen ‘come’

Indicative

Subjunctive

non-2sg 2sg non-2pl 2pl

kam kamst kamen kamt

käme käm(e)st kämen käm(e)t

Finally, it is noteworthy that both the auxiliary haben ‘have’ and the auxiliary sein ‘be’ have a Preterite with the back vowel [a], with the consequence that the Subjunctive of these forms is umlauted, which in turn means that in the Pluperfect of all verbs (weak and strong) Indicative and Subjunctive in all positions of the paradigm are morphologically distinguished (Table 9).

.  Since all subjunctive forms are distinguished by the umlaut, -e can be omitted in the second person singular and plural (but not in the non-second singular – at least not in the written standard).



Mood in German

Table 9.  Pluperfect Indicative and Pluperfect Subjunctive of verbs with haben ‘have’ and sein ‘be’

non-2sg 2sg non-2pl 2pl

leben ‘live’ Indicative

Subjunctive

kommen ‘come’ Indicative

Subjunctive

hatte gelebt hattest gelebt hatten gelebt hattet gelebt

hätte gelebt hättest gelebt hätten gelebt hättet gelebt

war gekommen warst gekommen waren gekommen wart gekommen

wäre gekommen wär(e)st gekommen wären gekommen wär(e)t gekommen

2.1.3  Subjunctive 1 and Subjunctive 2 In German grammatical tradition, a difference is being made between what is called the “Konjunktiv I” (Subjunctive 1) and the “Konjunktiv II” (Subjunctive 2) in a way that all Subjunctive forms either belong to the Subjunctive 1 or to the Subjunctive 2. One criterion for belonging to either of these two groups is a morphological criterion: each form whose finite part is in the Present is a Subjunctive 1, each form whose finite part is in the Preterite is a Subjunctive 2. This renders the picture in Table 10. Table 10.  Forms of Subjunctive 1 and Subjunctive 2 (non-second person singular) singen ‘sing’

Subjunctive 1

present present perfect future future perfect preterite pluperfect

singe habe gesungen werde singen werde gesungen haben

Subjunctive 2

sänge hätte gesungen

A second reason for making this distinction is the fact that the Subjunctive 1 and the Subjunctive 2 do not differ with regard to time reference. For example, both er singe and er sänge have non-past time reference and differ only with regard to their modal meaning. In contrast, in the Indicative the Present form er singt has non-past time reference, whereas the Preterite form er sang has past time reference. In what follows, the term Subjunctive 1 is used for any Subjunctive form whose finite verb is in the Present, the term Subjunctive 2 is used for any Subjunctive whose finite verb is in the Preterite.

2.1.4  würde + Infinitive There are two more forms which are missing in Table 10: würde singen and würde gesungen haben. Würde is a form of the auxiliary werden, which is conjugated like any ordinary strong verb. Together with the perfect participle, the auxiliary werden serves to build the





Rolf Thieroff

Passive. In the Passive, the auxiliary can appear in both Present and Preterite and in both Indicative and Subjunctive. In (1), werden has the function of a passive auxiliary. (1) a.

Der Brief wird geschrieben. the letter become.prs.ind.3sg write.ptcp.prf ‘The letter is being written.’

b. Der Brief werde geschrieben. the letter become.prs.sbjv.3sg write.ptcp.prf ‘The letter shall be written.’ c.

Der Brief wurde geschrieben. the letter become.pret.ind.3sg write.ptcp.prf ‘The letter was being written.’

d. Der Brief würde geschrieben, wenn … the letter become.pret.sbjv.3sg write.ptcp.prf if ‘The letter would be written, if …’

The auxiliary werden can also be combined with the Infinitive to yield the Future. However, the combination of the Preterite Indicative with the Infinitive is not possible. Consider (2): (2) a.

Er wird einen Brief schreiben. he become.prs.ind.3sg a letter write.inf ‘He will write a letter.’

b. c.

Er werde einen Brief schreiben. he become.prs.sbjv.3sg a letter write.inf 2 ‘He will write a letter.’ *Er wurde einen Brief schreiben. he become.pret.ind.3sg a letter write.inf [not interpretable]

d. Er würde einen Brief schreiben. he become.pret.sbjv.3sg a letter write.inf ‘He would write a letter.’

From a morphological point of view, the form würde schreiben is unproblematic: it is a Future-in-the-past (or Future Preterite) Subjunctive. But: a corresponding Future-in-thepast Indicative form does not exist and this lacuna implies several problems. The construction würde + infinitive has been analyzed in many different ways. According to Jørgensen’s analysis the missing *wurde singen has been replaced by würde singen, i.e. there is an Indicative form würde singen and a second, homonymous Subjunctive form würde singen (Jørgensen 1966: 28 and passim).3 Zifonun, Hoffmann & Strecker et al. (1997: 1735)

.  (2b) differs from (2a) in that it is reported speech. See 2.2.3. .  This is also the view taken in Thieroff (1992).



Mood in German

stress that the würde-construction is systematically outside the paradigm of both the Indicative and the Subjunctive forms. The authors acknowledge that the form can be used like an Indicative and like a Subjunctive, but it does not become clear what the construction really is supposed to be. In a thorough discussion of all functions of the würde-construction, Fabricius-Hansen (2000) comes to the conclusion that it is the Future Preterite Subjunctive and nothing else. Abraham (1999: 382) claims that we have to deal with a mood in its own right, a third mood which is neither Indicative nor Subjunctive but a Potentialis or Irrealis. What is certain and beyond any doubt is that from a purely morphological point of view würde singen is in any case a Future (qua auxiliary werden) and a Preterite (qua high rounded vowel [be it back or fronted]). For the moment, I leave the decision open whether it is also a Subjunctive or whether it is ambiguous between Indicative and Subjunctive, or neither of the two. Instead, constructions like würde singen will be indicated as fut pret and constructions like würde gesungen haben as fut pret prf. I will come back to this problem in Section 2.2.4.

2.2  Functions of the subjunctive There are three domains of the Subjunctive in present day German. The forms of the Subjunctive 1 can be used with an optative meaning in the largest sense of the word. The forms of the Subjunctive 2 can be used with a counterfactual meaning. These two functions are uses which all Germanic languages have in common. In addition, in German both the Subjunctive 1 and the Subjunctive 2 are used to indicate reported speech.

2.2.1  Subjunctive 1 Apart from reported speech, the Subjunctive 1 is archaic in all its uses. This is true for the optative use proper, which occurs almost exclusively in the third person singular (where the Subjunctive 1 always differs formally from the Indicative; cf. Table 1) and which could be regarded as a form substituting the missing Imperative of the third person (see 3.). The example in (3), from Flämig (1991: 411), sounds very archaic and has little chance to be uttered by a German speaker living today. (3) Wer schadhaftes Gerät empfangen hat, who defective equipment receive.ptcp.prf have.prs.ind.3sg der gebe es zurück. he give.prs.sbjv.3sg it back ‘Who has got defective equipment shall give it back.’

In many grammars it is maintained that this use of the Subjunctive 1 occurs frequently in cookery books; however, Engel (1988: 420) is right in observing that even in recipes the Subjunctive 1 is extremely rare today. An example for this use is given in (4).



 Rolf Thieroff

(4) Man nehme zwei Eier, ein Pfund Mehl und one take.prs.sbjv.3sg two eggs one pound flour and ein Pfund Zucker. one pound sugar ‘Take two eggs, one pound of flour and one pound of sugar.’

Only in mathematical texts as in (5) the optative use of the Subjunctive 1 still seems to be less infrequent today: (5) ABC sei ein Dreieck. ABC be.prs.sbjv.3sg a triangle ‘Let ABC be a triangle.’

In everyday speech, however, the optative use of the Subjunctive 1 is largely restricted to certain formulae such as (6) a.

Er lebe hoch! he live.prs.sbjv.3sg high ‘Cheers to him!’

b. Gott sei Dank! God be.prs.sbjv.3sg thanks ‘Thank God!’

In a larger sense, the Subjunctive 1 has also optative meaning in final subordinate clauses, as in (7). This use is archaic too. In contemporary German, the Indicative is used instead. (7) Er sprach sehr langsam und deutlich, he speak.pret.ind.3sg very slow and articulate damit sie ihn verstehe. that she him understand.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘He spoke very slowly and articulate in order that she understood him.’

Finally, the Subjunctive 1 is used in two more cases, where it does not have an optative meaning. The first is in certain concessive clauses, where it is today restricted to certain formulae such as (8) a.

Komme, was da wolle, … come.prs.sbjv.3sg what there will.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘Come what may, …’

b. Wie dem auch sei, … how it.dat.sg ptl be.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘However it may be.’

The second non-optative use is in unreal comparative clauses. These clauses are the only cases (besides indirect speech) where the Subjunctive 1 and the Subjunctive 2 can both be used with the same meaning.



Mood in German

(9) Es sieht aus, als habe/ it look.prs.ind.3sg out as have.prs.sbjv.3sg hätte es geregnet. have.pret.sbjv.3sg it rain.ptcp.prf ‘It looks as if it has rained.’

2.2.2  Subjunctive 2 The main function of the Subjunctive 2 is the indication of counterfactuality. It is important to note that the Subjunctive 2 forms do not have the same time reference as their Indicative counterparts. Whereas the Preterite Indicative has past time reference, the Preterite Subjunctive only occurs with non-past time reference. And contrary to the Pluperfect Indicative, which indicates that an event took place before a reference time which in turn is before speech time, the Pluperfect Subjunctive merely indicates past time reference. In other words, the Preterite Subjunctive has the same time reference as the Present Indicative (and the Present Subjunctive) and the Pluperfect Subjunctive has the same time reference as have Present Perfect and Preterite Indicative (and Present Perfect Subjunctive). Compare: (10) a.

Jetzt / Morgen scheint die Sonne. now / tomorrow shine.prs.ind.3sg the sun ‘Now the sun is shining/tomorrow the sun will be shining.’

b. Gestern schien die Sonne / hat yesterday shine.pret.ind.3sg the sun have.prs.ind.3sg

die Sonne geschienen. the sun shine.ptcp.prf



‘Yesterday the sun was shining.’

(11) a.

Wenn doch jetzt / morgen die Sonne schiene! if only now / tomorrow the sun shine.pret.sbjv.3sg ‘If only the sun were shining now/tomorrow!’

b. Wenn doch gestern die Sonne geschienen hätte! if only yesterday the sun shine.ptcp.prf have.pret.sbjv.3sg ‘If only the sun had been shining yesterday.’

The examples in (10) and (11) are so-called contrary-to-fact wishes. Most counterfactual Subjunctives occur, however, in conditional sentences. In counterfactual conditional sentences, both the main clause and the if-clause can be in the Subjunctive, as in (12). (12) Wenn jetzt die Sonne schiene, ginge ich spazieren. if now the sun shine.pret.sbjv.3sg go.pret.sbjv.1sg I walk.inf ‘If the sun were shining now, I would go for a walk.’

(12) is somewhat exceptional in as far as both the protasis and the apodosis contain a strong verb in the 3rd person singular, i.e. a form which is unambiguously subjunctive.





Rolf Thieroff

However, as in the other Germanic languages, the number of strong verbs is by far smaller than the number of weak verbs. If we replace the strong verb by a weak verb, either in the protasis or in the apodosis, this verb form is not morphologically different from the Indicative. Yet, the whole sentence is still understood as a counterfactual conditional sentence, the Preterite of the weak verb is interpreted as a Subjunctive form: (13) Wenn es regnete, bliebe ich zu Hause. if it rain.pret.ind/sbjv.3sg stay.pret.sbjv.1sg I at home.dat.sg ‘If it rained, I would stay at home.’ (14) Wenn die Sonne schiene, arbeitete ich im Garten. if the sun shine.pret.sbjv.3sg work pret.ind/sbjv.1sg I in_the garden ‘If the sun were shining, I would work in the garden.’

However, if both verbs (the verb in the apodosis and the verb in the protasis) are weak verbs, the respective sentence is normally not understood as a conditional sentence. Since the conjunction wenn does not only mean ‘if ’ but equally ‘when’, in sentences with two weak verbs and the conjunction wenn the verb forms are interpreted as Indicative and the wenn-clause is interpreted not as an if-clause but as a when-clause. Hence: (15) Wenn es regnete, arbeitete ich if/when it rain.pret.ind/sbjv.3sg work pret.ind/sbjv.1sg I nicht im Garten. not in_the garden ‘Whenever it rained, I did not work in the garden.’

The fact that (15) can hardly be understood as a conditional sentence could be interpreted in such a way that forms like regnete or arbeitete are not ambiguous with regard to Indicative/Subjunctive, but that they are indeed Indicative forms. However, such an analysis would imply that German would be a language with one group of verbs which have a Preterite Subjunctive form and another group of verbs which lack this category. In any case, in order to be able to understand a sentence like (15) as a conditional sentence, it is necessary that at least one of the two verb forms (either the one in the protasis or the one in the apodosis) provides a form which is formally distinct from the Preterite Indicative. The form being used in such cases is the würde-construction. In (16) three variants are represented which are equally possible. (16) a.

Wenn es regnete, würde ich if it rain.pret.ind/sbjv.3sg become.pret.1sg I



nicht im Garten arbeiten not in_the garden work.inf

b. Wenn es regnen würde, if it rain.inf become.pret.3sg

arbeitete ich nicht im Garten. work.pret.ind/sbjv.1sg I not in_the garden



Mood in German

c.

Wenn es regnen würde, würde ich if it rain.inf become.pret.3sg become.pret.1sg I



nicht im Garten arbeiten. not in-the garden work.inf



‘If it were raining, I would not be working in the garden.’

Starting from cases like (16), the würde-form is expanding and is being used more and more in both the apodosis and the protasis, with weak as well as strong verbs. In everyday speech, sentences like the ones in (16c) and (17) are preferred. (17) a.

Wenn die Sonne scheinen würde, if the sun shine-inf become.pret.3sg



würde ich spazierengehen become.pret.1sg I walk_go.inf



‘If the sun were shining now, I would go for a walk.’

b. Wenn es regnen würde, if it rain.inf become.pret.3sg

würde ich zu Hause bleiben. become.pret.1sg I at home stay.inf



‘If it were raining [now], I would stay at home.’

Abraham claims that the Subjunctive 2 only appears depending on an if-clause, which, however, can be “elliptically omitted” (Abraham 2009: 202; my translation), as in Abraham’s example (18): (18) Das hätte schwerwiegende Folgen! that have.pret.sbjv.3sg severe consequences ‘This would have severe consequences!’

However, it is the Subjunctive alone which conveys counterfactual meaning, and this is also possible without any if-clause, be it really uttered or only understood. (19) a.

Der Lothar ginge niemals nach Dortmund. the Lothar go.pret.sbjv.3sg never to Dortmund ‘Lothar would never go to Dortmund’

b. Du kämest mit Brille besser zur Geltung. you come.pret.sbjv.3sg with spectales better to_the worth ‘With spectacles you would better come into your own’ (20) a.

Waltraud hätte diese Aufgabe gelöst. Waltraud have.pret.sbjv.3sg this exercise solve.ptcp.prf ‘Waltraud would have solved this exercise’

b. Paul hätte den Pullover nicht gekauft. Paul have.pret.sbjv.3sg the sweater not buy.ptcp.prf ‘Paul wouldn’t have bought that sweater’





Rolf Thieroff

As for the sentences in (19) and (20), quoted from Eisenberg (2006b: 117) it is problematic if not impossible to relate them to “underlying” conditional sentences, as Eisenberg (ibid.) rightly observes. Thus, the Subjunctive 2 can very well appear in independent counterfactual sentences. In addition, it is also used independently in reported speech.

2.2.3  Reported speech In German, in contrast to the other Germanic languages with the exception of Icelandic, reported speech can be marked by the Subjunctive. In written German, especially in newspapers and magazines, the Subjunctive 1 is the first choice. The sentences in (21) contain the four tenses available in the Subjunctive 1. (21) Er sagte, sie habe einen Brief he say.pret.ind.3sg she have.prs.sbjv.3sg a letter geschrieben und jetzt lese sie die Zeitung. write.ptcp.prf and now read.prs.sbjv.3sg she the newspaper Wenn sie die Zeitung gelesen haben when she the newspaper read.ptcp.prf have.inf werde, werde sie im Garten arbeiten. become.prs.sbjv.3sg become.prs.sbjv.3sg she in_the garden work.inf ‘He said that she had written a letter and that she was reading the paper now. When she would have finished the paper, she would work in the garden.’

In (21) all verb forms are distinct from the Indicative, since they are in the 3rd person singular. As has been shown in 1.1., in the 1st person singular and in the non-2nd person plural the forms of the Indicative and of the Subjunctive 1 are always identical (with the exception of the verb sein ‘be’). In these persons, in order to make clear that indirect speech (and hence the Subjunctive) is meant, the Subjunctive 1 can be replaced by the Subjunctive 2. Future and Future Perfect Subjunctive can be replaced by the würde-construction which here obviously has future time reference. Consider (22). (22) Er sagte, sie hätten einen Brief he say.pret.ind.3sg they have.pret.sbjv.3pl a letter geschrieben und jetzt läsen sie die Zeitung. write.ptcp.prf and now read.pret.sbjv.3pl they the newspaper Wenn sie die Zeitung gelesen haben when they the newspaper read.ptcp.prf have.inf würden, würden sie im Garten arbeiten. become.pret.3pl become.pret.3pl they in-the garden work.inf ‘He said that they had written a letter and that they were reading the paper now. When they would have finished the paper, they would work in the garden.’

With weak verbs, however, the Preterite forms are not unambiguously Subjunctive forms either. Compare the sentences in (23a)–(23c).



(23) a.

Mood in German

Er sagte, sie arbeite gerade. he say.pret.ind.3sg she work.prs.sbjv.3sg just ‘He said (that) she was working at the moment.’

b. Er sagte, sie arbeiten gerade. he say.pret.ind.3sg they work.prs.ind/sbjv.3pl just ‘He said (that) they were working at the moment.’ c.

Er sagte, sie arbeiteten gerade. he say.pret.ind.3sg they work.pret.ind/sbjv.3pl just ‘He said (that) they were working at the moment.’

In such cases, the ambiguous forms can again be replaced by the würde-construction, as in (23d). (23) d. Er sagte, sie würden gerade arbeiten. he say.pret.ind.3sg they become.pret.3pl just work.inf same as (23 b/c)

Note that, in contrast to (22), in (23d) the würde-construction does not have future time reference, but the same time reference as a Present or a Preterite Subjunctive. Finally, in everyday speech, the Subjunctive 1 of reported speech is often replaced by the Subjunctive 2 even if the corresponding Subjunctive 1-forms are distinct from the Indicative. Abraham’s statement, that “in longer passages of indirect speech” the “present subjunctive is indispensable” since an independent Subjunctive only appears in indirect speech and only in the Present Subjunctive (Abraham 2009: 292) has to be rejected. Quite on the contrary, the Subjunctive 1 can always be replaced by the Subjunctive 2. This rule holds without any exception. Finally, even the würde-construction is used instead of unambiguous Subjunctive 1 forms. So, the sentences in (24) sound quite natural. (24) a.

Er sagte, sie läse jetzt die Zeitung. he say.pret.ind.3sg she read.pret.sbjv.3sg now the newspaper

b. Er sagte, sie würde jetzt die he say.pret.ind.3sg she become.pret.3sg now the Zeitung lesen. newspaper read.inf

‘He said that she was reading the paper now.’

The use of the Subjunctive to signal reported speech is correlated with (non-)factivity of the matrix verb. In German the three groups of factive, non-factive and ambiguous verbs can be distinguished. The Subjunctive is not possible in subordinate sentences governed by a factive verb. Hence, the Subjunctive in (25a) is ungrammatical.4

.  The examples in (25) are taken from Eisenberg (2006b: 117).





Rolf Thieroff

(25) a.

Karl versteht / vergisst/ Charles understand.prs.ind.3sg forget.prs.ind.3sg



weiß, dass Egon bleiben will/ *wolle know.prs.ind.3sg that Egon stay.inf want.prs.ind.3sg want.prs.sbjv.3sg



‘Charles understands/forgets/knows, that Egon wants to stay.’

However, the Indicative is also possible with non-factive verbs, as in (25b): (25) b. Karl meint / hofft / glaubt, Charles think.prs.ind.3sg hope.prs.ind.3sg believe.prs.ind.3sg

dass Egon bleiben will that Egon stay-inf want.prs.ind.3sg



‘Charles thinks/hopes/believes that Egon wants to stay.’

Finally, the Indicative is equally possible with ambiguous verbs. With the verbs in (25c) the statements remain ambiguous between the two readings: (25) c.

Karl berichtet / erzählt / sagt, Charles report.prs.ind.3sg tell.prs.ind.3sg say.prs.ind.3sg



dass Egon bleiben will that Egon stay-inf want.prs.ind.3sg ‘Charles reports/tells [us]/says that Egon wants to stay.’

However, if with ambiguous verbs the Subjunctive is chosen, then only the non-factive reading is possible, as in (25d): (25) d. Karl berichtet / erzählt / sagt, Charles report.prs.ind.3sg tell.prs.ind.3sg say.prs.ind.3sg

dass Egon bleiben wolle that Egon stay-inf want.prs.sbjv.3sg



‘Charles reports/tells [us]/says that Egon wants to stay.’

Thus the Subjunctive serves to signal non-factivity, but the Indicative can be used with nonfactive verbs too. Since non-factive matrix verbs are in most cases verba dicendi, this use is generally being described as the use of the Subjunctive in reported speech. While this analysis is probably not entirely true, it is true that in German the Subjunctive can have the function to indicate reported speech all by itself, i.e. without any matrix verb indicating that someone is speaking or who is speaking. An example for this use of the Subjunctive is given in the quotation from Max Frisch’s “homo faber” (quoted by Kaufmann 1976: 93) in (26). (26) Er lachte: “Was zeichnen Sie denn, he laugh.pret.ind.3sg what draw.prs.ind.3pl you.pol ptl Faber?” Ich zeichnete auf das Marmor-Tischlein […], Faber I draw.pret.ind.1sg on the marble-table.dim



Mood in German

sein Lachen störte mich derart, dass ich his laughter annoy.pret.ind.3sg me in_a_way that I einfach nichts zu sagen wusste. simply nothing to say.inf know.pret.ind.1sg Ich sei ja so schweigsam. I be.prs.sbjv.1sg ptl so taciturn ‘He laughed: “What are you drawing, Faber?” I painted on the little table made of marble […], his laughter annoyed me in a way that I did not know what to say. I was so taciturn, he said.’

In (26) the Subjunctive of the last sentence indicates that the sentence “You are so taciturn” is uttered by someone, and from the context the reader knows that it is “he” from the first sentence who utters this sentence. A verb of saying or the like is not necessary. This is not possible in any other Germanic language – in the English translation a verb of saying or the like must be added.5 Finally, (27)–(30) demonstrate that in German there is no consecutio temporum with sentences in the Subjunctive. Irrespective of whether the matrix verb is in the Present or in the Preterite, in the subordinate sentence both the Subjunctive 1 and the Subjunctive 2 are possible. This is true for simultaneity and for anteriority. (27) Maria denkt, dass Hans komme/ käme. Mary think.prs.ind.3sg that John come.prs.sbjv.3sg come.pret.sbjv.3sg (28) Maria dachte, dass Hans komme/ käme. Mary think.pret.ind.3sg that John come.prs.sbjv.3sg come.pret.sbjv.3sg (29) Maria denkt, dass Hans gekommen Mary think.prs.ind.3sg that John come.ptcp.prf sei / wäre. be.prs.sbjv.3sg be.pret.sbjv.3sg (30) Maria dachte, dass Hans gekommen Mary think.pret.ind.3sg that John come.ptcp.prf sei / wäre. be.prs.sbjv.3sg be.pret.sbjv.3sg

Yet, Abraham’s statement that “the forms of the Subjunctive 2 have nothing to do with tense” (Abraham 2009: 293; my translation) has to be rejected: Very much like the Subjunctive Present forms, the Subjunctive Preterite forms imply non-past time reference, and like the Subjunctive Perfect forms the Subjunctive Pluperfect forms have past time reference.

.  For a detailed description of the use of the subjunctive in reported speech in German and the difficulties to translate instances like the one in (81) see Pütz (1989).





Rolf Thieroff

2.2.4  würde + infinitive As we have seen in 2.2.2., the würde-construction is used to replace several tenses in the Subjunctive. In the written language the würde-construction mainly replaces such forms of the Subjunctive which are homonymous with the Indicative, but in the spoken language the construction is also used in the place of forms which are unambiguously Subjunctive. The uses of the würde-construction treated so far are the following: 1. würde-construction instead of Preterite Subjunctive with counter-factual meaning: (31) Wenn es regnen würde, würde ich if it rain.inf become.pret.3sg become.pret.1sg I nicht im Garten arbeiten. not in_the garden work.inf ‘If it were raining, I would not be working in the garden.’

2. würde-construction instead of Future Subjunctive in reported speech: (32) Er sagte, wenn sie die Zeitung gelesen haben he said when they the newspaper read.ptcp.prf have.inf würden, würden sie im Garten arbeiten. become.pret 3pl become.pret.3pl they in_the garden work.inf ‘He said that, when they would have finished the paper, they would work in the garden.’

3. würde-construction instead of Present/Preterite Subjunctive in reported speech: (33) Er sagte, sie würden gerade arbeiten. he say.pret.ind.3sg they become.pret.3pl just work.inf ‘He said (that) they were working at the moment.’

Until this point it appears as if the würde-construction always had the value of a Subjunctive and the assumption that the construction is indeed a Future Preterite Subjunctive seems to be correct. However, there are other uses of the würde-construction where it is questionable whether we are dealing with a Subjunctive. One such use is in certain subordinate clauses with future time reference. In (34a) the Future tense in the subordinate clause is obligatory to convey future time reference, i.e. the Future tense cannot be replaced by the Present (as is often the case in German). (34) a. Er weiß, was geschehen wird. he know.prs.ind.3sg what happen.inf become.prs.ind.3sg ‘He knows what will happen.’

If (34a) is transformed into the past, the Future has to be replaced by the würde-construction: (34) b. Er wusste, was geschehen würde. he know.pret.ind.3sg what happen.inf become.pret:3sg ‘He knew what would happen.’



Mood in German

Note that in (34a) the Subjunctive is not possible in the subordinate clause (*Er weiß, was geschehen werde is ungrammatical). Since in (34) only the time reference of the sentence is changed (not the modal contents), one would not expect that in (34b) the two verbs are in another mood than in (34a), and indeed the verb of the matrix sentence is in the Indicative, as it is in (34a). Consequently it is reasonable to conclude that geschehen würde in (34b) is an Indicative exactly as is geschehen wird in (34a) and all other verb forms in (34a) and (34b). And indeed this is precisely the reason for Jørgensen (1966) to analyze the würde-construction in (34b) as an Indicative. In other words, if we followed Jørgensen, the Future Preterite forms in (31)–(33) would be Subjunctives (Jørgensen calls them “Conditionals”), whereas the würde-construction in (34b) would be a Future Preterite Indicative. In addition to cases like (34b) with the würde-construction in subordinate clauses, würde + infinitive is used to refer to the future in free indirect speech. (35) is quoted by Jørgensen (1966: 41). (35) Der Rückzug von hier war nicht schwer; er the retreat from here be.pret.ind.3sg not difficult he würde die Treppe wieder hinuntergehen und become.pret.3sg the staircase again down_go.inf and verschwinden; die Deckung war ausgezeichnet; disappear.inf the cover be.pret.ind.3sg excellent niemand würde sich für ihn interessieren. nobody become.pret.3sg himself for him interest.inf ‘The retreat from here was not difficult; he would go downstairs again and disappear; the cover was excellent; nobody would be interested in him.’

In (35) too, all verb forms are in the Indicative mood and there is no reason why the clauses referring to the future should be in another mood. In other words, here again würde + infinitive obviously has the function of an Indicative and the question remains why then it is not expressed by an Indicative form. It has been a well known fact for a long time that languages tend to avoid too many marked categories in one single item. Well known examples from the noun phrase are that in many languages the third person is marked for gender in the unmarked number, the singular (cf. English he/she/it), whereas in the marked number, the plural, gender is not marked (English they, without gender distinction). In languages inflecting for case, the number of formal case distinctions is very often greater in the singular than in the plural, and it is greater in the unmarked gender than in the marked gender(s). This same principle also holds for the inflection of the verb. In Dutch in the marked tense, the Past, only number is marked, but not person; and in the unmarked Present, person is marked only in the unmarked number, the singular, not in the marked number, the plural. Similarly, in English, marking of the third person is restricted to the unmarked tense and the unmarked number at the same time (the Present singular). In other words,





Rolf Thieroff

marking of one kind of (inflectional) category very often implies non-marking of another kind of (inflectional) category. With respect to tense and mood, this principle can be observed to hold already in Latin. In this language, in the unmarked mood, the Indicative, six different tenses can be distinguished, but in the marked mood, the Subjunctive, there are only four tenses since there is no Future and Future Perfect of the Subjunctive. In German, two restrictions of the Latin system do not hold: in contrast to Latin, the Future can combine with the Past and it can combine with the Subjunctive. What is however not possible is a combination of the Future with both the Past and the Subjunctive – that would be too many marked categories in one single verb form. In German the Future Preterite with the function of a Subjunctive has no doubt been by far more frequent than its use with the function of an Indicative, and this is certainly one of the reasons why the Subjunctive form won over the Indicative form. Nevertheless it remains true that we are dealing with one form and one form only, which, in contrast to all other tense-mood combinations, has indeed both, functions of the Indicative and functions of the Subjunctive. However, since the marking of subjunctive and future and preterite would be too heavy a functional load, this form is not marked for mood, i.e. it does not belong to one of the two mood categories and that is why it can be used with the function of both.6

3.  The Imperative 3.1  The paradigm There are two forms of the Imperative in German: the singular (komm(e), ‘come.imp.sg’) and the plural (kommt ‘come. imp.pl’). In contradistinction to the Indicative and the Subjunctive, the Imperative is usually used without a subject (as in (36)), although a subject may be added as e.g. in (37), where the action the speaker requests from the hearer is opposed to the action envisaged by the speaker. (36) Geh nach Hause! go.imp.sg to home ‘Go home!’ (37) Geh du nach Hause, ich bleibe hier. go.imp.sg you to home I stay. ind.prs.1sg here ‘(You,) go home, I’ll stay here.’

.  Another, more modern fashion to say the same would be to say that the future preterite is underspecified with regard to mood.



Mood in German

In most grammars of German, the Imperative forms are also categorized as “second person”, however, since the Imperative forms are not in opposition to any other person, it makes little sense to say that a form like komm or kommt is in the second person (Eisenberg 2006a: 202). There are no tense distinctions in the Imperative either. Only in literary texts Present Perfect forms of the Imperative are occasionally found. The only two examples which are cited in many grammars are the ones in (38) and (39), both from literary texts (Duden 2005: 549). (38) Besen, Besen, seid’s gewesen! brooms brooms be.imp.pl_it.acc be.ptcp.prf ‘Brooms, brooms, have ceased to be it!’ (39) Schweige und habe gelitten! shut_up.imp.sg and have.imp.sg suffer.ptcp.prf ‘Be silent and have suffered!’

(J.W. Goethe)

(G. Benn)

Finally, there is in principle no Passive voice of the Imperative either, which is what one expects given that the Imperative is normally used to request someone to do something (which is why an Imperative sentence like Sei jung! ‘be young’ is not possible either). Again, in literary texts an Imperative in the Passive can be found occasionally, as in (40) with the auxiliary werden ‘become’ and in (41) with the auxiliary sein ‘be’ (cf. Erben 1980: 115). (40) Friss oder werde gefressen! devour.imp.sg or become.imp.sg devour.ptcp.prf ‘Devour or get devoured (yourself)’ (41) Sei gegrüßt! be.imp.sg greet.ptcp.prf ‘Be greeted!’ i.e. ‘Hello!’

The Imperative can only be used to address a hearer who is being addressed by the familiar personal pronoun du ‘you.fam’. If the hearer is addressed by the polite personal pronoun Sie ‘you.pol’ (governing the non-2nd person plural), instead of the form in (36) the expression in (42) is used. (42) Gehen Sie nach Hause! go.prs.3pl you.pol to home ‘Go home!’

Since (42) is used in the same context and with the same meaning as (36), some scholars claim that in (42) too we are dealing with an Imperative form. However, (42) differs from (36) in that there is no specific verb form different from the Indicative and the Subjunctive and that the subject (Sie) never can be omitted, whereas sentences with the Imperative are normally without a subject. Hence, from a morphological and syntactic point of view, the construction in (42) cannot be analyzed as an Imperative (see Zifonun et al. 1997:1725–1727). Note, ­however,





Rolf Thieroff

that in constructions like (42) it is not possible to tell whether the verb is in the Indicative or in the Subjunctive (there is, recall, no formal distinction between the two moods in the non-second person plural). With the only verb having distinct forms for the Indicative and Subjunctive, sein ‘be’, both moods are equally possible, as in (43) (Zifonun et al. 1997:1728). (43) Sind / Seien Sie so nett und … be.ind.prs.3sg be.sbjv.prs.3sg you.pol so kind and ‘Be so kind as to …’

What makes (42) and (43) a request is the word order (verb–pronoun) in contrast to the order pronoun–verb, which would be the order of a declarative sentence (Sie gehen nach Hause ‘You are going home’). This same contrast also holds for (44), with an adhortative meaning. (44) Gehen wir nach Hause! go.prs.1pl we to home ‘Let’s go home!’

Adhortatives like in (44) are sometimes also classified as Imperatives (Imperative 1st plural), but they cannot be regarded as Imperatives for the same reasons which lead us to the conclusion that the polite forms mentioned before are no Imperatives. As in the former case, it cannot be decided whether the verb is in the Indicative or in the Subjunctive. With the verb sein ‘be’ again the Indicative and the Subjunctive are possible (Zifonun et al. 1997:1725–1727).

3.2  Morphology At first, the Imperative singular of the weak verbs is identical with the verb stem, whereas the Imperative singular of the strong verbs has the suffix -e (originating from Old High German -i, -o and -e; Bittner 1996: 87). In modern German, this distinction of weak and strong verbs has been lost, the Imperative singular of both verb classes can be formed with or without the suffix -e. According to the most recent grammar of German “with most verbs Imperative forms with and without -e are possible: leb(e)! ‘live’, geh(e)! ‘go’, schick(e)! ‘send’, lern(e)! ‘learn’” (Duden 2005: 445; my translation). According to Bittner (1996: 89) “in the spoken language the e-less forms are clearly dominant and are becoming more frequent in the written language” (my translation). Most strong verbs with the stem vowel e have the so called “e/i-Wechsel” (e/i change). This means that in the 2nd and 3rd person singular of the Present Indicative the stem vowel e is changed to i (e.g. geben ‘give’: ich gebe, du gibst, er gibt ‘I/you give, he gives’). This e/i change also applies in the Imperative singular (geben – gib!, helfen ‘help’ – hilf!, essen ‘eat’ – iss!). In these cases, only the forms without the suffix -e are possible. In today’s spoken language the i-forms of the Imperative singular are more and more often replaced by regularly built Imperatives (geb(e)!, helf(e)!, ess(e)!) whereas the e/i change remains with the 2nd and 3rd person singular (Bittner 1996: 79). The regularly built



Mood in German

Imperative forms of the verbs with e/i change are exclusively found in the spoken language and not yet accepted by grammars of German. The form of the Imperative plural is always identical with the second person plural Present Indicative.

3.3  Use of the Imperative The Imperative is mainly used to utter a request, as in (36). In addition, the Imperative can also be used to express a wish, as in (45). (45) Schlaf gut! sleep.imp.sg well ‘Sleep well!’

Two more uses of the Imperative are the concessive use, as in (46) and the conditional use, as in (47) (examples from Zifonun et al. 1997:1730). (46) Besitze ruhig ein großes Vermögen. Es wird own.imp.sg ptl a big fortune it become.prs.ind.3sg dir nichts nützen. you.dat nothing serve.inf ‘Even if you own a big fortune, it will be useless.’ (47) Besitze Geld und du hast Einfluss. own.imp.sg money and you have.prs.ind.2sg influence. ‘If you own money, you have influence.’

Both uses are rare.

4.  Conclusion German has preserved Subjunctive forms of all tenses, i.e. each tense can be in the Indicative or in the Subjunctive mood. The Subjunctive forms can be divided into the Subjunctive 1, with the finite verb form in the Present tense, and the Subjunctive 2, with the finite verb form in the Preterite tense. The Subjunctive 1 originally has an optative meaning, similar to the Present Subjunctive in the other Germanic languages. As in the other Germanic languages, this use of the Subjunctive is getting more and more archaic, and in the spoken language it is restricted to certain formulaic expressions (Lang lebe der König ‘long live the King’). The main function of the Subjunctive 2 is the expression of counterfactuality, although in counterfactual sentences, at least in the spoken language, the Subjunctive 2 is increasingly being replaced by the Future Preterite (würde + infinitive). In present day German, the Subjunctive 1 is predominantly used in indirect speech, though this use is mainly restricted





Rolf Thieroff

to the written language. Besides its use in counterfactuals, the Subjunctive 2 is equally used in indirect speech. There are two forms of the Imperative, the Imperative singular (komm(e)!) and the Imperative plural (kommt!). For the polite address and for the adhortative, no Imperative forms are available, instead forms of the Present are used. Morphologically, there is a strong tendency in present day German to form the Imperative with the verb stem only, irrespective of whether the verb belongs to the class of weak or to the class of strong verbs.

References Abraham, W. 1999. Über allgemeine Zusammenhänge zwischen Präpositionsinfinitiv, Futur, deontischer Modalität und Perfektivität: Lokalistische Allativität. Sprachwissenschaft 24: 361–405. Abraham, W. 2009. Die Urmasse von Modalität und ihre Ausgliederung. Modalität anhand von Modalverben, Modalpartikel und Modus. Was ist das Gemeinsame, was das Trennende, und was steckt dahinter? In Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, ­Modalpartikel und Modus, W. Abraham & E. Leiss (eds), 251–302. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Bittner, A. 1996. Starke ‘schwache’ Verben schwache ‘starke’ Verben. Deutsche Verbflexion und ­Natürlichkeit. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Duden. 2005. Die Grammatik. Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch. 7., völlig neu erarbeitete und ­erweiterte Auflage. Duden Band 4. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Eisenberg, P. 2006a. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik, Band 1: Das Wort. 3. durchgesehene Auflage. Stuttgart: Metzler. Eisenberg, P. 2006b. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik, Band 2: Der Satz. 3. durchgesehene Auflage. Stuttgart: Metzler. Engel, U. 1988. Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Groos. Erben, J. 1980. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Abriss. München: Hueber. Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2000. Die Geheimnisse der deutschen würde-Konstruktion. In Deutsche ­Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, R. Thieroff, M. Tamrat, N. Fuhrhop & O. Teuber (eds), 83–96. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Flämig, W. 1991. Grammatik des Deutschen. Einführung in Struktur und Wirkungszusammenhänge. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Jørgensen, P. 1966. German Grammar III. New York NY: New York University Press. Kaufmann, G. 1976. Die indirekte Rede und mit ihr konkurrierende Formen der Redeerwähnung. München: Hueber. Pütz, H. 1989. Referat – vor allem Berichtete Rede – im Deutschen und Norwegischen. In Tempus – Aspekt – Modus. Die lexikalischen und grammatischen Formen in den germanischen Sprachen, W. Abraham & T. Janssen (eds), 183–223. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Thieroff, R. 1992. Das finite Verb im Deutschen. Tempus – Modus – Distanz. Tübingen: Narr. Thieroff, R. 2004. The subjunctive mood in German and in the Germanic languages. In Focus on Germanic Typology, W. Abraham (ed.), 315–357. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L. & Strecker, B., et al. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, 3 Vols. Berlin: de Gruyter.

part ii

Romance

Mood in French Walter De Mulder Antwerp

1.  Introduction French is a Romance language that descends from the variant of Latin that was spoken in Gaul during the Roman Empire. Its evolution was influenced by the ­Germanic languages of the (mainly) Frankish in­va­ders at the end of the Roman era. Current Standard French primarily derives from the dialect spoken in the Ile de France, but it has also absorbed ele­ments from other dialects and from other languages. It has undergone some ra­di­cal changes on different levels: phonological (such as, for instance, the effacement of most unsupported final consonants and of the end vowels, including, for most speakers, final /ә/), mor­pho­lo­gical (e.g. the loss of the Latin case system), and syntactic (e.g. the ad­di­tion of determiners in front of the nouns, the evolution into a non-pro-drop lang­uage and the change of word order of Standard French into SVO1).2 In the following section, we will first present the characteristics of the French verb system and then treat in more detail the French verb moods.

2.  The verb in French grammar 2.1  Morphology French verbs are traditionally subdivided into three classes: 1. an open class containing verbs whose (present) infinitive ends in -er (e.g. chanter ‘sing’, aimer ‘love’); this is by far the largest class (90% of all verbs or some 4000 verbs according to Riegel et al. 2009: 467) and also the most productive one: most new verbs (e.g. po­sitiv­er ‘think positive’, zapper ‘zap’) become part of this class; 2. an open class of verbs whose present infinitive ends in -ir (e.g. finir ‘end’, ‘finish’, applaudir ‘applaud’) and whose radical is enlarged by -iss- in some forms (for instance, in the indicative present plural forms: nous finissons ‘we end’, vous finissez ‘you (pl.)

.  This is no longer true for contemporary spoken French, however, which frequently uses more topical structures (see, for instance Lambrecht 1981, 1987); for a clear over­view of the changes word order has undergone in the history of French, see Marchello-Nizia (1995, 1999). .  For a more detailed presentation, see Harris (1987, 1988).



Walter De Mulder

end’, ils finissent ‘they end’);3 this class contains less verbs than the first one (some 300 ac­cor­ding to Riegel et al. 2009: 467) and the number of newly created verbs that currently enter into it is smaller than that of the verbs that become part of the first class; 3. a closed class of verbs whose present infinitive ends in -ir (but whose ra­di­cal is not enlarged by -iss-: partir ‘leave’, nous partons ‘we leave’, vous partez ‘you (pl.) leave’), in -re (prendre ‘take’, battre ‘beat’, etc. ) and in -oir (devoir ‘must’, savoir ‘know’, etc.). This classification is somewhat misleading, though: the first class contains the largest number of verbs, but these verbs are often less frequent than those belonging to the third class. Indeed, according to Riegel et al. (2009: 468), the eleven most frequent verbs are, in order of frequency: être ‘be’, avoir ‘have’, faire ‘do’, dire ‘say’, aller ‘go’, voir ‘see’, savoir ‘know’, pouvoir ‘can’, falloir ‘be necessary’, vouloir ‘want’ and venir ‘come’. More­over, this classification is based on the infinitive, although it is not suf­fi­cient to add an ending to the radical of the infinitive to build verb forms: the radical of several French verbs is variable throughout their conjugation. It would lead us too far to give a full overview of the conjugation of French verbs.4 In order to give an idea, we include the list of endings that are added to the verb radical(s) in order to construct the forms of the simple tens­es of most regular verbs:5 Table 1.  Person-number suffixes of the French verb first class

other classes

first class

infinitive -er

other classes participle present -ant past

-ir, -oir, -re

-é

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

-e -es -e -ons -ez -ent

-i, -u, -s, -t

indicative

subjunctive

present

Present

-s -s -t or Ø -ons -ez -ent

-e -es -e -ions -iez -ent

(Continued) .  The addition of -iss- also takes place in the present participle, the indicative imperfect and the present sub­jun­ctive. .  For a detailed presentation, see, for instance, Riegel et al. (2009: 467–496) and Grevisse & Goosse (2008, §822). .  The following overview of the French verb endings is mainly taken from Denis & SancierChateau (1994: 150).



Mood in French

Table 1.  (continued) first class

other classes

first class

imperfect (imparfait) 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

imperfect

-ais -ais -ait -ions -iez -aient

-a-sse -a-sses -â-t -a-ssions -a-ssiez -a-ssent

aorist (passé simple)6 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

-ai -as -a -âmes -âtes -èrent

-is -is -it -îmes -îtes -irent

other classes -i-sse -i-sses -î-t -i-ssions -i-ssiez -i-ssent

-u-sse -u-sses -û-t -u-ssions -u-ssiez -u-ssent

imperative -us -us -ut -ûmes -ûtes -urent

-e -ons -ez

-s -ons -ez

future7 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

-er-ai -er-as -er-a -er-ons -er-ez -er-ont

-r-ai -r-as -r-a -r-ons -r-ez -r-ont conditional

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

-er-ais -er-ais -er-ait -er-ions -er-iez -er-aient

-r-ais -r-ais -r-ait -r-ions -r-iez -r-aient

Some forms do not fit in this table 1. Thus, for instance,67 –– ––

some verbs have an -x ending in the first and the second person singular: je/tu veux ‘I/ you want’, je/tu vaux ‘I am worth/you are worth’ some verbs on -ir have -e, -es, -e endings in the singular: ouvrir ‘open’, j’ouvre ‘I open’, tu ouvres ‘you open’, il ouvre, ‘he opens’;

.  According to Riegel et al. (2009: 455) the vowels -a-, -i- and -u- can best be separated from the endings themselves, since they are different according to the class the verbs belong to; they frequently merge with the radical. The same vowels can be found in the subjunctive imperfect forms. .  According to Riegel et al. (2009: 444–445) the consonant -r- (preceded by -e- in the forms of verbs belonging to the first class) can be analyzed as marking the future; it is also found in the conditional, which is in fact analyzed as a “future in the past”. The exact morphological status of the -r- is still subject to debate, however.



 Walter De Mulder

–– ––

faire ‘do’ and dire ‘say’ end in -tes in the indicative present second per­son plural: vous faites ‘you (pl.) do’, vous dites ‘you (pl.) say’; être ‘be’, avoir ‘have’ and several of the other most frequent verbs cited a­bove have an overall highly irregular conjugation.

2.2  The verbal system 2.2.1  Moods From a semantic point of view, grammaticalized verb moods are most fre­quent­ly defined as expressions of the speaker’s attitude with respect to the proposition expressed by the sentence.8 This definition, which is in fact based on the characterization of modality in logic, is mainly adequate with respect to three series of verb forms, which can be considered as the mor­pho­logically marked moods of the French verbal system:9 a. indicative: e.g. je parle ‘I speak’, je finis ‘I end’, je prends ‘I take’, je reçois ‘I receive’. b. subjunctive: e.g. (que) je parle ‘(that) I speak’, (que) je finisse ‘(that) I end’, (que) je prenne ‘(that) I take’, (que) je reçoive ‘(that) I receive’. c. imperative: e.g. parle ‘speak’, finis ‘end’, prends ‘take’, reçois ‘re­ceive’. Some traditional grammarians also consider the conditional (or con­dition­nel) to be a separate mood. Its forms are composed of the radical, followed by the future marker -(e)r-, and the endings of the imperfect: e.g. parl + er + -ais, -ais, -ait, -ions, -iez, -aient ‘I would speak’ (etc.), prendrais ‘I would take’, finirais ‘I would end’, recevrais ‘I would receive’. As is sug­ ges­ted by these formation rules, the conditional expresses future in the past. This can be illustrated by the following fragment of indirect discourse: (1) Il déclara qu’ il ne reviendrait pas. he declare.ind.aor.3sg that he not come_back.fut.impf.3sg neg ‘He declared that he would not come back.’

However, the conditional also has non-temporal uses, to express doubt (2) or hearsay (3) and to mitigate assertions (4):

.  As pointed out by Nuyts (2005), the attitudes referred to in the definition of mood should be distinguished from temporal or aspectual distinctions. .  Most traditional French grammars analyze the infinitive, the present and past parti­ci­ples and the gerund as non-personal moods. However, as pointed out by Riegel et al. (2009: 511), it is not clear which attitude with respect to the proposition these forms would express; consequently we will not take them into account here.



Mood in French

(2) Seriez- vous devenu psychologue, be.fut.impf.2pl you.pl become.ptcp.prf psychologist, lieutenant? lieutenant

(E. Triolet, cited by GLLF 1973: 877)

‘Would you have become a psychologist, lieutenant?’ (3) Le roi serait mort. the king be.fut.impf.3sg dead ‘The king is said to be dead.’ (4) Vous devriez consulter un médecin. you must.fut.impf.2pl consult.inf.prs a doctor ‘You should see a doctor.’

Moreover, it can be used in conditional constructions such as (5), to express a potential or irreal value: (5) Si je le rencontrais, je le tuerais. if I him meet.ind.impf.1sg I him kill. fut.impf.1sg ‘If I would meet him, I would kill him.’

Most grammarians and linguists nowadays do not consider the conditional as a separate mood, but analyze it as a tense form, mainly for two reasons: first­ly, the form is used in the same contexts as the indicative; secondly, other tenses, such as the simple future and the imperfect, also have temporal and non-temporal uses,10 but no-one considers them to be moods; most of the time, their non-temporal uses are considered to have been derived from their tem­poral values. The same is held to be the case for the con­di­tion­al.11 The conditional’s potential to express purely temporal relations, quali­fied as future in the past, as well as modal ones, is mostly explained starting from the idea that the conditional combines elements of the future and the im­per­fect, as suggested by its morphological make-up: it is said to designate a situation that is presented as “consecutive” with respect to another, “ante­ce­dent”, situation. The relation of consecution corresponds to the “future”

.  Thus, the simple future (futur simple) can signal supposition (On sonne. Ce sera le facteur. (lit.) ‘They ring. It will be the postman’) or mitigation (Je vous demanderai un petit moment de silence (lit.) ‘I you will ask a little moment of si­lence’). The imperfect also has non-temporal uses, when it expresses potentialis and irrealis (in conditional constructions), mitigation, etc. Some linguists derive these non-temporal values from the imperfect’s temporal (past) value, for instance by some kind of ‘distance’ metaphor (e.g. Imbs 1960; Fleischman 1989); others pre­fer to analyze the imperfect as a tense form signaling that the situation is not to be located with respect to the point of speech; this then implies that it presents the situation as non-actual (see e.g. Damourette & Pichon 1911–1936, Vetters & De Mulder 2000, Caudal & Vetters 2005a). .  For a thorough introduction to the different uses of the conditional, see the articles in Dendale & Tasmowski-de Ryck (2001).





Walter De Mulder

ele­ment expressed by -(e)r- in the morphology of the conditional. The im­per­fect ending signals that the antecedent situation is located in the past or pre­sented as non-actual in another way (e.g. as potential or irreal). Con­se­quent­ly, the conditional locates a situation with respect to a past or non-ac­tual (potential or irreal) antecedent situation and can have both temporal and non-temporal values.12

2.2.2  Tenses and aspectual oppositions According to several authors, simple verb tenses in the indicative mood in French place the situations designated by the verb on two axes, a present and a non-present past one, each containing three temporal points: past, present and future. As represented in Table 2, the tens­es on the first axis localize the denoted situation in time with respect to the moment of speech m (from maintenant), which is thus the centre of the first axis; the tenses on the second axis, whose endings are the same as those of the imperfect, localize the situation with respect to a reference point that is non-actual and most frequently shifted into the past (m’):13 Table 2.  Two time axes Present axis

Past axis

Past

m (‘now’)

Future

fit (aorist) a fait (present perfect)

fait (present)

fera (simple future)

Past avait fait (pluperfect)

m’ faisait (imperfect)

Future ferait (conditional)

As can be seen, the conditional is completely integrated into this scheme as a “future in the past”. In the past of the present axis, one finds both the aorist (passé simple) fit and the present perfect (passé composé) a fait. Brief­ly put, the present perfect has replaced the aorist in spoken French, and is also frequently used in written French, although the aorist is also still in use in the written register. The present perfect or passé composé has in fact two interpretations: it refers to the present result of a past event, which is also its original use, or it refers to a past event and can, in that use, replace the aorist.14 The first value of the present perfect is of course the aspectual va­lue typical of these compound verb forms. Most French verb forms have both a temporal and an aspectual value. As far as aspectual oppositions are concerned, two main distinctions can be made in French. The first one

.  For this kind of analysis of the conditional, see e.g. Caudal & Vetters (2005a). .  For this analysis of the French tense system, see Damourette & Pichon (1911–1936), Vet (1980) and Harris (1988). .  Vet (1992) points out that the interpretation is guided by the context: when there is a nondeictic past adverbial in the sentence, for instance, the present perfect has the value of an aorist.



Mood in French

is between perfect and non-perfect aspect (aspect accompli/non accompli): compound verb forms express perfect aspect, where­as simple verb forms express non-perfect aspect. In the latter case, the verb presents the event as unfolding (possibly from its beginning to its end point), where­as in the first, the event is presented as completed and the verb form may refer to the result of the action expressed by the verb. The com­pound forms are formed by combining one of the simple forms of être or avoir with the past participle: –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––

present perfect (passé compose): j’ai lu ‘I have read’ anterior future (futur antérieur): j’aurai lu ‘I will have read’ anterior past (passé antérieur): j’eus lu ‘I had read’ pluperfect (plus-que-parfait): j’avais lu ‘I had read’ past conditional (conditionnel passé): j’aurais lu ‘I would have read’ past subjunctive (subjonctif passé): que j’aie lu ‘that I have read’ pluperfect subjunctive (subjonctif plus-que-parfait): que j’eusse lu ‘that I had read’ past infinitive (infinitif passé): avoir lu ‘have read’ past gerundive (gérondif passé): en ayant lu ‘having read’

The second main aspectual distinction is between perfective and imperfective aspect. The imperfect is said to express imperfective aspect, meaning that the de­not­ed situation is presented without its boundaries,15 whereas the aorist is said to express perfective aspect, meaning that the situation is presented “as a whole”, with its boundaries.16 This can be illustrated by the different interpretations of the following example sentences: (6) Quand Paul entra, tout_le_monde applaudissait. When Paul come_in.ind.aor.3sg everybody applaud.ind.impf.3sg ‘When Paul came in, everybody was applauding.’ (7) Quand Paul entra, tout_le_monde applaudit. When Paul come_in.ind.aor.3sg everybody applaud.ind.aor.3sg ‘When Paul came in, everybody applauded.’

Whereas (6) might mean that people were already applauding as Paul came in, (7) normally means that people applauded after Paul came in. Thus, in (6), it is possible to localize the first

.  The imperfect has perfective uses (see e.g. Tasmowski 1985; Thieroff 1999), but this does not mean that it expresses itself perfective aspect in these uses; taking into acount the evolution of both the aorist and the imperfect, it seems more ade­quate to view the imperfect as a tense that might become unmarked with respect to the aspectual opposition between perfective and imperfective (Vetters & De Mulder 2000, Caudal & Vetters 2005b). Its actual use is probably still best des­cri­bed by stating that it presents the designated situation without its final boundary, but does not prevent the context from supplying this boundary (Caudal & Vetters 2005a: 112). .  In French linguistics, imperfective aspect is also called “aspect sécant” and per­fec­ti­ve aspect “aspect global”.





Walter De Mulder

event after the beginning and before the end of the second one, whereas in (7), such an interpretation is impossible, sug­gesting that the second event is presented as a closed whole, with its be­gin­ning and its end point.17 Consequently, the situations in (6) are inter­pre­ted as occurring simultaneously, whereas those in (7) are understood to have ta­ken place one after the other. Finally, French has also developed a periphrastic future form, com­po­sed of forms of aller (‘go’) followed by the infinitive (Jean va faire la vaisselle ‘John is going to do the dishes’), which expresses prospective as­pect, and a periphrastic past form, composed of forms of the verb venir fol­low­ed by the preposition de and the infinitive (Jean vient de partir ‘John just left’), in order to express what might be called retrospective aspect.

3.  Moods As already pointed out above, French has three finite moods; we will first pre­sent the imperative and then look into the indicative and the subjunctive to­gether.

3.1  The imperative The imperative verb forms frequently are identical to those of the present in­di­ca­tive (second person singular, first and second person plural), especially for the verbs of the first two (open) classes presented above: –– ––

Parler: parle, ‘speak’ (singular), parlons ‘let us speak’, parlez ‘speak’ (plural/politeness form) Finir: finis ‘end’ (singular), finissons ‘let us end’, finissez ‘end’ (plural/politeness form)

Indeed, the only difference with the indicative is the form of the second per­son singular of the verbs whose infinitive ends by -er: they have no final -s in the imperative. However, this is only an orthographic difference: in spo­ken language, there is no difference whatsoever between the imperative and the indicative forms. This identity of form has been used by some grammarians and lin­guists to argue that the imperative is not a separate mood. In their view, the im­pe­rative can be explained as a special use of indicative and subjunctive forms (Guillaume 1929, Leeman-Bouix 1994):

.  Verbal aspect moreover interacts with lexical aspect, which can be described using ­Vendler’s verb classes of achievements, accomplishments, activities and states. For a more detailed explanation, see de Swart (1998) and Vet (1999). For the de­fi­ni­tion of the various verb classes, see Vetters (1996).



––

––

Mood in French

the indicative forms are used when the speaker thinks that the addressee has the capacity to carry out the act that is demanded; there is a direct relationship between the speaker and the hearer. when the speaker has no control over the execution of her demand, subjunctive forms are used; thus the imperative of the verb savoir is sache ‘know’: as pointed out by Leeman-Bouix (1994: 79), I can ask my son to study his lessons, but I cannot command him to know them, since to know something is an internal process that escapes my control.

The GLLF (1973: 2556) criticizes this hypothesis and argues that the imperative must be considered to be a mood on its own, for three reasons: 1. some verbs of the third group have separate forms for the imperative: Vouloir ‘want’ (2SG, 1PL, 2PL):

present indicative: veux, voulons, voulez present subjunctive: veuilles, voulions, vouliez imperative: veuille, veuillons, veuillez Savoir ‘know’ (2SG, 1PL, 2PL): present indicative: sais, savons, savez present subjunctive: saches, sachions, sachiez imperative: sache, sachons, sachez



It must be pointed out, however, that only very few verbs have specialized forms, sc. vouloir ‘want’, savoir ‘know’, and avoir ‘have’. 2. The imperative forms of être and avoir that are identical to the sub­jun­c­tive forms can be used to refer to processes that are under the con­trol of the hearer: sois poli ‘be polite’, ayez deux témoins ‘have two wit­nes­ses’. 3. The imperative does not have temporal distinctions comparable to those of the indicative; in fact, it only has a non-perfect and a perfect form, res­pec­tively called “present” and “past imperative”: for partir, for instance, one can distinguish, pars, partons, partez on the one hand and sois parti, soyons partis, soyez partis on the other. Moreover, these forms, even the per­fect ones, all receive a future interpretation, since an order can only be car­r­ied out in the future: (8) Soyez partis demain! be.imp.2pl depart.ptcp.prf tomorrow ‘Be gone tomorrow!’

The imperative, moreover, has a modal value that is clearly distinct from the mean­ing of the indicative: it expresses the speaker’s intention or desire that the addressee carry out the act expressed by the clause. Depending on the mean­ing of the verb and on the context





Walter De Mulder

(e.g. on the relation between the in­ter­locutors), this basic meaning can be interpreted in different ways: ––

as an order:

(9) Viens ici! come.imp.2sg here ‘Come here!’

––

as a plea:

(10) Donnez- nous aujourd’hui notre pain quotidien. give.imp.2pl us today our bread daily ‘Give us today our daily bread.’

––

as a wish:

(11) Passe de bonnes vacances. spend.imp.2sg art good holidays ‘Spend good holidays.’

––

as the expression of a condition:

(12) Cherchez, vous trouverez! search.imp.2pl you find.fut.2pl ‘Search, (and) you will find!’

3.2  The subjunctive The French subjunctive is most frequently used in its (simple) present or (com­pound) perfect forms: (13) a.

Je regrette qu’ il vienne. I regret.ind.prs.1sg that he come.sbjv.prs.3sg ‘I regret that he comes.’

b. Je regrette qu’ il soit venu. I regret.ind.prs.1sg that he be.sbjv.prs.3sg come.ptcp.prf ‘I regret that he has come.’

The difference between these two forms is aspectual: the compound forms sig­nal that the process has reached its endpoint. However, this aspectual meaning may invite language users to infer that the process is anterior with respect to the matrix verb and this has become the second meaning of these forms. The sub­junc­tive imperfect and pluperfect are seldom used nowadays. When they are used, they mainly express irreality:18

.  Cf. Soutet (2000: 145); in earlier stages of the language, the imperfect and plu­per­fect subjunctive were also used in indirect discourse (Barral 1980; Curat 1991: 130–132) as well as in hypothetical constructions (Riegel et al. 2009: 574–575).



Mood in French

(14) Ce n’ est pas que ces parlementaires it not is neg that these members_of_parliament d’hier ou de demain fissent des réserves. of_yesterday or of tomorrow make.sbjv.impf.3pl art objections ‘It is not that these members of parliament of yesterday or of tomorrow would formulate any objections.’(De Gaulle, cited in Barral 1980: 562 and Curat 1991: 133).

The subjunctive can be used in several contexts, which we will briefly pre­sent in the following sections; the definition of its basic meaning that is proposed here is strongly inspired by Farkas (1992) and Achard (2002).19

3.2.1  Independent (main) clauses In independent (main) clauses, the subjunctive is used to express ––

wishes:

(15) Vive le roi! live.sbjv.prs.3sg the king ‘Long live the king!’ (16) Que ton séjour ici soit agréable! That your.sg stay here be.sbjv.prs.3sg pleasant ‘May your stay here be pleasant!’

––

orders, when the addressee of the order is not present and the order is gi­ven indirectly, i.e. via a third party:

(17) Qu’ il vienne me voir le plus rapidement possible! that he come.sbjv.prs.3sg me see the most quickly possible ‘That he come see me as soon as possible!’ (18) Qu’ il ne vienne plus ici! that he not come.sbjv.prs.3sg more here ‘That he don’t come here anymore!’

––

hypotheses or conditions:

(19) Qu’ on me permette de sortir, et je that they me allow.sbjv.prs.3sg to go_out_inf.prs, and I serai heureux. be.fut.1sg happy ‘If they allow me to go out, I will be happy.’

.  Needless to say, all remaining problems are the responsibility of the author. The overview of the uses of the subjunctive offered here can only be partial, however. Good overviews of the existing analyses of the French subjunctive can be found in Gsell & Wandruszka (1986), Soutet (2000), Ayres-Bennett & Carruthers (2001) and Gaatone (2003). For an idea of the variability of the uses of the indicative and the subjunctive, see Nordahl (1969).





Walter De Mulder

As can be seen in these examples, the subjunctive is very frequently pre­ce­d­ed by que; most main clauses without que, such as (15), are fixed ex­pres­sions. In all these uses, the speaker, in using the subjunctive, signals that the pro­posi­tion expressed by the clause is not part of his or her representation of real­ity, but that it can be part of an alternative conception of it, the denoted si­tua­tion being hypothetical or located in the future. This in turn suggests a de­fi­nition of the indicative: by using the indicative, the speaker signals that it is his or her intention to present the content of the clause as part of his or her representation of reality. In fact, as we aim to show very briefly, the de­fi­ni­tion of the subjunctive’s meaning given above can be seen to underlie the other uses of that mood too, though it is not always the speaker’s re­pre­sen­tation of reality that is relevant in explaining mood selection.

3.2.2  Complement clauses The subjunctive is used after verbs and other linguistic forms expressing (1) will, (2) feeling and subjective appreciation, and (3) doubt. We will present each of these classes of uses in turn. 1. Expressions of will, orders or demands that are followed by the sub­junc­tive include verbs (vouloir ‘want’, obtenir ‘obtain’ etc.), nouns (désir ‘desire’, souhait ‘wish’ etc.) and adjectives (être désireux ‘yearning’, souhaitable ‘desirable’ etc.). Let us first consider (20): (20) Il exige que tu partes maintenant. he demand.ind.prs.3sg that you leave.sbjv.prs.2sg now ‘He demands that you go now.’



In this example, the meaning of the main verb suggests that the content of the complement clause cannot be part of the representation of reality of the sub­ject’s referent: the verb exiger introduces an alternative conception of reali­ty into the discourse. Although the use of the subjunctive is nearly automatic after expressions of will or demand, context may influence mood choice, as can be seen in the following example, where the verb souhaiter ‘desire’ is fol­low­ed by an indicative, although it is most frequently followed by a sub­junc­tive:

(21) Il faut souhaiter que la Coupe d’Or it is_necessary wish.inf.prs that the cup of gold remettra dimanche prochain les deux mêmes équipes en présence. put.fut.3sg Sunday next the two same teams in presence ‘One must wish that the Gold Cup will oppose the same two teams next Sunday.’  (Le Figaro, August 25, 1959, cited by Nordahl 1969: 35)



The mention of an exact date may have the effect of situating the process on the timeline containing the moment of speech (Nordahl 1969: 35); it thus sug­gests that the content of the complement clause is part of the speaker’s re­pres­en­tation of reality.



Mood in French

2. Expressions of feeling and subjective appreciation that are frequently follo­wed by que + subjunctive include verbs (e.g. regretter ‘regret’, avoir peur ‘have fear’), nouns (e.g. dommage ‘regrett’, tristesse ‘sad­ness’; surprise ‘surprise’) and adjectives (e.g. amusé ‘amused’, effrayé ‘horrified’, surprise ‘surprised’). Context plays a greater part in determining the choice of mood in the com­ple­ ment clauses of these expressions than after expressions of will or de­sire. The reason is that the complement clauses in most cases are true in the speaker’s and the hearer’s common representation of reality (or common ground), an element that should favor the use of the indicative. Neverthe­less, these expressions are normally followed by the subjunctive, as can be seen in (22): (22) Il s’étonne que son père ne he be_surprised.ind.prs.3sg that his father not vienne pas le voir. come.sbjv.prs.3sg neg him see ‘He is surprised that his father does not come to see him.’



The reason is that the aim of the speaker is not to present the content of the clause as part of the conception of reality of the subject’s referent: his (or her) aim is rather to present the reaction of the subject’s referent (regret, as­tonish­ment, etc.) to the event reported in the complement clause; the sub­junc­tive signals, then, that the question whether the content of the com­ple­ment clause is part of someone’s conception of reality is not raised. This anal­ysis is confirmed by the fact that the same verb can be followed by the in­di­cative when the speaker wants to inform the hearer that the content of the complement clause is part of the representation of reality of the subject’s re­fer­ ent. This is illustrated by the following example of Nordahl (1969: 94), where s’étonner que followed by the indicative means ‘notice with as­tonish­ment’:

(23) En_cours de route, le conducteur s’étonna while prep way the driver be_surprised.ind.aor.3sg que le réservoir de la moto affichait le plein. that the reservoir of the motorcycle indicate.ind.impf.3sg the full ‘On the way, the driver was surprised to see that the reservoir of the motorcycle indicated that it was full.’

3. Expressions and verbs indicating doubt include verbs such as douter ‘doubt’, contester ‘dispute’, etc. (24) and nouns such as chance ‘chance’, possibilité ‘possibility’ etc., but also verbs of saying and belief, when they are part of negative (25) or interrogative (26) structures: (24) Paul doute que tout_le_monde soit venu. Paul doubt.ind.prs.3sg that everybody be.sbjv.prs.3sg come.ptcp.prf ‘Paul doubts that everybody has come.’





Walter De Mulder

(25) Pierre ne croit pas que tout_le_monde Peter not believe.ind.prs.3sg neg that everybody soit venu. be.sbjv.prs.3sg come.ptcp.prf ‘Peter does not believe that everybody has come.’ (26) Est- il certain que sa traduction soit libre de droits? be.ind.prs.3sg it certain that his translation be.sbjv.prs.3sg free of rights ‘Is it certain that his translation is free of copyright?’



In all these examples, the use of the subjunctive is to be expected for the reas­ons briefly explained above: in (24), the main verb (douter) explicitly sig­nals that the content of the complement clause is one of several alter­na­tive representations of reality; in (25), the negation of croire ‘believe’ implies that the content of the complement clause is not part of Peter’s re­pre­sent­ation of reality, but of an alternative conception of it; in (26), finally, the use of the subjunctive signals that the content of the complement clause is not presented as part of the speaker’s representation of reality. Con­se­quent­ly, the content of the complement clause itself is questioned. When the speak­er wants to inform the hearer that the content of the complement clause is part of someone’s representation of reality, he can use the indi­ca­ti­ve, as can be seen in (27), where the relevant representation of reality is that of the speaker or reflects some kind of common knowledge:

(27) Ils ignoraient qu’ il vaut_mieux ne_pas they ignore.ind.impf.3pl that it be_better.ind.prs.3sg not citer Mauriac. cite.inf.prs Mauriac ‘They did not know that it is better not to cite Mauriac.’  (Mauriac, Mémoires intérieures, cited by Nordahl 1969: 151)

4. Finally, complement clauses that are preposed also tend to be in the sub­junc­tive: (28) Qu’ il ait manqué d’ expérience est certain. that he have.sbjv.prs.3sg lack.ptcp.prf art experience is certain ‘That he was short of experience is certain.’

In such cases, the subjunctive is probably used because the content of the com­ple­ment clause is not (yet) presented as part of the speaker’s re­pre­sent­ation of reality; in contemporary French, its use in this context is nearly automatic.

3.2.3  Adverbial clauses The subjunctive is used in the following adverbial clauses: 1. Temporal clauses introduced by avant que ‘before’, en attendant que ‘while waiting for’, jusqu’à ce que ‘until’:



Mood in French

(29) Louis est arrivé avant_que Guy ne Louis be.ind.prs.3sg arrive.ptcp.prf before Guy ptl soit parti leave.sbjv.prs.3sg leave.ptcp.prf ‘Louis has arrived before Guy left.’ (30) Louis est arrivé quand Guy est parti. Louis be.ind.prs.3sg arrive.ptcp.prf when Guy be.ind.prs.3sg leave.ptcp.prf ‘Louis has arrived when Guy left.’



In (30), both the main clause and the subordinate clause are in the in­dica­ti­ve. This is to be expected, since the content of the main clause is presented as part of the speaker’s representation of reality; moreover, since the event of the subordinate clause is said to have preceded or have coincided with the event reported in the main clause, it must also be part of the speaker’s re­pre­sent­ation of reality. That is not true for the events expressed in the clauses in­tro­duced by avant que, en attendant que and jusqu’à ce que, however, be­cause these conjunctions signal that the event expressed in the temporal clause follows that of the main clause. This future or prospective element seems sufficient in these cases to suggest the possibility that reality might have taken an alternative course.20

2. Adverbial clauses expressing objectives or desires. These are most fre­quent­ly introduced by afin que or pour que ‘so that’, ‘in order that’, but some­times also only by que: (31) Approchez, que je vous voie mieux. approach.imp.prs.2pl that I you.pl see.sbjv.prs.1sg better ‘Come nearer, so that I can see you better.’



Of course, the use of the subjunctive in this sentence can be explained in the same way as its use in complement clauses after verbs expressing will or de­sire: in (31), the content of the adverbial clause is clearly not (yet) part of the representation of reality of the speaker.

3. Adverbial clauses expressing consequence. These are introduced, among others, by de sorte que ‘so that’. The adverbial clause is normally in the in­di­ca­tive, since the event

.  It is surprising that in contemporary French après que is also frequently followed by the subjunctive (although some grammarians qualify this use of the subjunctive as ungrammatical). Most frequently, this use is said to have arisen by analogy with avant que. This account is not really convincing, however, since it is not clear why the analogy has not worked the other way around. Dolbec & Le Flem (1981) pro­pose that après que was initially followed by the subjunctive in contexts where it could be paraphrased by oppositive conjunctions such as bien que ou quoique, or by conditional conjunctions such as à condition que, and that its use has sub­se­quent­ly spread to other contexts.





Walter De Mulder

described in the main clause is said to cause or give rise to the event in the subordinate clause and, thus, to guarantee that it is part of the speaker’s representation of reality. (32) Il a fait ses devoirs de_sorte_que he have.ind.prs.3sg do.ptcp.prf his duties so_that personne ne peut lui adresser le moindre reproche. nobody neg can.ind.prs.3sg him address.inf.prs the least reproach ‘He has done his homework so that nobody can criticize him in any way.’

It may be in the subjunctive, however, when it expresses a kind of objective: (33) Il a fait ses devoirs de_sorte_que he have.ind.prs.3sg do.ptcp.prf his duties so_that personne ne puisse lui adresser le moindre reproche. nobody neg can.sbjv.prs.3sg him address.inf.prs the least reproach ‘He has done his homework so that (= in order to make sure that) nobody can criticize him in any way.’

4. Adverbial clauses expressing conditions. The subjunctive is used in clauses introduced by à la condition que, ‘on the condition that’, sous reserve que, ‘provided that’ and some other conjunctions ending with que: (34) On m’ a laissé partir, à condition they me have.ind.prs.3sg let.ptcp.prf leave.inf.prs on condition que je ne revienne pas. that I not come.back.sbjv.prs.1sg neg ‘They have let me go, on the condition that I do not come back.’



The use of the subjunctive is not surprising, since the content of the sub­or­di­na­te clause is hypothetical and is thus not (yet) part of the speaker’s re­pres­en­ta­tion of reality.21

5. Adverbial clauses expressing concession. These are frequently introduced by bien que, quoique, encore que ‘although’. Although the content of the clause may be presented as already part of the speaker’s and the inter­lo­cu­tor’s representation of reality, these subordinate clauses are not in­com­pa­ti­ble with the subjunctive’s meaning as defined before, since the con­se­quent­ial relation that should normally have been instantiated, is absent, sug­ges­ting that the event in the subordinate clause did not have the effects fore­seen and .  It is clear, however, that other elements must be taken into account, since si, the most common conjunction to introduce conditional clauses, is not followed by the sub­junctive in Modern French. Maybe mood choice is in these cases lexically fix­ed, possibly as the outcome of the evolution of the relevant conjunctions.



Mood in French

that other, alternative causes were more efficient. This use of the sub­junc­tive thus is compatible with the idea that the speaker does not consider the event to be really part of his or her representation of reality.22 (35) Paul n’ est pas sorti, quoiqu’ il Paul not be.ind.prs.3sg neg go_out.ptcp.prf although it fasse beau. be.sbjv.prs.3sg fine ‘Paul has not gone out, although the weather is nice.’

3.2.4  Relative clauses Relative clauses frequently allow the speaker to choose between the indica­tive or the subjunctive; however, mood choice has consequences for the in­ter­pre­tation of the relative clauses. Consider (36): (36) Je cherche une maison qui a / I search.ind.prs.1sg a house that have.ind.prs.3sg ait des volets rouges. have.sbjv.prs.3sg art shutters red ‘I am looking for a house that has/should have red shutters.’

When the verb is in the indicative, the sentence has a specific reading: it is about a house that can be individualized (it is for instance possible to ask “which house?”); when it is in the subjunctive mood, the sentence has a non-specific reading: the house cannot be individualized (it is not possible to ask “which house?”, only “which kind of house?”) (KampersManhe 1991: 135–149).

4.  Indirect discourse In contradistinction to other languages, French uses the indicative in indirect dis­course. When the matrix verb is in the present or the future, the verb of the subordinate clause is in the same tense as in the corresponding direct dis­course utterances:23

.  Although the overall interpretation of concessive clauses seems compatible with the meaning of the subjunctive, a full analysis of the use of mood choice must take into account other factors, since other concessive conjunctions, such as alors que, are followed by the indicative, without giving rise to a clear difference in meaning. It is not impossible, then, that the choice between the indicative and the sub­junc­tive is lexically fixed after these conjunctions too, as the outcome of their evo­lu­tion. .  Unless otherwise stated, the examples in this section come from Landeweerd (1998: 119–134).





Walter De Mulder

(37) a.

Pauline dit: “J’aime le fromage de chèvre”. Pauline say.ind.prs.3sg I like.ind.prs.1sg the cheese of goat ‘Pauline says: “I like goat cheese”.’

b. Pauline dit qu’ elle aime le fromage de chèvre. Pauline say.ind.prs.3sg that she like.ind.prs.3sg the cheese of goat ‘Pauline says that she likes goat cheese.’

However, when the verb of the matrix clause is in the past, French uses trans­posed tense forms: (38) Pauline dit qu’ elle aimait le fromage de chèvre. Pauline say.ind.aor.3sg that she like.ind.impf.3sg the cheese of goat ‘Pauline said that she liked goat cheese.’

The transposed tense forms express the temporal relationship between the situa­tion expressed in the complement clause and the moment of time iden­ti­fied by the verb in the main clause: the imperfect expresses simultaneity, the pluperfect anteriority and the (anterior) future-in-the-past posteriority with respect to the moment the main clause verb refers to. The system of trans­posed forms can thus be described as follows (Rohrer 1986; Landeweerd 1998: 120): Table 3.  Transposition of tenses Non-transposed form

Transposed form

present imperfect aorist present perfect pluperfect (simple) future anterior future future in the past anterior future in the past

imperfect imperfect pluperfect pluperfect pluperfect future in the past (= conditional) anterior future in the past (= past conditional) future in the past (= conditional) anterior future in the past (= past conditional)

As can be seen in this list, all forms that can be used as transposed forms can also be used in non-trans­posed contexts; consequently, the information about the transposed or non-transposed nature of the context is given by other elements than the verb forms. This also means that some sentences may be ambiguous. Thus, the imperfect in (39) can correspond to a present in direct discourse, but it can also be equivalent to an imperfect: (39) Marie dit que Caroline habitait Paris. Mary say.ind.aor.3sg that Caroline live.ind.impf.3sg Paris ‘Mary said that Caroline lived in Paris.’



Mood in French

Moreover, the sequence of tense rule is not without exceptions and sequence of tense is certainly not automatic or purely formal,24 as can be seen in (40), cited by Landeweerd (1998): (40) Vous n’ avez pas compris que les You not have.ind.prs.2pl neg understand.ptcp.prf that the découvertes atomiques ont changé le monde. discoveries atomic have.ind.prs.3pl change.ptcp.prf the world ‘You have not understood that the atomic discoveries have changed the face of the earth.’

In (40), the speaker could also have used a pluperfect, since the changes oc­casion­ed by the atomic discoveries started before; by using a present per­fect, she signals that the situation is (still) valid at the moment of speech. Berthonneau and Kleiber (1997: 116–117) cite the following example, where the present perfect in direct discourse is not transposed into a pluperfect: (41) a.

Paul a dit: “Max était Paul have.ind.prs.3sg say.ptcp.prf Max be.ind.impf.3sg



parti quand Julie lui a téléphoné”. leave.ptcp.prf when Julie him have.ind.prs.3sg phone.ptcp.prf



‘Paul has said: “Max had left when Julie has given him a phone call’ ”.

b. Paul a dit que Max était Paul have.ind.prs.3sg say.ptcp.prf that Max be.ind.impf.3sg

parti quand Julie lui a téléphoné. leave.ptcp.prf when Julie him have.ind.prs.3sg phone.ptcp.prf



‘Paul has said that Max had left when Julie has given him a call’.

Sentence (42) also seems to be an exception to the rules of transposition, since the past tense allait, which is part of the periphrastic form expressing pros­pective aspect, is used after a future (in fact, a future-in-the-past) form: (42) Hier, il décida enfin ce qu’ il Yesterday he decide. ind.aor.3sg finally that what he allait faire. Dans trois jours, il dirait go.ind.impf.3sg do In three days he say.fut.impf.3sg à ses parents qu’ il allait quitter la maison. to his parents that he go.ind.impf.3sg leave the house ‘Yesterday, he decided finally what he was going to do. In three days, he would say to his parents that he was going to leave the house.’

.  For a more complete presentation, see Berthonneau & Kleiber (1997), who reject not only purely formal definitions of the sequence of tense rule, but also semantic ones.





Walter De Mulder

However, Landeweerd (1998: 130) points out that the past tense of allait is trig­ger­ed by the past tense in the context and not by the future in the past dirait in the main clause. Let us point out, finally, that in some indirect discourse contexts, one can find a subjunctive, as in (43): (43) Et à midi, il a simplement téléphoné and at noon he have.ind.prs.3sg simply phone.ptcp.prf qu’ on ne l’ attende pas … that they not him wait.sbjv.prs.3sg neg ‘And at noon, he has simply given a call that they should not wait for him.’  (M. Aymé, Le bœuf clandestin, p. 84, cited by Nordahl 1969: 53).

In these cases, the use of the subjunctive signals that the subordinate clause ex­presses a wish, a desire or even an order on behalf of the main clause sub­ject.

5.  Conclusions French has three grammaticalized moods: the indicative, the subjunctive and the imperative. However, there is some discussion about the question whe­ther the imperative is to be considered as a separate mood, and the con­di­tion­al, which is considered to be a separate mood by some authors, is most fre­quently treated as part of the indicative tense system. This, of course, rais­es the question of the relation between grammaticalized moods and mo­dal uses of tense forms. The indicative imperfect, for instance, has frequent non-temporal uses, and some authors argue that its basic meaning can no lon­ger be defined in purely temporal terms. Consequently, in our view, tense and mood (and aspect) should be considered as interdependent cate­go­ries.

References Achard, M. 2002. The meaning and distribution of French mood inflections. In Grounding. The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, F. Brisard (ed.), 197–249. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ayres-Bennett, W. & Carruthers, J. 2001. Mood and modality: The French subjunctive. In Problems and Perspectives. Studies in the Modern French Language, W. Ayres-Bennett & J. Carruthers, 192–221. London: Longman. Barral, M. 1980. L’imparfait du subjonctif. Étude sur l’emploi et la concordance des temps du subjonctif. Paris: A. & J. Picard. Berthonneau, A.-M. & Kleiber, G. 1997. Subordination et temps grammaticaux: l’imparfait et le discours indirect. Le français moderne LXV/2: 113–141. Caudal, P. & Vetters, C. 2005a. Un traitement conjoint du conditionnel, du futur et de l’imparfait: Les temps comme des fonctions d’acte de langage. Cahiers Chronos 12: 109–124. Caudal, P. & Vetters, C. 2005b. Que l’imparfait n’est pas (encore) un prétérit. Cahiers Chronos 14: 45–77. Curat, H. 1991. Morphologie verbale et référence temporelle en français moderne. Paris: Droz.



Mood in French

Damourette, J. & Pichon, É. 1911–1950. Des mots à la pensée. Essai de grammaire de la langue française, Vol. 5. Paris: Éditions d’Artrey. Dendale, P. & Tasmowski-de Ryck, L. (eds). 2001. Le conditionnel en français. Metz: Université de Metz. Denis, D. & Sancier-Chateau, A. 1994. Grammaire du français, Paris: Le livre de poche. de Swart, H. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 347–385. Dolbec, J. & Le Flem, D.C. 1981. Le subjonctif avec ‘après que’: Faute ou variation significative? Langues et linguistique 7: 125–154. Farkas, D.F. 1992. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory. Papers from the 20th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XX). Ottawa, 10–14 April 1990. [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 91], P. Hirschbühler & K. Koerner (eds), 69–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fleischman, S. 1989. Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language 13: 1–50. Gaatone, D. 2003. La nature plurielle du subjonctif français. In La syntaxe raisonnée. Mélanges de linguistique générale et française offerts à Annie Boone à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire, P. Hadermann, A. Van Slijcke & M. Berré (eds), 57–78. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Duculot. GLLF. 1973. Grand Larousse de la langue française en six volumes. Paris: Librairie Larousse. Grevisse, M. & Goosse, A. 2008. Le bon usage. Grammaire française. 14th edition. Bruxelles: De Boeck Duculot. Gsell, O. & Wandruszka, U. 1986. Der romanische Konjunktiv. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Guillaume, G. 1929. Temps et verbe: théorie des aspects, des modes et des temps. Paris: Champion. Harris, M. 1987. French. In The World’s Major Languages, B. Comrie (ed.), 120–135. Oxford: OUP. Harris, M. 1988. French. In The Romance Languages, M. Harris & N. Vincent (eds), 209–245. London: Croom Helm. Imbs, P. 1960. L’ emploi des temps verbaux en français moderne. Paris: Klincksieck. Kampers-Manhe, B. 1991. L’ opposition subjonctif/indicatif dans les relatives. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lambrecht, K. 1981. Topic, Antitopic, and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard French [Pragmatics & Beyond Vol. II: 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lambrecht, K. 1987. On the status of SVO sentences in French discourse. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 11], R. Tomlin (ed.), 217–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Landeweerd, R. 1998. Discourse Semantics of Perspective and Temporal Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. Leeman-Bouix, D. 1994. Grammaire du verbe français. Des formes au sens. Paris: Nathan. Marchello-Nizia, C. 1995. L’ évolution du français. Ordre des mots, démonstratifs, accent tonique. Paris: Armand Colin. Marchello-Nizia, C. 1999. Le français en diachronie: Douze siècles d ’évolution. Paris: Ophrys. Nordahl, H. 1969. Les systèmes du subjonctif corrélatif. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget. Nuyts, J. 2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In Modality: Studies in Form and Function, A. Klinge & H.H. Müller (eds), 5–38. London: Equinox. Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C. & Rioul R. 2009. Grammaire méthodique du français. 4th revised edition. Paris: PUF. Rohrer, C. 1986. Indirect discourse and ‘consecutio temporum’. In Temporal Structure in Sentence and Discourse, V. Lo Cascio & C. Vet (eds), 79–97. Dordrecht: Foris. Soutet, O. 2000. Le subjonctif en français. Paris: Ophrys. Tasmowski, L. 1985. L’imparfait avec et sans rupture. Langue française 67: 59–77. Thieroff, R. 1999. Preterites and imperfects in the languages of Europe. In Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity. Essays in honor of Vladimir Nedjalkov [Studies in Language Companion Series 50], W. Abraham & L. Kulikov (eds), 141–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.





Walter De Mulder Vet, C. 1980. Temps, aspects et adverbes de temps en français contemporain: Essai de sémantique formelle. Genève: Droz. Vet, C. 1992. Le passé composé: Contextes d’emploi et interprétation. Cahiers de Praxématique 19: 37–59. Vet, C. 1999. Petite grammaire de l’Aktionsart et de l’aspect. Cahiers de grammaire 19: 1–17. Vetters, C. 1996. Temps, aspect et narration. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Vetters, C. & De Mulder, W. 2000. Passé simple et imparfait: Contenus conceptuel et procédural. Cahiers Chronos 6: 13–36.

Mood in Portuguese Martin Becker Cologne

1.  Introduction The Portuguese language evolved from the Vulgar Latin spoken in the northwestern ­provinces of the Roman Empire, Lusitania and the western part of the Tarraconensis (Teyssier 1997: 4). It surfaces for the first time as Galaico-Portuguese in documents of the 12th century. Since the 14th century Portuguese and Galician (spoken in the northwestern part of the Kingdom of Castile and Leon) have been taking different paths of development, with ­Portuguese acquiring the status of a national language. Portugal’s oversee expansion – the exploration of the African coast and the Indian Ocean in the second half of the 15th century, as well as the discovery and conquest of Brazil – turns its mother tongue into one of the world languages, which has, nowadays, more than 170 million speakers in Europe (Portugal), Latin America (Brazil), Africa (Angola, Moçambique, São Tomé and Príncipe, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde) and Asia (small and decreasing communities in Goa, East Timor, Macau, Sri Lanka (Ceylon) and Malaca). As we will see in this article, Portuguese disposes of a particularly complex mood system among the family of Romance. Seen from a typological point of view, the vernacular belongs to the Iberoromanian area sharing a lot of common features with the Spanish mood system, though similarities have been weakening throughout the centuries, with Spanish losing the Future Subjunctive and converting the etymological Pluperfect (cantara) into a second Imperfect Subjunctive form. However, another interesting aspect should not be overlooked: the bequest of the Latin futurum exactum (amavero) as Future Subjunctive to Portuguese as well as to Spanish and Rumanian (see Becker in this volume) strengthens Rohlf ’s lexicon-based argumentation for a so-called Peripherical Romania ‘Randromania’ from a morpho-syntactic point of view (see Rohlfs 1954). In the following chapters we first describe the different subsystems of the mood system within their syntactic environments. Then, we go a step further and abstract away from single contexts of occurrence in order to give a comprehensive account of the ‘semantics of mood’. We cast a quick glance at competing Infinitive structures and conclude with a short summary.

2.  Morphological aspects of the Portuguese mood system The verbal system of Portuguese possesses a very rich Subjunctive morphology: a Present (Presente do Subjuntivo), a Past (Pretérito Imperfeito do Subjuntivo) and even a



Martin Becker

Future ­Subjunctive (Futuro do Subjuntivo) form and, in addition to that, compound forms with the auxiliary ter ‘to have’. The Present Subjunctive is distinguished from the corresponding Indicative form of one of the three verb classes (1st class: -ar, 2nd class: -er, 3rd class: ir) by a characteristic vowel alternation: 1st class: a—e opposition, 2nd and 3rd class: e—a opposition. Table 1 gives an overview of the Present morphology (see the descriptive surveys in  Barbosa 1998 and standard grammars like Bechara 372004, Cunha & Cintra 21985, ­Hundertmark-Santos Martins 1982 and others): Table 1.  Present Indicative vs. Present Subjunctive Morphology Class

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

1st conjugation: cantar

2nd conjugation: vender

3rd conjugation: partir

Indicative

Subjunctive

Indicative

Subjunctive

Indicative

Subjunctive

cant-o cant-a-s cant-a-Ø cant-a-mos cant-a-is cant-a-m

cant-e-Ø cant-e-s cant-e-Ø cant-e-mos cant-e-is cant-e-m

vend-o vend-e-s vend-e-Ø vend-e-mos vend-e-is vend-e-m

vend-a-Ø vend-a-s vend-a-Ø vend-a-mos vend-a-is vend-a-m

part-o part-e-s part-e-Ø part-i-mos part-is part-e-m

part-a-Ø part-a-s part-a-Ø part-a-mos part-a-is part-a-m

The Past Subjunctive stems from the Latin Pluperfect Subjunctive, which underwent later syncopation (amavissem → amasse(m)) and lost its anterior ‘perfect’ feature in the course of time. Contrary to the evolutions in Spanish, Portuguese never developed a second Past Subjunctive form out of the pluperfect form in -ara (amaverat), although -ara made some important incursions into the irrealis domain (for instance in counterfactual conditional clauses) from the 14th century onwards (for a reconstruction see Becker 2007). In Table 2 we give an overview of the Past Subjunctive paradigm whose most conspicuous characteristic is the Past Subjunctive marker -sse-. Table 2.  Past Subjunctive Morphology (Pretérito Imperfeito do Subjuntivo) Class

1st conjugation

2nd conjugation

3rd conjugation

Infinitive 1 sg 2 sg 3 sg 1 pl 2 pl 3 pl

cant-ar cant-a-sse-Ø cant-a-sse-s cant-a-asse-Ø cant-á-sse-mos cant-á-sse-is cant-a-sse-m

vend-er vend-e-sse-Ø vend-e-sse-s vend-e-sse-Ø vend-ê-sse-mos vend-ê-sse-is vend-e-sse-m

part-ir part-i-sse-Ø part-i-sse-s part-i-sse-Ø part-í-sse-mos part-í-sse-is part-i-sse-m



Mood in Portuguese

The Future Subjunctive does not only derive from the Latin futurum exactum, but also inherits most of its contexts of occurrence, the most prominent being conditional, temporal and free relative clauses (see below). Note the importance of the prospective marker -r- for the paradigm (as in the Future and Conditional Indicative).1 Table 3.  Future Subjunctive Morphology (Futuro do Subjuntivo) Class

1st conjugation

2nd conjugation

3rd conjugation

Infinitive 1 sg 2 sg 3 sg 1 pl 2 pl 3 pl

cant-ar cant-a-r-Ø cant-a-re-s cant-a-r-Ø cant-a-r-mos cant-a-r-des cant-a-re-m

vend-er vend-e-r-Ø vend-e-re-s vend-e-r vend-e-r-mos vend-e-r-des vend-e-re-m

part-ir part-i-r-Ø part-i-re-s part-i-r part-i-r-mos part-i-r-des part-i-re-m

The Future and Past Subjunctive forms of some highly frequent verbs are liable to strong allomorphy, due to the fact that they reach back to particular Latin Perfect stems. This etymological link also explains the morphological kinship between the Indicative aorist form (Pretérito Perfeito) on the one hand, and the Past and Future Subjunctive on the other. To illustrate this etymological relationship, we adduce some examples (taking the most frequent verbs and their etymological forms) in Table 4. Table 4.  Frequent verbs and selected forms (1st and 3rd person singular) Infinitive

Aorist (Past Ind.)

Past Subjunctive

Future Subjunctive

ser ‘be’ etyma estar‘be situated’ etyma ter ‘have’ etyma haver ‘have’ etyma pôr ‘put’ etyma

fui, foi fui, fuit estive, esteve steti, stetit tive, teve tenui, tenuit houve habui, habuit pus, pôs posui, posuit

fosse fuissem, fuisset estivesse stetissem, stetisset tivesse tenuissem, tenuisset houvesse habuissem, habuisset pusesse posuissem, posuisse

for fuero, fuerit estiver stetuero, stetuerit tiver tenuero, tenuerit houver habuero, habuerit puser posuero, posuerit

.  The prospective marker -r- appears in the Indicative Future (canta-r-ei: ‘I will sing’) as well as in the Conditional (canta-r-ia: ‘I would sing’).





Martin Becker

3.  Mood distribution in Portuguese 3.1  Subjunctive in main clauses Already the historical dynamics of Latin (as attested by written texts from Plautus’ plays to the pastritic literature) betrays a clear shift from main clause occurrences of the Subjunctive mood to the complex domain of subordination, which is paralleled by the progressive ousting and, finally, marginalisation of the ACI-construction (Cuzzolin 1994). In Romance this trend is generally reinforced with the Subjunctive only showing up in residual main clause contexts. The basic function covered by the Present Subjunctive in a main clause is that of an Imperative for the first person plural (as an exhortation formula for the in-group) as well as for the third person singular and plural (as a sign of courtesy). Additionally, Portuguese disposes of a particular Imperative form to address the interlocutor in an informal way (imperative of the second person singular and plural). Negated Imperatives are formed by recurring to the corresponding Subjunctive forms. To give a systematic overview of the different forms, in Table 5 we list the different types of Imperatives taking as an example the verb cantar ‘sing’. Table 5.  Types of Imperatives Present Indicative

Affirmative Imperative

Negated Imperative

2sg

(Tu) cantas

3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

(Ele/ela) canta (Nós) cantamos (Vós) cantais (Eles/Elas) cantam

Canta esta canção! ‘Sing this song!’ Cante esta canção! Cantemos esta canção! Cantai esta canção! Cantem esta canção!

Não cantes esta canção! ‘Don’t sing this song!’ Não cante esta canção! Não cantemos esta canção! Não canteis esta canção! Não cantem esta canção!

To complete the picture we should mention that there is a special, but quite rare, use of the Past (Perfect) Subjunctive in European Portuguese, which serves to express a contraryto-fact wish directed to the interlocutor as in: (1)

Tivesses descascado as batatas, já o almoço have.impf.sbjv2sg pelled the potatoes, already the lunch estava pronto! be.impf.3sg ready

‘Had you peeled the potatoes, lunch would already be ready!’  (Hundertmark-Santos Martins 1982: 218)

However, the Subjunctive in main clause contexts does not only act as an imperative, but can also be used as an optative and expresses solemn or ceremonial wishes. In these occurrences, which have an undoubtedly archaic flavour, the complementiser position of the clause can be filled by the particle que, which may be interpreted as an indication of the



Mood in Portuguese

elliptic nature of the optative contexts (something like: Desejo que lhe aproveite!). Some recurrent (and strongly conventionalised) optative formula are: Viva Brasil! ‘Long live ­Brazil’, Queira Deus! ‘God willing!’, Que lhe aproveite! ‘Bon appetit!’, Que o leve o diabo! ‘To hell with him!’. Besides, the Subjunctive is commonly used after the modal adverbs oxalá (que) ‘hopefully’, ‘I would wish that’, which derives from Arab wa šā llâh ‘and may God will’ and talvez ‘maybe’, but also after stereotypical optative formulas such as quem me dera, tomara que, prouvera a Deus que ‘if only’. It must be stressed that the epistemic modal adverb talvez only selects the Subjunctive if it is placed in the CP-domain. 2 (For a detailed discussion of the adverb position see Laenzlinger 1998: 82–103). (2) Talvez nos formemos ambos em Direito! Perhaps us formar.prs.sbjv.1pl both in Law ‘We might both become jurists.’

3.2  Subjunctive in subordinate clauses As we mentioned, the Subjunctive occurs predominantly in subordinated clauses. Generally, three types of subordinated clauses with finite verbs can be distinguished: ––

–– ––

In the first place, we should mention the so-called substantive (or NP-) clauses, which take over the function of an argument required by the syntactic frame of the matrix verb. Secondly, relative clauses, which are included in the group of adjective clauses, represent another important context for mood alternations in Portuguese. Thirdly, the mood opposition between Indicative and Subjunctive is relevant for adjunct clauses, which provide information about intentional, causal, temporal and other circumstances. The conceptual (or logico-semantic) relations (or constellations) between the main and the subordinate clause are of particular importance for mood selection, as we will see later in Section 3.2.3.

3.2.1  Mood selection in argument clauses Mood selection in the domain of argument clauses depends basically on the semantics of the predicates. The mood distribution in the domain of the complement clause can be described best by distinguishing four different verb classes, which are characterised by a particular mood selection pattern.

.  Note that the CP-level is the relevant domain for the marking of modality (understood in a broad sense as sentence modality and as modalisation). There are several explicit procedures (for instance the placement of complementisers like que and se, wh-elements or verb-movement to C0 as in the case of Imperatives), which signal that the sentence in question has to be interpreted with respect to worlds different from the real world w0.





Martin Becker

a.

The first class of verbs consists of predicates, which express volition, exhortative and commissive acts as well as causation. These predicates constitute the group of the socalled strong intensional verbs, which have a non-veridical character given that they do not entail the truth of their complement clauses, but project ideal target states, for example:

(3) a.

O João quer que o pai brinque com ele. The John want.prs.3sg that the father play.prs.sbjv.3sg with him ‘John wants his father to play with him.’

b. O pai brinca com ele. The father play.prs.3sg with him ‘His father plays with him.’

We give a small list of the typical representatives of the strong intensional domain: – – –

verbs of volition: querer ‘want’, desejar ‘wish’, exigir ‘demand’ verbs of exhortative and commissive acts: ordenar, mandar ‘order’, proibir ‘prohibit’, sugerir ‘suggest’, permitir, consentir ‘allow’, pedir ‘ask to do’, suplicar ‘implore’ causative verbs: fazer (com) que ‘cause to’, impedir ‘prevent from’, evitar ‘avoid’.

b.

A second class of predicates falls into two subgroups of verbs and impersonal expressions, which either indicate the status of somebody’s (the speaker’s or the matrix subject’s) knowledge (epistemic verbs) or give an insight into a person’s belief state (doxastic verbs). We should keep these two subgroups apart because they involve (and historically involved) different patterns of mood selection throughout the history of the different Romance languages. Epistemic predicates select mood according to a scalar principle: the more predicates tend towards the pole of certainty on the knowledge scale (‘established knowledge’), the more likely the Indicative will be selected. The more they incline towards the uncertainty-pole (‘dubious status of knowledge’), the more akin a predicate is to the Subjunctive mood. Therefore, predicates like saber ‘know’, é verdade ‘it is true that’, é certo que ‘it is sure that’ generally select an Indicative complement phrase if they are not in the scope of the negation operator. On the other hand, verbs like duvidar de que ‘doubt that’ or impersonal constructions such as é provável que ‘it is probable’, é possivel que ‘it is ­possible’, é improvavel que ‘it is improbable’ and the like require Subjunctive ­morphology. Examples: (4) a.

O João sabe que não vou com ela. the João know.prs.3sg that not go.prs.1sg with her ‘John knows that I do not go with her.’

b. É possível que o João seja um criminoso. be.prs.3sg possible that the João be.prs.sbjv.3sg a criminal ‘It is possible that John is a criminal.’



Mood in Portuguese

In a negation context either the Indicative or the Subjunctive occurs with affirmative predicates like saber ‘know’ or é certo ‘it is sure’ depending on whether the verb of the subordinated clause is in the scope of the negation operator (at LF). So if the truth of the subordinated proposition is presupposed (because it is a well-established fact among the speech community) or the speaker commits himself to the truth of the proposition contained in the subordinate clause, Indicative morphology is the rule. If the speaker, however, marks his non-commitment (because he considers the proposition p as wrong or he simply wants to mirrow the epistemic state of the matrix subject), the Subjunctive is selected. In the following example, the subordinate proposition p may reflect some preferential knowledge on the part of the speaker or it simply belongs to the common ground knowledge of the speech community: (5) E também não sabe que o aumento do preço do and also not know.prs.3sg that the increase of price of gás vai ser pago pelo contribuinte brasileiro. gas go.prs.3sg be.inf pay.ptcp by the taxpayer Brazilian ‘And he also does not know that the increase of the gas price will be paid by the Brazilian taxpayer.’

Doxastic predicates like acreditar ‘believe’ and pensar ‘think’ reflect the belief state of a person. Romance languages differed (and still differ considerably) with respect to whether they mark the degree and the type of accessibility (for example the kind of evidence) to a person’s belief state by mood alternations. In Portuguese (as opposed to modern Spanish) it is possible that the Subjunctive occurs after doxastic predicates like acreditar ‘believe’ and pensar ‘think’ even in affirmative contexts. In these cases the verb form can signal –

a weak belief on the part of the matrix subject: x believes that p might be the case

(6) Ela acredita que as flores sejam a she believe.prs.3sg that the flowers ser.prs.sbjv.3pl the causa da alergia. cause of the allergy ‘She believes that the flowers may be the cause of the allergy.’  (Cf. Gärtner 1989: 138)

–

a subjective reservation by the speaker with respect to the belief of the matrix subject: x believes that p, but the speaker (Loc) is at least sceptical about the truth of p

(7)

No on the morto, dead,

cais, a estas docks, at these que seu corpo that his body

horas pensarão que esteja hours think.fut.3pl that be.prs.sbjv.3sg viaje com Yemanja. travel.prs.sbjv.3sg with Yemanja

‘On the docks, they probably think that he is dead, that his body makes his journey with Yemanja.’ (Cf. Gärtner 1989: 141)





Martin Becker

–

the speaker distances himself from what he believed in the past (at a past time index t): Loc believed that p, but, in the meantime, he has come to the conclusion that ¬p.

(8)

Ah, eu não sabia, pensei que fosse ele. ah, I not know.impf.3sg think.pret.1sg that be.impf.sbjv.3sg he ‘Ah, I did not know, I thought that it was him.’ (see Wherritt 1977: 64)

In Brazilian Portuguese the doxastic aspect is even more profiled, given that the Subjunctive is sensitive to the non-commitment of the speaker as in the following example (also cf. Wherrit 1977: 51): (9) Buarque acredita que seja preciso um “choque” social. Buarque believe.prs.3sg that be.prs.sbjv.3sg necessary a shock social ‘Buarque believes that a social shock is necessary.’

This is another hint at the relative closeness of the Portuguese mood system to the traditional state of affairs in Romance, which contrasts with the developments in Spanish and particularly with those in French. Doxastic predicates in negation contexts behave like the epistemic ones in that they correlate with Indicative morphology if the truth of their complements is presupposed. In this case the subordinated verb is ‘scoped out’ of the negation operator (at LF) (see the discussion in Quer 1998: 68–71). c. In general, verbs of communication do not require the Subjunctive in Romance (as opposed to German). However, in special cases where the speaker wants to signal his personal reservation with regard to the content of the complement clause, the Subjunctive is seemingly possible. Gärtner (1994: 251) quotes the following example: (10) É falaz a opinião dos que pretendem que o português is misleading the opinion of those that claim.prs.3pl that the Portuguese se tenha deturpado ao contato de falares rudes rfl have.prs.sbjv.3sg corrupted with the contact of dialects rude ‘The opinion of those who claim that the Portuguese language was corrupted in its

contact with the rude local dialects, is misleading.’ d. Evaluative expressions can also be divided into two subclasses: the group of the emotive-factive verbs, which presuppose the truth of their complement proposition (for instance: estranhar ‘be astonished’ or lamentar ‘regret’). The second subgroup is composed of axiologic predicates, which introduce some sort of evaluative norm, which can be invoked, like logics, justice, goodness or convencience (among others). Syntactically these constructions fulfill the function of a predicative clause ‘subordinadas substantivas predicativas’, which are integrated into the pattern: É ADV que (é estranho que p). In this context, the Subjunctive is the rule:



Mood in Portuguese

(11) E a gente estranhou que um and the people wonder.pret.3sg that a parlamentar de São Paulo quisesse member of Parliament of São Paulo wish.impf.sbjv.3sg uma emenda para o Rio Grande do Norte. a correction for the Rio Grande do Norte ‘People were astonished that a member of Parliament from São Paulo asked for a

change of the bill in favour of Rio Grande do Norte.’ e. Dislocated complement clauses (i.e. the construction ‘Que p, PRED’) are available in most Romance languages and have aroused much interest among scholars (see for example Giorgi & Pianesi 1997: 226ss.) despite their low frequency in language use. Functional interpretations stress the importance of ‘informational structure’ or ‘sentential perspective’ for mood distribution in this particular context. According to this perspective, the subordinated clause contains the content of an evaluation, which is marked as thematic (or presupposed) information by the Subjunctive mood: (12) Que um homem de alta categoria espiritual tenha that a man of high category spiritual have.prs.sbjv.3sg oposto aos bombardeios a firmeza da sua vontade opposed to the bombings the strength of the his will indômita não assombra. indomitable not surprise.prs.3sg ‘The fact that a man of high intellectual standards opposed the bombings with strength of his indomitable will is not surprising.’ (See Gärtner 1989: 146)

It is questionable whether mood selection in these contexts has really an informational (or pragmatic) character, given that the general selection of the Subjunctive seems to be conventionalised. Yet, a semantic account of subjuntive selection is much more plausible: the preposed que-clause abstracts away from particular situations at a certain index and describes a class of situations of the same type (an abstract situation type), which is only instantiated ex post by the matrix clause. So the que-clause has the character of a proposition, a function from worlds (or indices) to truth values whose indices of evaluation are specified in the postponed matrix clause.

3.2.2  Mood selection in relative clauses Relative clauses are another domain of mood alternations. The Indicative is selected if it receives a referential interpretation or, to be more precise, if the NP, which is modified (identified or restricted) by the descriptive content of the relative, denotes an object or a set of objects in ‘our’ real world w0. The Subjunctive occurs in intensional contexts,





Martin Becker

which are created by special operators. These operators – particularly strong intensional verbs like desear ‘wish’, negation (Neg), the imperative (imp), the conditional operator IF – take the relative clause in their scope yielding an attributive description (see Farkas 1982). Attributive descriptions do not describe how the real world is like, but they state or determine sufficient and/or necessary conditions an object or a set of objects (denoted by the antecedent-NP) must satisfy in order to be an element of the denotational set. In other words, subjunctive relative clauses refer to objects in (possible) worlds, which are in keeping with what we desire, intend, are obliged to do or which simply correspond to some conditions we laid down beforehand. In case of negation, the denotation (the objects denoted by the NP + the descriptive content of the relative clause) is the empty set – not a single element satisfies the description. We give an example for the most relevant cases: a. Strong intensional verb or expression: (13) Aqui é preciso um empregado que fale francês. here be.prs.3sg necessary a employee that speak.prs.sbjv.3sg French ‘Here we need an employee who speaks French.’

b. Indication of necessary and/or sufficient conditions with regard to the denotational set: (14) Todos os operários que trabalhem há mais de all the workers that work.prs.sbjv.3pl since more of cinco anos nesta fábrica têm direito a trinta dias de férias. five years in this factory have.prs.3pl right to thirty days of leave ‘All workers who have been working in this firm for more than five years have the right to take a 30 days’ leave.’ (Cf. Hundertmark-Santos Martins 1982: 246)

c. Negation (Neg.): empty denotational set (15) Não mora aqui ninguém que eu conheça. not live.prs.3sg here nobody that know.prs.sbjv.1sg ‘Nobody I know is living here.’

Formalised in a simplified version: ¬[∃x ∧ x mora aqui ∧ eu conheço x]. So far we have described typical Present Subjunctive contexts. Yet, the Future Subjunctive has its own domain in the context of relative clauses. It has to be selected in those cases in which the denotation of a free relative is indeterminate, which is to say, if the composition of the denotational set is not known yet, at the moment of utterance. Take for example the following complex clauses: (16) Podemos ir para onde quisermos. can.prs.1pl go to where want.fut.sbjv.1pl ‘We can go to where we want.’ (Hundertmark-Santos Martins 1982: 261)



Mood in Portuguese

At the speech moment neither the speaker nor his interlocutor are in a position to enumerate a list of preferred places where to go. The same holds for the second clause: only at a future moment (at some future time index), it will become clear what the combined maximal efforts of the interlocutor will be able to bring about. As we have seen, in the domain of relative clauses a clear division of labour between the Present (and Past) Subjunctive on the one hand, and the Future Subjunctive on the other becomes apparent. The Present Subjunctive occurs whenever the speaker focusses on a state of affairs in ideal or at least special possible worlds (in contrast to a state of affairs in the base world w0), whereas the Future Subjunctive signals that a state of affairs is still undetermined at the utterance time, which is to say that we do not know how the set of objects denoted by the NP + the relative clause will look like. This observation has to be taken into consideration for a more abstract description of the functional (or logicosemantic) domains of the verbal categories, which we try to outline in Chapter 4.

3.2.3  Mood in adverbial clauses There are different types of adverbial clauses, which are characterised by particular mood selection patterns. Some of the conjunctions are only compatible with the Present (or Past) Subjunctive as is the case of the following sentence types: a. final clauses, which are introduced by para que, a fim de que, porque or in consecutive clauses, which yield a final reading: (17) A. Bayma fez reclamação junto ao Ministério A. Bayma make.pret.3sg complaint with the Ministry Público para que assinantes de ADSL não paguem Public for that subscribers of ADSL not pay.prs.sbjv.3pl nada aos provedores. onthing to the providers ‘The physicist and musician Antônio Bayma lodged a complaint to the Ministry of Public Affairs in order to avoid that subscribers of ADSL pay a fee to the providers.’

b. concessive clauses (embora, ainda que, conquanto, posto que, mesmo que, se bem que), which invalidate the relevance of the subordinate clause as a blocking-factor for the main clause to hold. (18) Embora fizesse sucesso desde os anos 70 fora though make.impf.sbjv.3sg success since the years 70 out do Brasil, só se tornou conhecido na sua of the Brazil, only refl turn.pret.3sg known.ptcp in the his terra no início dos anos 90. land in the beginning of the years 90 ‘Though he had much success out of Brazil since the seventies, he did not become

famous in his homeland until the nineties.’



 Martin Becker

c. Conditional clauses constitute another context in which – with the exception of se ‘if ’ – only Subjunctive categories can occur. Portuguese has a wide range of conditional conjunctions, the most important are: se ‘if ’, salvo se ‘except that’, no caso que, caso ‘in case’, a não ser que ‘unless’, a menos que, contanto que ‘provided that’, desde que, uma vez que, suposto que ‘assuming that’. Generally, the conditional conjunctions combine with the Present, the Past and the Past Perfect Subjunctive as in caso faça/fizesse/tivesse feito ‘if he does/would do/would have done’. Yet, the prototypical conditional conjunction se ‘if ’ can occur with the Present Indicative when the protasis (the domain restrictor in a conditional scheme) contains realistic assumptions, which is to say: if it focusses on situations which are plausible candidates for a predictable future, which does not deviate substantially from how the world is at the time of utterance. In contrast to that, the Future Subjunctive is selected if the speaker only takes into consideration purely contingent eventualities, or, to put it differently, if he considers a possible alternative in a purely abstract manner (disregarding criteria like probability or proximity with respect to the actual world). The correlation between se (si in Latin) and the Future Subjunctive (the futurum exactum in Latin) was deeply entrenched in the Latin mood system and can be traced back to the earliest manifestations of the Latin language (as is for instance in the famous Twelve Table Law of 451 B.C.). We present an example which illustrates the constrst between the Indicative and the Future Subjunctive: (19) Se você faz o que sempre fez, if you do.prs.3sg that what always do.pret.3sg conseguirá o que sempre conseguiu. reach.fut.3sg that what always reach.pret.3sg ‘If you do what you ever did, you will reach what you ever have reached.’

In (19) the speaker highlights the most realistic assumption that the addressee will behave like you expect him to behave – as a creature of habit. (20) Se você tiver entre 13 e 17 anos de if you have.fut.sbjv.3sg between 13 and 17 years of idade, você pode tornar- se membro do Syvum Teens club. age you can.prs.3sg become.inf refl member of Syvum Teens club ‘If you are between 13 and 17 years old, you can become member of the Syvum Teens Club.’

In (20), the speaker singles out one of several possible (or theoretic) alternatives without marking it as particularly realistic or relevant (the addressee may not be concerned at all). In most Romance languages there is a strong tendency aiming at the replacement of the Past Subjunctive in favour of imperfective morphology in counterfactual contexts. In Portuguese, however, the situation is not so clear-cut: though the Imperfect can easily replace the Conditional in the apodosis, it is only marginal in the protasis:



Mood in Portuguese

(21) Se eu não cuidasse de mim, hoje estava If I not care.impf.sbjv.1sg of me, today be.impf.1sg na rua da amargura. on the road of the bitterness

(See Moura Neves 2000: 851)

‘If I did not take care of me, I would be nowadays on the road to bitterness.’ (22) Eu não estou vendo coisa nenhuma, se João estava no I not am seeing thing none, if João be.impf.3sg in the bar, estava bêbado. bar be.impf.3sg drunk

(See Moura Neves 2000: 853)

‘I do not see anything; if John were in the bar, he would be drunk.’

The use of the Compound Past (Pretérito Perfeito Composto) instead of the Subjunctive Pluperfect in informal registers is a peculiarity of the Portuguese language, which can be attributed to the special aspectual properties of its Present and Present Perfect form. (For details concerning the imperfective character of the Present and Present Perfect, see Schmitt 2001: 403ss.). (23) Se (ela) não me tem fixado com insistência, nem if (she) not me have.prs.3sg fix.ptcp with insistence, not even a reconhecia. her recognise.impf.1sg ‘If she had not stared at me, I would not (have) recognise(d) her.’

d. Causal clauses constitute the core domain of the Indicative mood as they state a valid cause for a given state of affairs. Only in the scope of negation, causal clauses require the Subjunctive, given that the cause put forward by the speaker is not valid or even contrary-to-fact: (24) O pecado é tal porque é contra Deus, the sin be.prs.3sg such because be.prs.3sg against God, não porque seja contra a sociedade. not because be.prs.sbjv.3sg against the society ‘The sin is what it is because it is against God and not because it is against society.’

e. In the temporal domain the mood distribution is particularly intricate in so far as the Present and Future Subjunctive compete in organising the future-oriented area and try to expand at the expense of their rival (especially in the spoken language). However, some systematic correlations between conjunctions and a subjunctive category have been evolving. The standard norm prescribes the Present Subjunctive in combination with antes que ‘before’ and até que ‘until’ and it imposes the Future Subjunctive after depois que ‘before’ and quando ‘when’. The conjunctions logo que ‘as soon as’ and enquanto ‘as long as’ are compatible with either subjunctive categories. In spoken





Martin Becker

l­anguage, especially in Brazilian Portuguese, the occurrence of the Future Subjunctive after até que and antes que is significantly frequent (see the data in Wherritt 1977: 96 and many-fold examples in the Brazilian net). These tendencies of substitution reveal the vitality of the Future Subjunctive in Portuguese, in both its European and Brazilian variants and – even more – they point to a generalisation of the category in the future domain. Here are some examples illustrating the categorical selection of temporal conjunctions: (25) O atleta não poderá tocar a bola novamente antes the player not can.fut.3sg touch.inf the ball again before que tenha sido tocado por outro atleta that have.prs.sbjv.3sg be.ptcp touch.ptcp by other athlete ‘The player will not be allowed to touch the ball again until it will be touched by

another player.’ (26) Depois que tiver instalado o programa, after that have.fut.sbjv.3sg install.ptcp a programme, baixe o plugin. download.imp.3sg the plugin ‘After you have installed the programme, download the plugin.’

The Present Indicative is only possible if the temporal clause has a habitual or generic reading, which is to say that the whole construction is in the scope of a quantifier like GEN (generally). (27) Geralmente eu durmo enquanto você prepara a comida. Generally I sleep.prs.1sg as long as you prepare.prs.3sg the dinner ‘Generally I sleep as long as you prepare the dinner.’

In past contexts the mood selection depends on whether the event in the subordinated clause really happened at a past time index (at t in w0) or whether the event-realisation remains undetermined (the event may have come true at some unknown past time index, but it may also be the case that it has never occurred) given that the speaker’s orientation is prospective and takes the matrix clause as the temporal anchor of the sequence. Compare the following examples taken from Gärtner (1994: 252): (28) Assim estiveram calados … até que Joana adormeceu. like this be.pret.3pl silent … until that Joana sleep.pret.3sg ‘They remained like this silent until Joana fell asleep.’ (29) Tinha que se esconder até que o navio passasse. have.impf.3sg that refl hide.inf until that the ship pass over.impf.sbjv.3sg ‘He had to hide until the ship would pass over.’

f.

The Future Subjunctive is in general detected in comparative constructions, which are introduced by conjunctions like como ‘as’, segundo, conforme or consoante ‘depending



Mood in Portuguese

on’. As in relatives and temporal clauses, the Future Subjunctive marks that the composition of the denotational set is undetermined at the time of utterance.

4.  The ‘semantics’ of mood As our detailled outline of mood in different environments has shown, there are systematic patterns of how the categories are distributed, which allow for some generalisations as to the ‘semantics of mood’. In a modal-semantic perspective we can say that the Present Subjunctive domain covers a range of possible worlds, which are generally ordered according to a principle, an ideal or a norm introduced by the matrix predicate. These worlds are evaluated from and anchored in the moment of utterance: Volitional and deontic predicates (as well as their adverbial counterparts, the purpose clauses) highlight a set of most preferred possible worlds, worlds maximally similar to what the speaker or the matrix subject wants, wishes or strives for (see Heim 1992 and Villalta 2005). The factive-evaluative and axiologic predicates presuppose a scale, which discriminates worlds as to their compliance of an established principle, for example goodness, oddness, common sense or strangeness. The Past Subjunctive generally appears in the same contexts as the Present Subjunctive and is due to the sequence of tense (the so-called consecutio temporum). The matrix verb, which selects the complement clause, has past morphology and indicates an attitude (a desire, a judgement etc.), which holds at a past time index (or an interval). We may say that the verbal form of the matrix clause introduces a past-operator, which takes the subordinate clause and particularly the finite verbe in its scope, causing a shift-back to the corresponding past Subjunctive form. In some contexts – we have mentioned the rare appearance of the Subjunctive with doxastic predicates and, more important, in conditional clauses – the form is associated with counterfactuality. This duality of the Past Subjunctive – marker of congruence (as a requirement of well-formedness) and of counterfactuality – has been characteristic to all Romance languages, but evolved in different degrees towards the pole of pure congruence-marking (as, for instance, in French). The Future Subjunctive turned out to be the verbal category par excellence for marking future indeterminacy. This is the case for relative clauses whose denotation, i.e. the composition of the denotational set referred to by the modified NP, is still unknown at the moment of utterance. The same holds for conditional clauses where the Future Subjunctive of the protasis signals that cases are considered as such, in an abstract manner, regardless of their probability and accessibility from reality (as it stands at the time of utterance). Thus, we are dealing with contingent eventualities whose prominent feature is exactly the fact that we cannot tell at which indexes (‘in which worlds’) the situation (or case) taken into consideration holds. This characterisation also applies to the temporal clauses, which require the Future Subjunctive. They too, refer to future events (like for instance quando) whose realisation is not specified at the time of utterance. Interestingly enough, speakers





Martin Becker

tend to generalise the Future Subjunctive in the temporal domain, a fact which becomes apparent in the non-prescriptive use of the category after enquanto and antes que. However, we still have to account for cases where the Present Subjunctive has intruded into the future temporal domain: the distribution of the relevant verbal categories can generally be traced back to the (Later) Latin Period. This is the case of quando, depois que (in Latin: priusquam) and antes que (lat. antequam) (Ernout & Thomas 21953: 370). However, etymological reasons are interwoven with semantic motivation: the Future Subjunctive emerges whenever the temporal clause is destined to set the (maximal) left boundary for the matrix clause to become effective (when p, q or after p, q, q being the matrix clause). The conjunctions até que (until) and antes que, which are compatible with the Present Subjunctive, mark the right (maximal) boundaries of the matrix clause event to hold. So the temporal clauses with Future Subjunctive either focus on the completion of the whole event preceding the matrix clause or, at least, of an initial subinterval as is the case of quando. Obviously, the original aspectual value of the Latin futurum exactum – the perfective aspect – still shines through as a selectional criterion in the temporal domain (for a synchronic account see Comrie & Holmback 1984). Note that the temporal domain has been most susceptible of categorical change. In Spanish the traditional system of three Subjunctive forms began to erode specifically in the temporal domain, when the Present Subjunctive was progressingly taking over the functions of its rival (see Eberenz 1990 and Becker to appear).

5.  Competing structures – some remarks on the Infinitive One particularity of the Portuguese language is the inflected Infinitive (infinitivo pessoal), which allows for non-coreferentiality between the subject of the matrix and of the subordinated clause. However, in the domain of substantive (or argument) clauses the inflected Infinitive construction is restricted to causative verbs (fazer), doxastic verbs (pensar) and the entire class of evaluative expressions, including both subgroups, the factive-emotive verbs like lamentar and impersonal axiologic expressions like é uma pena que, é bom, é justo que etc. It would be worthwhile to quantify the importance of these distinguished Infinitive constructions in European and Brazilian Portuguese. Note in passing that only factive-emotive verbs allow for a relatively free position of the infinitive subject. Compare the examples: (30) É injusto eles serem castigados. is unjust they be.inf.3pl punish.ptcp ‘It is unjust that they are punished.’ (see Hundertmark-Santos Martins 1982: 272) (31) Pensava estar o assunto terminado. think.impf.3sg be.inf the affair end.ptcp ‘He thought that the affair was over.’

(Gärtner 1994: 255)



Mood in Portuguese

In the domain of adverbial clauses the inflected infinitive constructions are quite common, for instance to express purposes or to specifiy temporal circumstances: (32) Não te afastes daqui até nós chegarmos. not you go_away.imp.2sg from_here until we arrive.inf.1pl ‘Do not leave until we will be arriving.’ (Hundertmark-Santos Martins 1982: 274)

It should be mentioned that in Brazilian Portuguese the tendency of replacing the Subjunctive by Infinitive constructions has even been pushed further. In this variety verbs expressing orders like pedir ‘ask someone to do’ and dizer ‘order someone to do’ as well as the volitional verb querer ‘want’ allow for a simple, not inflected (!) Infinitive construction.3 (For details see Bechara372004: 533s. and Moreira Lima-Salles 1999: 198–207). We quote an example: (33) Pediu para que Pedro saisse. ask.pret.3sg in order that Pedro leave.impf.sbjv.3sg Pediu para Pedro sair. ask.pret.3sg in order Pedro leave.inf ‘He asked Pedro to leave.’

6.  Concluding remarks We have seen that the grammatical system of the Portuguese language includes a very complex and differentiated mood system, which – perhaps together with Standard Italian – has preserved most of the characteristics displayed by the Late Latin system. It became apparent that each of the three Subjunctive categories – the Present, Past and Future Subjunctive – are fully functional and cover clear-cut domains of occurrence. Apart from this, we have shown that the three categories possess their own “semantics” in that they point to particular possible-world-constellations, which apply to different types of subordination. Finally, it was stressed that “on the fringe” of the volitive domain there is a transitional area bordering on the Infinitive domain, which is explored, in the first place, by the spoken language. So modifying a little Givón’s functionalist account of subordinated structures (see Givón 1995: 126–136), we can say that the Subjunctive domain is delimited by two transitional areas – the field of strong manipulation at the cross-roads of Subjunctive and Infinitive and the doxastic domain, which unfolds on both sides of the dividing line between Indicative and Subjunctive in Portuguese (for a modified account also see Schwochow Pimpão 2000: 171–173).

.  Note that in the case of querer the Infinitive construction is considered regional (with a widespread distribution in the Northeastern varieties) and substandard (Moreira Lima-Salles 1999: 198).





Martin Becker

References Barbosa, J.M. 1998. Le Système verbal portugais. In Systèmes verbaux, F. Bentolila (ed.), 71–86. ­Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. Bechara, E. 372004. Moderna Gramática Portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Lucerna. Becker, M. 2007. From temporal to modal: Divergent fates of the Latin synthetic pluperfect in ­Spanish and Portuguese. In The Paradox of Grammatical Change [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 293], U. Detges & R. Waltereit (eds), 147–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Becker, M. To appear. Pragmática y extinción categorial: Nuevas reflexiones sobre la evolución del futuro de subjuntivo en español. In Romanische Korpuslinguistik III/Romance Corpus Linguistics III, C. Pusch (ed.). Tübingen: Narr. Comrie, B. & Holmback, H. 1984. The future subjunctive in Portuguese: A problem in semantic theory. International Review of General Linguistics (Lingua) 63(3–4): 213–253. Cunha, C. & Cintra, L. 21985. Nova Gramática do Português Contemporâneo. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira. Cuzzolin, P. 1994. Sull’origine della costruzione dicere quod: Aspetti sintattici e semantici. Firenze: Nuova Italia. Eberenz, R. 1990. Sea como fuere. En torno a la historia del futuro del subjuntivo español. In Indicativo y Subjuntivo, I. Bosque (ed.), 383–409. Madrid: Taurus Universitaria. Ernout, A. & Thomas, F. 21953. Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Farkas, D. 1982. Intensionality and Romance Subjunctive Relatives. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Gärtner, E. 1989. Der Modus des Verbs in Kompletivsätzen: Seine semantischen und pragmatischen Grundlagen und seine Verwendungen in den sozialen und regionalen Varianten des Portugiesischen. In Beiträge zur Afrolusitanistik und Kreolistik, M. Perl & T. Stolz (ed.), 137–148. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Gärtner, E. 1994. Syntax/Syntaxe. In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL), Vol. VI(2): Galegisch, Portugiesisch/Gallego, Português, G. Holtus et al. (eds), 241–270. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Giorgi, A. & Pianesi, F. 1997. Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP. Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hundertmark-Santos Martins, M.T. 1982. Portugiesische Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Heim, I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude Verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221. Laenzlinger, C. 1998. Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moreira Lima-Salles, H.M. 2003. Infinitive clauses as substitutes for subjunctive clauses in Brazilian Portuguese. In Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition. (Selected Papers from the 32nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL)), A.T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge (eds), 197–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moura Neves, M.H. 2000. Gramática de Usos do Português. São Paulo: UNESP. Rohlfs, G. 1954. Die Lexikalische Differenzierung der romanischen Sprachen: Versuch einer romanischen Wortgeographie. München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Quer, J. 1998. Mood at the Interface. The Hague: HAG. Schwochow Pimpão, T. 2000. Variação no uso do presente do modo subjunctivo. In Estudos de sociolingüística brasileira e portuguesa, E. Gärtner, C. Hundt & A. Schönberger (eds), 155–174. Frankfurt: TFM.



Mood in Portuguese

Schmitt, C. 2001. Cross-linguistic variation and the present perfect: The case of Portuguese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 403–453. Teyssier, P. 1997. História da Língua Portuguesa (Tradução de Celso Cunha). São Paulo: Martins Fontes. Villalta, E. 2005. Comparative semantics for subjunctive mood. In Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition. Selected Papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Gainesville, Florida, February 2000, J. Camps & C.R. Wiltshire (eds), 227–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wherritt, I.M. 1977. The Subjunctive in Brazilian Portuguese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico.



Mood in Spanish Brenda Laca Paris

1.  Introduction This paper is mainly concerned with the uses of the subjunctive in Modern Spanish ­(Section 3).1 Section 2 gives a brief sketch of those aspects of the temporal-aspectual system of Spanish that constitute a necessary background for the interpretation of subjunctive forms. Section 4 briefly describes the conditional, which exhibits very close links to some subjunctive forms. The imperative mood is discussed in the subsection devoted to the subjunctive in root contexts (3.3.4).

2.  The temporal-aspectual system of Spanish The neo-Reichenbachian system proposed by Demirdache & Uribe-Etxeberria (2007) proves particularly useful for representing the tense-aspect system of Spanish. In this system, tense is modelled as a relation between the time of evaluation (Ast-T, a direct descendant of the Reichenbachian R understood as an interval) and a highest anchor, which is normally the time of speech (Utt-T) in matrix contexts. Possible relations are anteriority (anchor after anchored), inclusion or coincidence, and posteriority (anchor before anchored). These relations are replicated for aspect, which expresses a relation between the time of the event (Ev-T) and Ast-T. The analysis I propose for Spanish is summarized in Table 1. Tenses are illustrated with the 1st Pers. Sing. of the verb cantar ‘sing’, aspects with aspectualized infinitival forms. I assume that aspect is not expressed by simple tenses in Spanish, with the notable exception of the preterite, which is a perfective tense requiring that Ast-T includes Ev-T (Laca 2005). All other simple forms leave the relation between Ast-T and Ev-T unspecified and are in this sense “aspectually neutral” (Smith 1991; Rossdeutscher, Reyle & Kamp 2007; Schaden 2007: chap. 3). “Aspectually neutral” forms are not totally unconstrained, but whatever preferences they exhibit result (a) from polarisation effects due to the ­existence of an

.  I am greatly indebted to Ignacio Bosque (GRAE, Madrid). The materials and analyses proposed in GRAE (2009) have profoundly influenced my views on the Spanish subjunctive. I gratefully acknowledge the support by the Fédération Typologie et Universaux CNRS for the programme Temporalité: typologie et acquisition.



Mood in Spanish

aspectually marked competing form – thus, an imperfect will strongly prefer imperfective interpretations in the contexts in which it contrasts with the preterite, a simple future will prefer perfective interpretations by contrast with a progressive future (Laca 2005); (b) from the temporal structure of the eventuality description, according to a very general pattern which essentially excludes imperfective interpretations of bona-fide telic descriptions (Demirdache & Uribe-Etxeberria 2007). Table 1.  Tense and grammatical aspect in Spanish Tense

Aspect

after

within

before

canté (preterite) Utt-T > Ast-T + Ast-T ⊇ EvT cantaba (imperfect) Utt-T > Ast-T, ASP ∅ haber cantado (have + V_pp) (perfect) Ast-T > Ev-T acabar de cantar (end + of + V_Inf.) (immed. anteriority) Ast-T > Ev-T

canto (present) Utt-T ⊆ Ast-T, ASP ∅ cantaba (imperfect) Tx ⊆ Ast-T, ASP ∅

cantaré (future) Utt-T < Ast-T, ASP ∅ cantaría (conditional) Tx < Ast-T, ASP ∅

estar cantando (LOC-be + V_Ger.) (progressive) Ast-T ⊂ Ev-T

ir a cantar (go + to + V_Inf.) (prospective) Ast-T < Ev-T

Deictic and anaphoric (or zero) tenses are distinguished by supposing that the latter do not have Utt-T, but an interval not identical with Utt-T, dubbed here Tx, as anchor. The notion of anaphoric tense used here is very restrictive, in that this anchor can only be provided by an embedding predicate of propositional attitude: in the sense used here, an anaphoric tense can only appear in reported speech or reported thought contexts. The introduction of Tx in the system2 is designed to provide a unified interpretation of forms exhibiting imperfect morphology (the imperfect itself, as well as the pluperfect and the conditional) and to solve the well known problem posed by perfect conditional forms (habría cantado ‘would have sung’) without assuming a third layer of temporal relations next to Tense and Aspect. It can also prove useful in accounting for the fact that such forms consistently develop counterfactual uses. The splitting of the imperfect into two uses, a bona fide past tense and an anaphoric “present of the past”, is justified by the behaviour of the imperfect with modal verbs – a point that cannot be developed here.

.  A temporal anchor different from Utt-T, labelled Tx, is introduced, albeit with different characterizations, by Giorgi & Pianesi (1997) and by Iatridou (2000). Adoption of Tx could lead to a more precise formulation of the intuition regarding “inactual” tenses on which Coseriu (1976) based his analysis of the Romance verbal system.



 Brenda Laca

Aspect is explicitly expressed in Spanish by a set of periphrastic combinations exhibiting a characteristic behavior (Laca 2005). Periphrastic combinations formed with haber + pp are uniformly treated as compound or perfect tenses (perfect, pluperfect, future and conditional perfect) in the Spanish grammatical tradition, and carry the main bulk of the expression of secondary anteriority relations. The Spanish progressive shows a very similar distribution to that of the English progressive, and the prospective closely parallels the English be-going-to-construction.

3.  The subjunctive 3.1  Subjunctive morphology In Modern Spanish, the subjunctive exhibits two simple forms, the present and the imperfect, as well as two compound forms, the perfect and the pluperfect. The present is built on the present stem of the verb by a change of the thematic vowel, a > e for verbs of the first conjugation class and e/i > a for verbs of the second and third classes. To the exception of a handful of irregular cases, the stem normally appears in the form it takes in the 1st pers. sing. present indicative. The imperfect is built on the preterite/perfect stem (the one of preterite indicative), and exhibits the peculiarity of having two distinct markers, -ra- and -se-, which are traditionally held to be in allomorphic variation. Person marking corresponds to the general pattern of the language, with -Ø for 1st and 3rd pers. sing., -s for 2nd pers. sing., -mos for 1st pers. pl., -is for 2nd pers. pl., and -n for 3rd pers. pl (Boyé & Cabredo-Hofherr 2006). Table 2.  The morphology of the simple forms of the subjunctive infinitive

1st sg pres. ind.

present subjunctive

3rd sg pret. ind.

imperfect subjunctive

cantar ‘sing’ correr ‘run’ dormir ‘sleep’ querer ‘want, wish’ saber ‘know’ salir ‘exit’ tener ‘have, own’

canto

cante-

cantó

corro

corra-

corrió

duermo

duerma-

durmió

quiero

quiera-

quiso

sé

sepa-

supo

salgo

salga-

salió

tengo

tenga-

tuvo

cantaracantasecorrieracorriesedurmieradurmiesequisieraquisiesesupierasupiesesalierasaliesetuvieratuviese-



Mood in Spanish

Compound forms are built with the past participle and the auxiliary haber, which appears in the present subjunctive in the formation of the perfect (haya cantado), and in the imperfect subjunctive in the pluperfect (hubiera/ hubiese cantado). The set of forms of the subjunctive is radically reduced in comparison to that of the indicative on account of the lack of a perfective/imperfective (neutral) contrast in the past forms, on the one hand, and of the lack of a present/future contrast on the other. Medieval and Classical Spanish had a form for the future subjunctive. Built on the preterite/perfect stem with the marker -re- (cantare/quisiere/saliere), this simple form was flanked by a corresponding compound form with haber in the future subjunctive (hubiere cantado). Although surviving in some set expressions (sea como fuere ‘be as it may’), in juridical language, and possibly in some reduced dialectal areas, future subjunctive forms seem to have disappeared from general usage as far back as the 18th century (Ridruejo 1990; Camus Bergareche 1990; Eberenz 1983/1990). A comparison with the original Latin subjunctive paradigm shows that the main differences are directly or indirectly related to the loss of a conjugation system based on the contrast between infectum and perfectum and to the concomitant generalization of compound forms for perfects. The main reinterpretation processes are the following: i.

the Latin pluperfect subjunctive is reinterpreted as a general past (imperfect) subjunctive (canta(vi)sse > cantase). ii. the Latin perfect subjunctive conflates with the Latin future perfect indicative to give the form of the future subjunctive (canta(ve)rim/ canta(ve)ro > cantare). The resulting form is indistinguishable from the Latin imperfect subjunctive for all verbs lacking a perfect stem form distinct from the present stem (cantare(m)), so that the latter can be held either to have been entirely given up or to have concurred in the formation of the future subjunctive (Ridruejo 1990). iii. the Latin pluperfect indicative is reinterpreted as a subjunctive form (canta(ve) ram > cantara), and ends up being largely equivalent to the imperfect subjunctive arisen from the Latin pluperfect subjunctive. This process sets on in Medieval Spanish and stretches well into the contemporary language. The details of this semantic development are extremely complex, though clearly linked to a cross-­linguistically widespread phenomenon which consists in exploiting past morphology for the expression of counterfactuality (Ridruejo 1990; Iatridou 2000). In contemporary language, the -ra-form preserves some of its etymological uses in contexts from which the -se-form is excluded, most notably as a pluperfect or preterite ­indicative in subordinate clauses, and with the modals deber ‘must’, poder ‘can’, and querer ‘wish’ in independent clauses. It tends to fully replace the -se-form for the expression of the imperfect subjunctive in a large number of regional, specially American varieties.



 Brenda Laca

Although lacking any direct impact on the stock of subjunctive forms, the emergence of a conditional in Romance – together with changes in the uses of the imperfect indicative – has profoundly affected the distribution and interpretation of the subjunctive.

3.2  Temporal and aspectual relations The comparatively poor stock of subjunctive forms and the fact that the subjunctive is a dependent mood appearing mainly in sequence-of-tense contexts have given rise to a debate as to the temporal interpretation of subjunctive forms. This debate concentrates on the contrast between the present and the imperfect subjunctive and is formulated in the generative tradition as a question concerning the existence of an independent Tense feature in subjunctive clauses. The issue carries over to the contrast between the compound forms of the subjunctive: although both convey a secondary anteriority relation, they contrast as to the possible highest anchors for this relation. On the basis of the distribution in (1a–b), Picallo (1984/1990) has argued that subjunctive clauses lack independent Tense, and that subjunctive forms are selected via a necessary anaphoric link with the temporal features of the matrix sentence, in such a way that a past in the matrix determines an imperfect/pluperfect subjunctive, whereas a non-past in the matrix determines a present/ perfect subjunctive: (1) a.

Desea que vengan / *vinieran. wish.prs.ind.3sg that come.prs.sbjv.3pl / come.impf.sbjv.3pl ‘S/he wants them to come.’

b. Deseaba que *vengan / vinieran. wish.impf.ind.1/3sg that come prs.sbjv.3pl / come.impf.sbjv.3pl ‘I/S/he wanted them to come.’

This claim has been challenged on a number of grounds. Strict temporal selection holds only in a restricted type of contexts, particularly those involving subjunctive selection by a forward-shifting predicate3 or in causative constructions, and subjunctive licensing in subject clauses of copular sentences. Even in these contexts, it often takes the form of a constraint banning certain crossed combinations, but not others. Thus, forward-shifting predicates exclude an imperfect subjunctive under a matrix non-past (2c), but allow a present subjunctive under a matrix past (2b), whereas copular sentences allow an imperfect subjunctive under a matrix non-past (3b), but exclude a present subjunctive under a matrix past (3c) (for further details, see Suñer & Padilla Rivera 1987/1990; Kempchinsky 1990; Quer 1998): .  Forward-shifting predicates are characterized by the fact that the clauses they introduce are evaluated at a time that cannot precede the matrix time. Volitionals, directives, and verbs of planning belong to this class. For a discussion, see Abusch (2004), for an analysis of modal verbs as forward-shifting, see Condoravdi (2001).



(2) a.

Mood in Spanish 

Les pidió que llegaran a tiempo. them ask.pret.ind.3sg that arrive.impf.sbjv.3pl to time

b. Les pidió que lleguen a tiempo. them ask.pret.ind.3sg that arrive.prs.sbjv.3pl to time ‘S/he asked them to arrive on time.’ c.

Les pide que lleguen / them ask.prs.ind.3sg that arrive.prs.sbjv.3pl /



*llegaran a tiempo. /arrive.impf.sbjv.3pl to time



‘S/he asks them to arrive on time.’

(3) a.

Es probable que lleguen a tiempo. be.prs.ind.3sg likely that arrive.prs.sbjv.3pl to time ‘It is likely that they will arrive on time.’

b. Es probable que llegaran a tiempo. be.prs.ind.3sg likely that arrive.impf.sbjv.3pl to time ‘It is likely that they arrived on time.’ c.

Era probable que *lleguen / be. impf.ind.3sg likely that arrive.prs.sbjv.3pl /



llegaran a tiempo. arrive.impf.sbjv.3pl to time



‘It was likely that they would arrive on time.’

The conclusion seems thus inescapable that subjunctive forms make a temporal contribution of their own: what appears as strict temporal selection is a result of the interaction between the semantic properties of the context and this temporal contribution. The interpretation of the past/non-past combinations in (2b) and (3b) offers an immediate clue as to what this contribution is. (2b) is an instance of a double access configuration, in which the time of the subordinate clause is calculated with Utt-Time as anchor (Kempchinsky 1990): the requested arrival must follow Utt-Time. On the other hand, (3b) contrasts with (3c): the arrival must precede the time of epistemic evaluation in (3b), which reports present epistemic uncertainty about an already settled matter, whereas it follows the time of evaluation in (3c), which reports past metaphysical uncertainty about a matter not yet settled at that time. I would like to suggest that the contrast between the present and the imperfect subjunctive parallels that between the corresponding indicative tenses. The present is a deictic tense, always anchored with regard to Utt-Time. The imperfect can be an anaphoric tense, taking Tx as anchor (“present of the past”), but it can also have a deictic interpretation, in which case it signals anteriority with regard to Utt-Time. This latter interpretation becomes prominent whenever the matrix context does not provide a past temporal anchor, i.e. a suitable Tx.

 Brenda Laca

The temporal contrast between the present and the imperfect subjunctive is somewhat obscured by the fact that the latter gives rise to interpretations in which the event time is simultaneous or forward-shifted with regard to Utt-T. The imperfect subjunctive cannot be understood either as a deictic past or as an anaphoric “present of the past” in main clauses expressing wishes (with ojalá as a licensing adverb), nor in the antecedent of conditionals. It does not contrast in temporal location with the present subjunctive or with the present indicative, respectively: (4) Ojalá estuvieran/ estén en casa. hopefully be.impf.sbjv.3pl/ be.prs.sbjv.3pl in house ‘I wish they were/ I hope they are at home.’ (5) Si estuvieran/ están en casa… if be.impf.sbjv.3pl/ be.prs.ind.3pl in house ‘If they were/ are at home…’

Such cases can be assimilated to the numerous instances of past tenses being used for signaling counterfactuality or non-realistic modal bases (see Iatridou 2000).4 By contrast with the present subjunctive resp. indicative versions, which only indicate epistemic uncertainty, in the imperfect subjunctive versions the world of evaluation w0 is assumed not to be a world in which they are at home in (4–5). In fact, counterfactual uses of the imperfect subjunctive rather reinforce the analogy with the imperfect indicative, which in some socalled modal uses locates event-time simultaneouly or subsequently to Utt-T, but does not locate it in the world of evaluation: (6) Yo que tú no se lo contaba. I that you not him/her it tell impf.ind.1sg ‘If I were you, I wouldn’t tell him/her.’

The simple forms of the subjunctive are aspectually neutral. The compound forms convey an anteriority relationship whose highest anchor can be Utt-T in the case of the perfect subjunctive, and is normally a Tx preceding Utt-T in the case of the pluperfect: (7) a.

Me sorprende que lo hayan / Me surprise.prs.ind.1sg that it have.prs.sbjv.3pl / *hubieran visto. have.impf.sbjv.3pl see.pp ‘I’m surprised that they (should) have seen it’

.  Non-realistic modal bases are domains excluding the world of evaluation (w0). They are contrasted in the text to non-totally realistic modal bases, which contain w0 but are non-singleton sets of worlds, and to totally realistic modal bases, which are singleton sets whose only member is w0. The latter form the background for factual, non-modalized statements. For a discussion, see Kaufmann, Condoravdi & Harizanov (2006), as well as Giorgi & Pianesi (1997: 205–217).



Mood in Spanish 

b. Me sorprendió que lo hayan / me surprise pret.ind.1sg that it have.prs.sbjv.3pl /

hubieran visto. have.impf.sbjv.3pl see.pp



‘I was surprised that they had/ should have seen it.’

However, just like the imperfect subjunctive can locate event-time simultaneously with Utt-T in counterfactually interpreted contexts, the pluperfect subjunctive can express a single anteriority relation, locating the eventuality before Utt-T in such contexts. Pluperfect and perfect do not contrast in temporal location in (8a–b), but the pluperfect versions indicate that w0 is not assumed to be a world in which they arrived on time, whereas the perfect versions merely express epistemic uncertainty as to w0 being or not such a world: (8) a.

Ojalá hubieran/ hayan llegado a tiempo. hopefully have.impf.sbjv.3pl/ have.prs.sbjv.3pl arrive.pp to time ‘I wish they had/I hope they have arrived on time.’

b. Si hubieran/ han llegado a tiempo… if have.impf.sbjv.3pl/ have.prs.ind.3pl arrive.pp to time ‘If they had/have arrived on time…’

The subjunctive is compatible with the periphrastic expression of prospective aspect, but prospective subjunctives are excluded in forward-shifting matrix contexts such as volitionals and directives. To sum up, the temporal-aspectual organization of the subjunctive does not differ radically from that of the indicative. It has a deictic form indicating coincidence with Utt-T, the present, and a form that can function anaphorically, indicating coincidence with Tx, or deictically, indicating precedence with regard to Utt-T, the imperfect. This latter form is exploited for counterfactual uses, signaling coincidence with Utt-T in a “world history” different from w0. Forms indicating coincidence regularly give rise to forward-shifted readings, sometimes as a function of the forward-shifting properties of the matrix context, but often simply as a result of the type of eventuality described in the clause. Compound forms indicate a secondary anteriority relation. When the highest anchor for this secondary anteriority relationship is Utt-T, the perfect subjunctive is very close to a deictically functioning imperfect subjunctive.

3.3  The meaning and uses of the subjunctive General semantic characterizations of mood are notoriously difficult. The subjunctive is clearly an expression of modality, in as far as all its uses involve consideration of sets of alternative possible worlds, i.e. non totally realistic modal bases. However, this characterization captures a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for subjunctive use. Whereas the indicative corresponds to the default mood, appearing in main assertions, but also in questions and in a number of dependent clauses, the subjunctive is a dependent mood, which is subject to specific licensing conditions. This does not mean that the subjunctive is restricted

 Brenda Laca

to subordinate clauses, although the widest array of its uses does involve ­syntactic subordination. We will first discuss the subjunctive in dependent clauses and then the subjunctive in root contexts.

3.3.1  Argument clauses Two distinctions have proven particularly useful when describing uses of the subjunctive. The first opposes intensional contexts to polarity contexts (Quer 1998) as subjunctive licensors. In intensional contexts, the subjunctive is triggered by the lexical properties of a predicate, which can be a verb, but also an adjective or a noun: (9) Quiere que hablen de él. want.prs.ind.3sg that talk.prs.sbjv.3pl of him ‘He wants people to talk about him.’

In polarity contexts, it is essentially a negation in the matrix context that licenses a subjunctive which would be otherwise excluded. (10) Nunca dijo que estuviera enfermo. never say.pret.ind.3sg that be impf.sbjv.3sg ill ‘S/he never said that he was ill.’

The second, more traditional distinction, opposes contexts of rigid subjunctive selection to contexts in which mood alternation is possible. Thus, the subjunctive is the only possible option in (9) whereas (10) also admits the indicative. However, the two distinctions do not overlap: (11a–c) show cases of mood alternation for “intensional” subjunctives. (11) a.

Insiste en que lleguen / insist.prs.ind.3sg in that arrive.prs.sbjv.3pl /



llegan a las tres. arrive.prs.ind.3pl at the three



‘S/he insists on their arriving/that they arrive at 3 o’clock.’

b. Se aseguró de que la puerta refl make_sure.pret.ind.3sg of that the door

estuviera/ estaba cerrada. be.impf.sbjv.3sg/ be.impf.ind.3sg closed



‘S/he saw to it/ checked that the door was closed.’

c.

Admitió que no le pagaran/ pagaban. admit.pret.ind.3sg that not him/her pay.impf.sbjv.3pl/ pay.impf.ind.3pl ‘S/he consented not to be paid/admitted that s/he was not being paid.’

The clear meaning differences between the subjunctive and the indicative versions in (11a–c) give precious clues as to the semantic contribution of the subjunctive. In (11a), the subjunctive version reports a directive speech act, whereas the indicative version reports a statement of fact. This sort of contrast extends to a large class of verbs of communication. In (11b), the



Mood in Spanish 

indicative version asserts that the subject of the main verb checked a fact. The subjunctive version signals that the subject has a vested interest in this fact, and has possibly contributed to its coming about, for instance by closing the door herself. Finally, in (11c), the indicative version conveys acknowledgement of the truth of the propositional content of the object clause, whereas the subjunctive version indicates acquiescense or agreement with a suggestion. What is common to all the subjunctive versions is (a) an “element of will” on the side of the subject of the propositional attitude verb as to the coming about of the state of affairs described in the subordinate clause, and (b) the fact that the subject is involved as a causal factor that can possibly favor or prevent this coming about. Bouletic modality and causation are involved in most cases of rigid subjunctive selection,5 namely with volitionals, as in (9), and with directives, implicatives, and causatives as in (12). Note that the latter two cases assert the truth of the propositional content of the subjunctive clause, thus infirming the widely held view that the subjunctive signals lack of assertion: (12) Exigió/ Consiguió/ demand.pret.ind.3sg/ obtain.pret.ind.3sg/ Hizo que le pagaran. make.pret.ind.3sg that him/her pay.impf.sbjv.3pl ‘S/he demanded/managed to be paid’/‘S/he made them pay him/her.’

In some cases, causation alone triggers rigid subjunctive selection. This is the case when a causal relation between two eventualities is established by means of a verbal predicate  (13a–b), but also in the complement clauses of nouns and adjectives denoting causal relations: (13) a.

El mal tiempo explica que llegara tarde. the bad weather explains that arrive.impf.sbjv.3sg late ‘The bad weather explains his/her late arrival.’

b. Que se negaran a pagarle dio lugar a una disputa. that refl refuse.impf.sbjv.3pl to pay_him/her gave place to a quarrel ‘Their refusal to pay him/her caused a quarrel.’

Emotive-factive predicates express a relationship between an Experiencer and a Stimulus, such that the Stimulus causes a psychological reaction in the Experiencer. They consistently select the subjunctive in their argument clauses: (14) Le sorprende que haya llegado tarde. him/her surprise.prs.ind.3sg that have.prs.sbjv.3sg arrive.pp late ‘S/he is surprised that s/he should have arrived late.’

.  Assertions as to rigid subjunctive selection or exclusion should be taken with a pinch of salt whenever the verb involved is a modal (GRAE 2009), since modals can appear in the indicative in subjunctive-selecting contexts, and in the subjunctive in indicative-selecting contexts.

 Brenda Laca

However, some emotive-factive predicates exhibit uses as verbs of communication. They report speech acts which convey at the same time the assertion of a fact and an evaluation of this fact by the subject of the propositional attitude. In such uses, they lose their factive status, in as far as they do not presuppose the truth of their complement, and they occasionally give rise to mood alternation: (15) Se lamenta – injustificadamente – de que refl complain prs.ind.3sg unjustifiedly of that nadie lo comprende/ comprenda. nobody him understand.prs.ind.3sg/ understand.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘He unjustifiedly complains about not being understood by anybody.’

Mood alternation is sensitive, in such contexts, to the foregrounding of the propositional content of the subjunctive clause (indicative) or of the emotive-factive predicate (subjunctive), as shown by the fact that the focus of pseudo-cleft structures allows the indicative even in the absence of reported-speech readings (Quer 1998, GRAE 2009): (16) Lo que le sorprende es that.N.sg that him/her surprise.prs.ind.3sg be.prs.ind.3sg que haya llegado/ llegó tarde. that have.prs.sbjv.3sg arrive.pp/ arrive.pret.ind.3sg late ‘What surprises him/her is that s/he (should have) arrived late.’

As argued by Quer (1998), the causation component in the semantics of emotive-factive predicates is a decisive factor in mood selection. At the same time, these predicates convey the (positive or negative) evaluation of a fact on the side of the Experiencer. Evaluative predicates constitute another major class of subjunctive selectors. They include a couple of verbs such as bastar ‘suffice’, convenir ‘be advisable’, urgir ‘be urgent’, and a large class of adjectives and nouns, as well as the adverbs bien ‘well, right, proper’ and mal ‘bad, unfair, inappropriate’ (GRAE 2009). (17) a.

Basta con que lleguen a tiempo. suffice.prs.ind.3sg with that arrive.prs.sbjv.3pl to time ‘It’s enough that they should arrive on time.’

b. Me parece mal que no le hayan pagado. me seem.prs.ind.3sg bad that not him/her have.prs.sbjv.3pl pay.pp ‘I disapprove his/her not having been paid.’

The subjunctive is triggered whenever the propositional content of the argument clause is not merely asserted, but located in a space of possibilities. This is the case with modal predicates expressing epistemic or metaphysical possibility or necessity, but also with predicates expressing frequency and with those expressing falsity:



Mood in Spanish 

(18) Es probable/ usual/ erróneo que surjan conflictos. be.prs.ind.3sg likely/ usual/ mistaken that arise.prs.sbjv.3pl conflicts ‘It is likely/ usual/ false that conflicts (should) ensue.’

Among predicates of propositions, only those that are equivalent to the assertion of the  proposition, as for example es verdad/ cierto/ exacto/ seguro ‘it is true/ correct/ exact/ sure’, consistently select the indicative mood. Note that with modal predicates, the  truth of the subjunctive proposition may be entailed in some cases. Together with the  implicative subjunctive triggers mentioned above (see (12)), this fact casts some doubt on the role of non-veridicality (Giannakidou 1997) in the distribution of the subjunctive. To sum up, subjunctive triggering in intensional contexts is intimately related to the notions of causation and evaluation. Mood selection is usually rigid in such contexts, which is probably an indication of the fact that argument clauses in such configurations cannot escape the scope of the selecting predicate. Note that the more complex scope configurations involved in pseudo-clefts, possibly disrupting subordination, permit the indicative, as in (16) above, and that when causal relations do not involve the embedding of an argument clause, no subjunctive is licensed: (19) a.

¿Le molesta si you/him/her bother.prs.ind.3sg if ‘Do you/Does s/he mind if I smoke?’

fumo? smoke.prs.ind.1sg

b. Se aburrió porque siempre lo criticaban. refl annoy.pret.ind.3sg because always him criticize.impf.ind.3pl ‘S/he got fed up because he was always being criticized.’

Subjunctive selection in argument clauses is much less rigid in polarity contexts. Possible subjunctive licensors include first and foremost sentential negation, but also non-upward entailing environments, such as contexts containing downward-entailing elements, questions and conditional antecedents (Ridruejo 1999; GRAE 2009). Thus, the indicative is the only possible choice in (20a), but the subjunctive is allowed in (20b): (20) a.

Creían/ Afirmaban que Juan believe.impf.ind.3pl/ claim. impf.ind.3pl that Juan *estuviera/ estaba enfermo. be.impf.sbjv.3sg/ be.impf.ind.3sg ill ‘They believed/ claimed that Juan was ill.’

b. No creían/ afirmaban que Juan not believe.impf.ind.3pl/ claim.impf.ind.3pl that Juan

estuviera/ estaba enfermo. be.impf.sbjv.3sg/ be.impf.ind.3sg ill



‘They didn’t believe/ claim that Juan was ill.’



Brenda Laca

Mood alternation in polarity contexts produces extremely subtle effects which involve the attitude of the speaker towards the propositional content of the argument clause. Note that first person present negated belief reports select the subjunctive (Quer 1998): (21) No creo que estuviera/ *estaba enfermo. not believe.prs.ind.1sg that be.impf.sbjv.3sg/ be.impf.ind.3sg ill ‘I don’t believe s/he was ill.’

This can be taken to mean that indicative clauses in polarity contexts convey the speaker’s endorsement of the truth of the complement. The indicative version of (21), in which subject of belief and speaker coincide, seems to report contradictory beliefs. By contrast, the subjunctive in polarity contexts does not convey any attitude of the speaker as to the truth of the complement clause: it indicates that the complement clause is under the scope of the propositional attitude verb and the operator affecting it. This scopal dependency of the subjunctive – contrasting with the outscoping effects of the indicative – is further confirmed by the fact that polarity contexts license negative polarity items in subjunctive, but not in indicative complement clauses (Bosque 1990): (22) Pocos afirman que haya sido / few.m.pl claim.prs.ind.3pl that have.prs.sbjv.3pl be.pp / *fue de utilidad alguna. be.pret.ind.3sg of use any ‘Few claim that it was of any use.’

3.3.2  Relative clauses As stated above, in polarity contexts the subjunctive indicates that the clause containing it is in the scope of the licensing context. Mood alternation in relative clauses follows an analogous interpretive pattern. The descriptive content of an indicative relative is evaluated in w0 (the world in which non-modalized assertions are evaluated). By contrast, the descriptive content of a subjunctive relative is evaluated in a non-totally realistic modal base contributed by an intensional environment. This explains the well known fact that noun phrases containing subjunctive relatives are typically interpreted non-specifically (23a) or attributively (23b): (23) a.

Pidieron un libro que fuera fácil de leer. ask.pret.ind.3pl a book that be.impf.sbjv.3sg easy of read.inf ‘They asked for a book that was easy to read.’

b. Le dieron un libro a cada cliente que him give.pret.ind.3pl a book to every customer that

hubiera gastado más de 10 euros. have.impf.sbjv.3sg spend.pp more of 10 euros



‘They gave a book to any customer having spent over 10 euros.’

Non-specific relatives do not entail the existence in w0 of an object verifying the description. Attributive relatives are characterized by the fact that the link between the content of the



Mood in Spanish

nominal description and the property denoted by the rest of the sentence is a law-like one, grounded in generalizations that extend to counterfactual cases and usually involve causality. Mood alternation is excluded in appositive relatives. Since these constitute independent subsidiary assertions, they only take the indicative (Ridruejo 1999).6 The licensing environments for subjunctive relatives share, to a certain extent, the properties of the environments licensing subjunctive argument clauses. As a matter of fact, restrictive relatives contained in subjunctive argument clauses admit themselves the subjunctive (GRAE 2009): (24) a.

Insiste en que le traigan un insist.prs.ind.3sg in that him/her bring.prs.sbjv.3pl a



libro que sea fácil de leer book that be.prs.sbjv.3sg easy of read.inf



‘S/he insists on being brought a book that is easy to read.’

b. Me sorprende que le hayan me surprise.prs.ind.3sg that him/her have.prs.sbjv.3pl

traído un libro que fuera fácil de leer. bring.pp a book that be.impf.sbjv.3sg easy of read.inf

‘I’m surprised that they (should) have brought him/her a book that was easy to read.’ c.

Sólo Juan dijo que le hubieran only Juan say.pret.ind.3sg that him have.impf.sbjv.3pl



traído un libro que fuera fácil de leer. bring.pp a book that be.impf.sbjv.3sg easy of read.inf



‘Only Juan said that they brought him a book that was easy to read.’

As for subjunctive relatives not contained in subjunctive clausal environments, they are excluded in contexts involving totally realistic modal bases (25a), and they are licensed in modal environments such as those involving bouletic modality (25b), but also in those containing modal verbs (25c), future tense or prospective aspect, or exhibiting a habitual/ generic interpretation (Quer 1998, GRAE 2009): (25) a.

Vendió un libro que contenía / sell.pret.ind.3sg a book that contain.impf.ind.3sg / *contuviera ilustraciones. contain.impf.sbjv.3sg illustrations ‘He sold a book that contained illustrations.’

.  This means that the -ra- forms appearing in appositive relatives in certain registers should be analysed as indicative forms. As for their role in restrictive relatives, it is subject to debate (see Rivero 1977/1990).





Brenda Laca

b. Necesitaban/ Querían/ Consiguió need.impf.ind.3pl/ want.impf.ind.3pl/ obtain.pret.ind.3sg

un libro que contuviera ilustraciones. a book that contain.impf.sbjv.3sg illustrations



‘They needed/ wanted/ S/he got a book that contained illustrations.’

c.

Puedes comprar un libro que can.prs.ind.2sg buy.inf a book that



contenga ilustraciones. contain.prs.sbjv.3sg illustrations



‘You can buy a book containing illustrations.’

The problem is that, in relative clauses, the subjunctive itself can be the only overt element triggering a non-totally realistic interpretation of the environment. Usually, unexpected subjunctives are linked to the possibility of establishing an intentional link between the will of an agent and the descriptive content of the noun phrase, and are thus assimilable to bouletic modality. This is particularly clear in the case of so-called “purpose relatives” exemplified in (26) (Ridruejo 1999), but also extends to subtler cases: (26) Hicieron un cobertizo que los build.pret.ind.3pl a shed that them protegiera de la lluvia. protect.impf.sbjv.3sg of the rain ‘They built a shed as a protection against the rain.’

Note that such cases are analogous to subjunctive-triggering with implicative verbs, in as far as entailments of existence are not suspended by the subjunctive, which only adds a forward-shifting element of will. Although we have exemplified subjunctive relatives mainly in indefinite noun-phrases, all determiners, to the notable exception of demonstratives, are compatible with subjunctive relatives (Quer 1998). Occasional difficulties with the definite article should probably be attributed to a mismatch between the presuppositions of the article and the descriptive content of the noun phrase. Semantic definites – those in which the unicity presupposition is guaranteed by the descriptive content of the noun phrase, such as superlatives or descriptions containing ordinals – pose no problem for the subjunctive (Ridruejo 1999): (27)

Iban a comprar el libro que contuviera go.impf.ind.3pl to buy.inf the book that containimpf.sbjv.3sg *(más) ilustraciones. more illustrations

‘They were going to buy the book with (the greatest number of) illustrations.’

Bare plurals (28), but also count singular algún ‘some’, free choice items, and negative indefinites strongly favor subjunctive relatives (Quer 1998). In the first case, this is a consequence



Mood in Spanish

of the scopal dependency of bare plurals; in the other cases, scopal dependency is reinforced by the fact that the items in question require licensors roughly corresponding to those required by the subjunctive: (28) Buscan libros que ??contienen/ search.prs.ind.3pl books that contain.prs.ind.3pl/ contengan ilustraciones. contain.prs.sbjv.3pl illustrations ‘They are looking for books containing illustrations.’

Free relatives also clearly favor the subjunctive, possibly as a consequence of the tendency to interpret them attributively and of their proximity to free-choice items (Giannakidou 1997; Quer 1998): (29) Buscaba quien lo *ayudaba / ayudara. search.impf.ind.3sg who him help.impf.ind.3sg / help.impf.sbjv.3sg ‘He was looking for someone to help him out.’

To sum up, relative clauses exhibit mood alternation. The subjunctive requires that the descriptive content of the clause be evaluated in a non-totally realistic modal base, which is more often than not guaranteed by its dependence from an intensional context and gives rise to non-specific or attributive readings for the NP containing it.

3.3.3  Adverbial and/or adjunct clauses Due to space limitations, only information concerning some prominent types of subjunctive adverbial/adjunct clauses and some limited types of mood alternation will be given in this section. Subjunctive use in these contexts is sensitive to roughly the same type of semantic factors we have been discussing. Thus, for instance, purpose clauses (30a), which involve bouletic modality, and clauses negating concomitance (30b), in which the proposition expressed is necessarily under the scope of the negative sin ‘without’, take the subjunctive. Both types of interclausal relations are expressed by a preposition governing a complement clause (GRAE 2009):7 (30) a.

Lo hice para que se enterara. it do.pret.ind.1sg for that refl inform.impf.sbjv.3sg ‘I did it so that he would notice it.’

b. Lo hice sin que se enterara. it do.pret.ind.1sg without that refl inform.impf.sbjv.3sg ‘I did it without his noticing it.’

.  Mood alternation distinguishes purpose (subjunctive) from result clauses (indicative) with prepositional expressions such as de manera/modo/forma tal (que) ‘so as/ so that’.





Brenda Laca

Modern Spanish exhibits the peculiarity that all forward shifted temporal clauses – whose time of evaluation is ordered after the highest anchor Utt-T or Tx – take the subjunctive. This holds of temporal clauses introduced by any syntactic type of subordinating expression, and expressing simultaneity, posteriority or anteriority: (31) Cuando llegue, se lo decimos. when arrive.prs.sbjv.3sg him/her it tell.prs.ind.1pl ‘When s/he arrives, we’ll tell him/her.’

Some authors classify these uses of the subjunctive as “suppletive” future tenses, but the assumption of a “different” subjunctive seems unwarranted. Furthermore, before-temporal clauses always take the subjunctive (i.e. not only when they are forward-shifted), whereas after-temporal clauses only take it in European Spanish (GRAE 2009). Conditional antecedents and subjunctive concessive clauses figure prominently among the contexts in which the temporal contrast between present and imperfect subjunctive forms is reinterpreted, with imperfect subjunctive forms being used for the expression of non-realistic modal bases. Thus, both (32a–b) and (33a–b) locate the time of the subordinate after resp. before Utt-T. But (32b) and (33b) signal that the speaker views Pedro’s confession as improbable resp. as contrary to fact: (32) a.

Aunque even_that

Pedro Pedro

confiese, confess.prs.sbjv.3sg



yo seguiré negando. I follow.fut.ind.1sg deny.ger



‘Even if Pedro confesses, I’ll go on denying it.’

b. Aunque Pedro confesara, even_that Pedro confess.impf.sbjv.3sg

yo seguiría negando. I follow.cond.1sg deny.ger



‘Even if Pedro confessed, I would go on denying it.’

(33) a.

Aunque Pedro haya confesado, even_that Pedro have.prs.sbjv.3sg confess.pp



yo seguiré negando. I follow.fut.ind.1sg deny.ger



‘Even if Pedro has confessed, I’ll go on denying it.’

b. Aunque Pedro hubiera confesado, even_that Pedro have.impf.sbjv.3sg confess.pp

yo seguiría negando. I follow.cond.1sg deny.ger



‘Even if Pedro had confessed, I would go on denying it.’



Mood in Spanish

Conditionals and subjunctive concessives show parallel patterns in tense-mood distribution (Quer 1998), with one important exception: conditionals introduced by the conjunction si ‘if ’ never accept present/perfect subjunctive forms (34a). This restriction does not hold of other expressions, as shown by (34b): (34) a.

Si Pedro confiesa/ *confiese, if Pedro confess.prs.ind.3sg/ confess.prs.sbjv.3sg yo también confesaré. I also confess.fut.ind.1sg

b. En caso de que Pedro *confiesa / in case of that Pedro confess.prs.ind.3sg /

confiese, yo también confesaré. confess.prs.sbjv.3sg I also confess.fut.ind.1sg



‘If Pedro confesses, I will confess too.’

Counterfactual conditionals and subjunctive concessives with an imperfect or a pluperfect subjunctive normally have conditional forms in the main clause. However, there is a marked tendency – at least in some varieties – to replicate a pluperfect subjunctive in the main clause: (35) Si/ Aunque hubiera confesado, if even_that have.impf.sbjv.3sg confess.pp lo habrían/ hubieran condenado. him have.cond.3pl/ have.impf.sbjv.3pl condemn.pp ‘If/Even if he had confessed, he would have gotten a sentence.’

Causal subordinates do not of themselves license the subjunctive (36a). However, under negation, as well as under emotive-factive or evaluative predicates, the subjunctive is used to indicate that the higher operator or predicate affects the causal relationship itself (GRAE 2009): (36) a.

Vino porque se lo pidieron / *pidieran. come.pret.ind.3sg because him/her it ask.pret.ind.3pl / ask.impf.sbjv.3pl ‘S/he came because s/he was asked to.’

b. No vino porque se lo pidieron, not come.pret.ind.3sg because him/her it ask.impf.ind.3pl

pidieran, sino por su propia iniciativa. ask.impf.sbjv.3pl but by his/her own initiative.



‘S/he didn’t come because s/he was asked to, but of her own accord.’

3.3.4  Root contexts In main clauses, the subjunctive invariably signals that the propositional content is not being asserted. This is the case in directive (37a) and desiderative sentences (37b), but also in sentences expressing some forms of epistemic modality (37c).





Brenda Laca

(37) a.

No salgas. not go_out.prs.sbjv.2sg ‘Don’t go out!’

b. Que/ Ojalá (que) salga. that/ hopefully that go_out.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘S/he should go out/I hope s/he’ll go out.’ c.

Quizás/ Probablemente salga. perhaps/ probably go_out.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘Maybe/ Probably s/he’ll go out.’

Note that in all cases, the subjunctive requires a licensor that precedes it: negation in (37a), the complementizer que or the particle ojalá (37b), and an adverb in (37c).8 The subjunctive alternates with the imperative in directives. Negative directives cannot be expressed in the imperative, and 3rd pers. imperatives are indistinguishable from subjunctive forms.9 Since the politeness form of address is a 3rd pers. form, and the only form for plural addressees in American Spanish is the politeness form, this leads to considerable overlap between imperative and subjunctive. Table 3 shows that there are only two distinct forms for the imperative in European Spanish, and only one in American Spanish. Table 3.  Imperative and subjunctive forms in directives singular 1st person 1st person + Neg 2nd person

ten

2nd person + Neg 2nd person + polite 2nd person + polite + Neg 3rd person 3rd person + Neg

no tengas tenga no tenga que tenga que no tenga

plural tengamos no tengamos tened (Eur. Span.) tengan (Amer.Span.) no tengáis/no tengan tengan no tengan que tengan que no tengan

.  A possible exception is that of counterfactual suggestions or wishes, for instance: (i)

Me lo hubieras dicho antes. me it have.impf.sbj.2sg say.pp before ‘You should have told me before.’

.  3rd person imperatives are not usually acknowledged as such in the Spanish descriptive tradition, which assimilates the sentences containing them to desideratives (GRAE 2009). However, some of their uses cannot be semantically assimilated to desideratives: (i)

Que hagan el menor error, y los denuncio. that make.prs.subj.3sg the least mistake and them report.prs.ind.1sg ‘Let them commit the slightest mistake, and I’ll report them.’



Mood in Spanish

Although the wisdom of maintaining a separate mood for two, resp. one distinct inflection may be questioned, imperative sentences not introduced by negation or by a complementizer share with infinitives and gerunds the peculiarity of not allowing proclitics: (38) a.

tenme/ tenedme/ téngame hold.imp.2sg.me/ hold.imp.2pl.me/ hold.imp.3sg.me



ténganme/ tengámosle la mano. hold.imp.3pl.me/ hold.imp.1pl.him/her the hand



‘Hold my hand/ Let’s hold his/her hand.’

b. me tienes/ me tenéis/ me tenga me hold.ind.2sg/ me hold.ind.2pl/ me hold.sbjv.1/3sg

me tengan/ le tengamos la mano. me hold.sbjv.3pl/ him/her hold.sbjv.1pl the hand



‘You/ I/ S/he/ They hold my hand// We hold his/her hand.’

Thus, clitic position is held to discriminate between subjunctive and imperative in cases such as le tenga/ téngale, etc. (GRAE 2009). Apart from certain set expressions and set patterns expressing wishes (39), desiderative sentences require a licensing element preceding the subjunctive. The most usual are the complementizer que and the particle ojalá ‘hopefully’ illustrated above. (39) Dios te ayude. God you help.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘(May) God help you.’

Adverbs expressing uncertainty license the subjunctive in main clauses when they precede the verb, but never when they follow it, as shown by the following contrast: (40) a.

Quizás/ Probablemente esté/ está enfermo. perhaps/ probably be.prs.sbjv.3sg/ be.prs.ind.3sg ill ‘Maybe/ Probably s/he is ill.’

b. *Esté/ Está enfermo, quizás/ probablemente. be.prs.sbjv.3sg be.prs.ind.3sg ill maybe/ probably ‘S/he is ill, maybe/probably.’

The factors linked to the presence of the subjunctive in main clauses parallel those we find in dependent clauses, in as far as they involve evaluation with regard to non-totally realistic modal bases.

4.  The conditional The verbal form built on the infinitive/future stem by adding to it the endings of the imperfect (cantar-ía/habr-ía cantado) is predominantly classified as a temporal form of the indicative





Brenda Laca

mood. It is not surprising that it should have modal uses: the future and imperfect indicative are known to exhibit a number of modal uses, which clearly predominate over temporal uses in the case of the former, so that it is only to be expected that a form combining the morphology of both tenses will have a still more pronounced modal profile. I would like to suggest, however, that there are good reasons for assuming a split in uses of this form, with some of them corresponding to a tense (“future of the past” and, more interestingly, “past of the future”), and others constituting the mood of choice when non-realistic modal bases are involved, i.e. when w0 is excluded from the domain of quantification in a modal environment. In “future of the past” uses, the conditional behaves as a strictly anaphoric tense: it requires a past anchor contributed by a verb of thinking or speaking (41a), which may be implicit in free indirect speech contexts and in so called quotative or evidential uses of the conditional (Squartini 2001). It thus contrasts with prospective aspect, whose past anchor can be contributed by an adverbial (41b) or by the tense of an independent previous sentence (41c): (41) a.

Pensó/ Afirmó que llovería / think.pret.ind.3sg/ claim.pret.3sg that rain.cond.3sg /



iba a llover. go.impf.ind.3sg to rain



‘S/he thought/claimed that it would rain/ it was going to rain.’

b. Ayer *llovería/ iba a llover. yesterday rain.cond.3sg/ go.impf.ind.3sg to rain ‘Yesterday it would rain/ was going to rain.’ c.

No salimos porque *llovería / not go_out pret.ind.1pl because rain.cond.3sg /



iba a llover. Go.impf.ind.3sg to rain



‘We didn’t go out because it would rain/ was going to rain.’

What I’d like to label “past of the future” readings are practically equivalent to future perfects in contexts expressing a conjecture (Squartini 2001). Spanish makes abundant use of future morphology for indicating that the propositional content is advanced as a possibility, and not as an unqualified assertion. If the propositional content concerns a time preceding Utt-T, anteriority can be expressed by the future perfect, but also by the conditional: (42) No vino a la fiesta. not come.pret.ind.3sg to the party Estaría/ Habrá estado enfermo. be.cond.3sg/ have.fut.ind.3sg be.pp ill ‘He didn’t come to the party. He might have been ill.’

Modal uses of the conditional, on the other hand, are only licensed in a particular subset of modal environments, comprising (a) modal verbs; (b) verbs expressing wishes or preferences; (c) the consequent of counterfactual or hypothetical conditional sentences (Laca 2006).



(43) a.

Mood in Spanish

Podrías/ Tendrías que prestar atención. can.cond.2sg/ have.cond.2sg that lend.inf attention ‘You could/ should pay attention.’

b. Querría/ Preferiría/ Me gustaría want.cond.1sg/ prefer.cond.1sg/ me like.cond.3sg

que prestaras atención. That lend.impf.sbjv.2sg attention



‘I wish/ I’d prefer you would pay attention/ I’d like it for you to pay attention.’

c.

Si te importara, prestarías atención. if you.dat mind.impf.sbjv.3sg lend.cond.2sg attention ‘If you minded, you would pay attention.’

What the semantics of conditionals, want-verbs, and modals have in common is the fact that they require consideration of non-totally realistic modal bases. It is thus natural to assume that “conditional mood” requires sets of alternative worlds to operate on. To judge from its effects in conditional sentences, what it does in such contexts is to exclude the world of evaluation from the domain of quantification, signaling that w0 does not belong to the modal base. The non-totally realistic modal base contributed by the modal element on which the conditional is grafted becomes a non-realistic modal base. When talking about the past – by means of perfect morphology on the conditional or on an embedded infinitive – non-realistic modal bases result in clearly counterfactual interpretations involving non-realized possibilities or unfulfilled wishes: (44) a.

Habrías podido/ tenido que prestar atención. have.cond.2sg can.pp/ have.pp that lend.inf attention ‘You could/ should have paid attention.’

b. Preferiría haberme enterado inmediatamente. prefer.cond.1sg have.inf_me inform immediately ‘I’d have rather learnt about it right away.’

“Conditional mood” – by contrast with the temporal conditional – is a counterfactual form. As such, it interferes in a number of contexts with imperfect and pluperfect subjunctives, which have been shown to exhibit counterfactual interpretations. As stated above, pluperfect subjunctives compete with perfect conditionals in the consequent of past counterfactuals. The same competition exists with modals and with verbs of wish. This connection is reinforced by the use of the imperfect subjunctive in root clauses containing the modals poder, querer and deber.

References Abusch, D. 2004. On the temporal composition of infinitives. In The Syntax of Time, J. Lecarme & J. Guéron (eds), 27–53. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Bosque, I. 1990. Las bases gramaticales de la alternancia modal. In Bosque (ed.), 13–65.



 Brenda Laca Bosque, I. (ed.). 1990. Indicativo y subjuntivo. Madrid: Taurus. Boyé, G. & Cabredo-Hofherr, P. 2006. The structure of allomorphy in Spanish verbal inflection. Cuadernos de Lingüística, Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset XIII, 9–24. Camus Bergareche, B. 1990. El futuro de subjuntivo en español. In Bosque (ed.), 410–427. Condoravdi, C. 2001. Temporal interpretations of modals. Modals for the present and for the past. In Stanford Papers on Semantics, D. Beaver et al. (eds), 59–87. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Coseriu, E. 1976. Das romanische Verbalsystem. Tübingen: Narr. Demirdache, H. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 2007. The syntax of time arguments. Lingua 117(2): 330–366. Eberenz, R. 1983/1990. Sea como fuere. En torno a la historia del futuro de subjuntivo español. In I. Bosque (ed.), 383–409. Giannakidou, A. 1997. The Landscape of Polarity Items [Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics (GRODIL) 18]. Groningen: University of Groningen. Giorgi, A. & Pianesi, F. 1997. Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP. GRAE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa. Iatridou, S. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 231–270. Kaufmann, S., Condoravdi, C. & Harizanov, V. 2006. Formal approaches to modality. In The Expression of Modality, W. Frawley (ed.), 72–106. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kempchinsky, P. 1990. Más sobre el efecto de referencia disjunta del subjuntivo. In Bosque (ed.), 234–258. Laca, B. 2005. Périphrases aspectuelles et temps grammatical dans les langues romanes. In Les ­périphrases verbales [Lingvisticae Investigationes Supplementa 25], H. Bat-Zeev Schyldkrot & N. Le Querler (eds), 47–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Laca, B. 2006. Tiempo, aspecto y la interpretación de los verbos modales en español. Lingüistica 17 (ALFAL): 9–43. Picallo, C. 1984/1990. El nudo FLEX y el parámetro de sujeto nulo. In Bosque, 202–233. Quer, J. 1998. Mood at the Interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht (LOT Dissertations in Linguistics). Reyle, U., Rossdeutscher, A. & Kamp, H. 2007. Ups and downs in the theory of temporal reference. Linguistics & Philosophy 30: 565–635. Ridruejo, E. 1990. ¿Cambios iterados en el subjuntivo español? In Bosque (ed.), 361–382. Ridruejo, E. 1999. Modo y modalidad. El modo en las subordinadas sustantivas. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua Española, I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds), 3209–3251. Madrid: Espasa. Rivero, M.-L. 1977/1990. Especificidad y existencia. In Bosque (ed.), 261–279. Schaden, G. 2007. La sémantique du parfait: Étude des “temps composés” dans un choix de langues germaniques et romanes. Ph.D. dissertation, University Paris 8. Smith, C. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Squartini, M. 2001. The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance. Studies in Language 25(2): 297–334. Suñer, M. & Padilla Rivera, J. 1987/1990. Concordancia temporal y subjuntivo. In Bosque (ed.), 185–201.

Mood in Catalan Josep Quer Barcelona

1.  Introduction Catalan is one of the European languages belonging to the western group of Ro­mance varieties. It is natively spoken in four different countries: Spain (Ca­ta­lonia, Comunitat Valenciana except for some western and southern areas, Balearic Islands, the eastern fringe of Aragon and El Carxe in Mur­cia), Principality of Andorra, southeastern France (almost all of the Py­ré­nées-Orientales department, also known as Catalunya Nord) and Italy (L’ Alguer/Alghero in Sardinia). The population of the whole area is 11 mil­lion people approximately, but the total number of speakers and individuals with some competence in the language lies between 7 and 9 million roughly, de­pen­ding on the criteria applied. It is the official language of Andorra and of the three Spanish autonomous communities where it shares official status with Spanish. Although the language displays clear unity across the territories men­tion­ed above, there is dialectal variation and some of its varieties are known by specific denominations such as valencià (Valencian), for instance. The main dialectal split, which is based on ­phonological and some mor­pho­lo­gi­cal features, is between western and eastern varieties (see Veny 1982). The eastern group is for­med by Northern Catalan (rossellonès), Central Catalan (eastern Cata­lo­nia), Balearic (menorquí, mallorquí, eivissenc) and alguerès (in L’Alguer/Alghero). The varieties of the western group are North Western Ca­ta­lan (western and southern ­Catalonia and eastern fringe of Aragon) and Va­len­cian (Comunitat Valenciana and El Carxe). Standard Modern Catalan is mostly based on Central Catalan, more specifically on the educated usage of the Barcelona dialect. However, other standards with some lexical and mor­phological differences resting on their literary tradition have emerged for Balearic and Valencian.

2.  Verbal categories The grammatical categories that are distinguished in the Catalan finite ver­bal paradigm are the following ones: person (1st, 2nd, 3rd), number (singular, plu­ral), tense (present, past, future), aspect (perfect, imperfect), and mood (in­di­cative, subjunctive, imperative). Verbs are classified acoording to con­ju­gation (I, II, IIIa, IIIb). The non-finite forms, which lack person features, are the infinitive (infinitiu), gerund or present participle (gerundi) and past par­ticiple (participi) (Table 1).

 Josep Quer

Table 1.  Non-finite verbal paradigm Infinitive cantar

perdre

cantant

perdent

servir

dormir

servint

dormint

servit

dormit

Gerund Past Participle cantat

perdut

In the finite paradigm person and number features combine, resulting in six diff­erent forms of subject agreement for each tense in principle (1st sg, 2nd sg, 3rd sg, 1st pl, 2nd pl, 3rd pl).1 The imperative is defective in this respect, as it only includes 2nd person singular and plural forms (see Table 3). All other forms with imperative use (1st plural and 3rd plural for polite forms, negative im­peratives) are borrowed from the present subjunctive paradigm. The mor­pho­logical expression of present and past overlaps with that of indicative and subjunctive mood. Indicative combines with all tenses, while sub­junc­tive with present and past, but not with future. Simple and anterior past have a synthetic and a periphrastic paradigm. The periphrastic past and pe­ri­phras­tic anterior past have indicative and subjunctive paradigms. The synthetic one corresponds to the indicative series. The imperative has only a present form. The aspectual categories perfective and imperfective are only dis­tin­guish­ed in the past indicative. The present is imperfective by default and the fu­ture is ambiguous between the two aspectual interpretations. The perfect is expressed periphrastically with the auxiliary haver ‘to have’ in all com­bi­na­tions of tense, aspect and mood, except for the imperative. The conditional fits less clearly into the categories mentioned above, as it combines future and past imperfect morphology. Syntactically, it has the distribution of an indicative form, as we will see below (3.2.3 and 3.3). Verbs are classified according to three different conjugations, based es­sent­ially on what is known as thematic vowel. In conjugation I (cantar) we find verbs whose infinitive ends in -ar and this class includes most verbs of the language. Conjugation II (perdre) figures most irregular verbs and the in­fi­ni­tives have different endings (-re, unstressed -er, -r after vowel-final stem, stressed -er). Conjugation III verbs have infinitives ending in -ir and it di­vi­des into two subgroups: IIIa verbs display an extension (-eix-) on the root in the sg and 3rd pl of the present indicative and the present subjunctive; IIIb verbs lack this extension,

.  The polite 2nd person pronoun vostè(s) combines with 3rd person verb forms, while po­lite 2nd sg vós combines with 2nd pl.



Mood in Catalan

are not very numerous and display some ir­re­gu­larity. In Table 2 the 3rd person sg forms in the general variety are pre­sent­ed.2,3 Table 2.  Finite verbal paradigm4 Indicative canta ha cantat cantava havia cantat cantà va cantar hagué cantat va haver cantat cantarà haurà cantat cantaria hauria cantat

Subjunctive Present perd serveix/ dorm canti/ perdi/ serveixi/ servix cante perda servisca Perfet4 (present perfect) ha ha ha hagi hagi hagi perdut servit dormit cantat perdut servit Imperfet (imperfective past) perdia servia dormia cantés perdés servís Plusquamperfet (pluperfect) havia havia havia hagués hagués hagués perdut servit dormit cantat perdut servit Passat simple (simple past) perdé serví dormí Passat perifràstic (periphrastic past) va va va vagi vagi vagi perdre servir dormir cantar perdre servir Passat anterior (anterior past) hagué hagué hagué perdut servit dormit Passat anterior perifràstic (periphrastic anterior past) va haver va haver va haver vagi haver vagi haver vagi haver perdut servit dormit cantat perdut servit Futur (future) perdrà servirà dormirà Futur perfet (future perfect) haurà haurà haurà perdut servit dormit Condicional (conditional) perdria serviria dormiria Condicional perfet (conditional perfect) hauria hauria hauria perdut servit dormit

dormi/ dorma hagi dormit dormís hagués dormit

vagi dormir

vagi haver dormit

.  For a more detailed presentation of verbal morphology in Catalan including dia­lectal variation, see Wheeler, Yates & Dols (1999) (in English) and Perea (2002) and Wheeler (2002) (in Catalan). .  For the diachronic evolution of some of these forms, see Moll (2006) and Pérez Saldanya (1998). .  In the Catalan grammatical tradition, the term perfet was used for the simple past forms, both synthetic and periphrastic. The label pretèrit indefinit was used for the per­fect. Here we follow the revised denominations proposed by the Institut d’Estudis Catalans (2003), in accordance with the more widespread terminological us­age across languages.



 Josep Quer

Table 3.  Imperative paradigm imperative canta canteu

perd perdeu

serveix/servix serviu

dorm dormiu

3.  Mood categories5 3.1  Main clause uses of non-indicative moods Imperative and independent uses of the subjunctive are used to express or­der­s or wishes, although with the latter some epistemic readings are possible too.

3.1.1  Imperative As in most European languages, the imperative mood forms can typically oc­cur only in main clauses (1a) and are excluded from embedded domains (1b). They are also used in coordinated structures with conditional inter­pre­ta­tion, where the first conjunct is in the imperative and the second one in the fu­ture (2). (1) a.

Puja! go_up.imp.2sg ‘Come up!’

b. *Et diu que puja. you.dat say.prs.ind.3sg that go_up.imp.2sg (2) Espera i veuràs qui és. wait.imp.2sg and see.fut.2sg who be.prs.ind.3sg ‘If you wait, you’ll see who it is.’

3.1.2  Subjunctive Subjunctive is characteristically the mood of finite subordination, as we will see in Section 3.2. However, there are occurrences of subjunctive forms in main clauses as well. They all share optative or directive interpretation. Be­si­des more or less fixed expressions like (3a), independent subjunctives must be introduced in principle by the conjunction que ‘that’ (3b). Other com­ple­mentizerless main subjunctive clauses belong to the suppletive forms of the imperative paradigm: negative commands (3c), 2nd person polite im­pe­r­a­tive (3d) or 1st person plural commands (3e).

.  For a general overview of mood distribution in Catalan, see Pérez Saldanya (1988) and Quer (1998, 2002).



(3) a.

Mood in Catalan

Déu el perdoni! god him.acc forgive.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘May God forgive him!’

b. Que vagin passant un per un! that go.prs.sbjv.3pl come_in.ger one by one ‘Let them come in one by one!’ c.

No entris/ *entra! not come_in.prs.sbjv.2sg/ come_in.imp.2sg ‘Don’t come in!’

d. Signi aquí, sisplau. sign.prs.sbjv.3sg here please ‘Sign here, please.’ (polite) e.

Siguem més realistes! be.prs.sbjv.1pl more realistic.pl ‘Let’s be more realistic!’

There are a number of expressions introducing wishes such as tant de bo ‘I wish’ or així ‘I hope’ which obligatorily select for the subjunctive (4). In ad­di­tion, a counterfactual wish can be expressed by an independent pluperfect sub­junctive (5). (4) a.

Tant.de.bo nevi! I_wish snow.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘I wish it snowed.’

b. Així rebenti! I_hope burst.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘I hope s/he bursts.’ (5) Haguessis trucat abans. have.pst.sbjv.2sg call.ptcp before ‘You should have called earlier.’

Next to the core volitive uses of independent subjunctive, we find a number of epistemic constructions with first-position adverbials such as potser/tal vegada ‘maybe’, probablement ‘probably’ followed by the subjunctive (6). These constructions are considered to be nonstandard uses influenced by Span­ish. The genuine Catalan forms would be with future indicative. (6) a.

Potser arribi demà, el paquet. maybe arrive.prs.sbjv.3sg tomorrow the parcel ‘Maybe the parcel will arrive tomorrow.’

b. Probablement es retiri. probably refl withdraw.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘Probably s/he will withdraw.’



 Josep Quer

3.2  Embedded uses of moods In this section we will concentrate on the distribution of indicative and sub­junc­tive moods in embedded domains. Modal uses of indicative tenses and the conditional will be tackled in Section 3.3. As in other Romance languages, three main types of embedded sub­junc­tive have been traditionally distinguished. The partition is based on the se­mantic interpretation that the selecting predicates impose on their clausal ar­gu­ments. The three subjunctive types are the following ones: a. Volitional or optative subjunctive.  It is selected by volitional or de­si­derative predicates such as voler ‘want’ or desitjar ‘wish’ or directional verbs like ordenar ‘order’ or demanar ‘ask’. Those predicates express no­tions like will, desire or necessity. (7) a.

Vol que ho deixi/ *deixo. want.prs.ind.3sg that it leave.prs.sbjv.1sg/ leave.prs.ind.1sg ‘S/he wants me to quit.’

b. Els han ordenat que them.dat have.ind.prs.ind.3pl order.ptcp that

s’amaguin/ *s’amaguen. hide.prs.sbjv.3pl/ hide.prs.ind.3pl



‘They ordered them to hide.’

As observed in the examples in (7), subjunctive is the only option in the ar­gu­ment clauses of these predicates, which points to the fact that the mood is le­xi­cally selected by the main  verb. However, the same type of subjunctive can be argued to surface in adjunct purpose clauses: (8) Et truca perquè you.dat call.prs.ind.3sg so.that l’ aconsellis/ *aconselles. him/her.advise.prs.sbjv.2sg/ advise.prs.ind.2sg ‘S/he calls you so that you advice her/him.’

Next to the impossibility to alternate with indicative, this type of sub­junc­tive displays several properties that distinguish it from the other. First, the past subjunctive cannot be embedded under a verb in a present tense (9). (9) Vol que faci/ want.prs.ind.3sg that make.prs.sbjv.1sg/ *fes el sopar. make.pst.sbjv.1sg the dinner ‘S/he wants me to prepare dinner.’



Mood in Catalan 

Second, the subject of the subordinate clause cannot have the same re­fer­en­ce as the main clause subject (10a). This phenomenon is known as dis­joint subject reference or subject obviation (Picallo 1985). The way to express co­re­ference between the main and the embedded subject in these structures is with an infinitival clause (10b). (10) a. *[Els the

mestres]i volen que {ells/Ø}i cobrin més. teachers want.prs.ind.3pl that they earn.prs.sbjv.3pl more

b. [Els mestres]i volen Øi cobrar més. the teachers want.prs.ind.3pl earn.inf more ‘The teachers want to earn more.’

Third, the volitive subjunctive is not licensed beyond its immediate sub­ordi­nate clause (11). (11) Vol que creguis que et want.prs.ind.3sg that believe.prs.sbjv.2sg that you.dat *faci/ fa por. make.prs.sbjv.3sg/ make.prs.ind.3sg fear ‘S/he wants you to believe that it scares you.’

b. Dubitative or potential subjunctive. It appears under predicates ex­pres­sing doubt, uncertainty, ignorance, possibility, probability, etc. A pro­to­ty­pi­cal case of this kind of subjunctive is the one appearing under a negated main predicate (12a) or in a yes/no question (12b). (12) a.

No creu que li not believe.prs.sbjv.3sg that him.dat



donin cap premi. give.prs.sbjv.3pl no prize



‘S/he does not believe they will give him/her any prize.’

b. Recordes que els remember.prs.ind.2sg that them.dat

hagin donat mai un premi? have.prs.sbjv.3pl give.ptcp never a prize



‘Do you remember if they have ever given them a prize?’

Since the subjunctive is not lexically selected but rather licensed by the pre­di­cate affected by negation or interrogation, it can alternate with the in­di­ca­ti­ve, as in the (13) counterparts to (12). However, the shift in mood cor­re­la­tes with a change in the interpretation of the embedded proposition: while it is interpreted as true in the indicative, with the subjunctive the truth value is left undecided as a consequence of the fact that it is interpreted in the scope of negation or the interrogative operator.

 Josep Quer

(13) a.

No es creu que li not refl believe.prs.sbjv.3sg that him.dat



han donat un premi. have.prs.ind.3pl give.ptcp a prize



‘S/he does not believe they have given him/her a prize.’

b. Recordes que els remember.prs.ind.2sg that them.dat

van donar finalment un premi? aux.prs.ind.3pl give.inf finally a prize



‘Do you remember that they finally gave them a prize?’

Some inherently negative predicates such as dubtar ‘doubt’ or ignorar ‘not know’ license the subjunctive in their complement clause (14). (14) a.

Dubto que guanyin l’ escó. doubt.prs.ind.1sg that win.prs.sbjv.3pl the.seat ‘I doubt that they will win the seat.’

b. Ignorava que hi emmagatzemesin armes. not.know.pst.ind.1sg that loc store.pst.sbjv.3pl weapons ‘I didn’t know that they stored weapons there.’

Next to those contexts where the dubitative subjunctive appears, we also find a set of ­predicates expressing possibility and probability that select ex­clu­si­vely for this sort of ­subjunctive (15). (15) a.

És possible que dimiteixi/ *dimiteix. be.prs.ind.3sg possible that resign.prs.sbjv.3sg/ resign.prs.ind.3sg ‘It is possible that he will resign.’

b. Consideren probable que l’ home consider.prs.ind.3pl probable that the-man

arribi/ *arriba a Mart. arrive.prs.sbjv.3sg/ arrive.prs.ind.3sg in Mars



‘They consider it probable that man will reach Mars.’

Unlike the volitional subjunctive, the dubitative subjunctive displays no re­stric­tions as to the sequence of tense (16a), it can be licensed in recursive em­bedding (16b) and no subject disjoint reference effects are at play (16c). (16) a.

No crec que ho fes amb mala intenció. not believe.prs.ind.1sg that it do.pst.sbjv.3sg with bad intention ‘I don’t think s/he did it with bad intentions.’

b. Dubto que creguin que doubt.prs.ind.1sg that believe.prs.sbjv.3pl that

ens hagin convençut amb això. us.acc have.prs.sbjv.3pl convince.ptcp with this



‘I doubt that they believe that they have convinced us with this.’



Mood in Catalan 

c.

No recordo que (jo) li not remember.prs.ind.1sg that I him.dat



hagi dit mai aquestes paraules. have.prs.sbjv.3sg say.ptcp never these words



‘I don’t remember having told her/him these words.’

c. Thematic or factive subjunctive: This type of subjunctive marks the con­tent of the clause as information known by the interlocutor or as old in­for­ma­tion in the speech context. It is argued to be standardly selected by fac­tive-emotive (psychological) predicates, which lexically presuppose the truth of their complement (17). (17) a.

Em molesta que xiulis. me.dat bother.prs.ind.3sg that whistle.prs.sbjv.2sg ‘It bothers me that you whistle.’

b. Li va agradar molt que him.dat aux.prs.ind.3sg please.inf a_lot that

li truquessis. him.dat call.pst.sbjv.2sg



‘It pleased him/her a lot that you called him/her.’

In some cases, though, the indicative also surfaces with these predicates. This happens, for instance, when they are used assertively (18). (18) a.

Es queixa que li tenen mania. refl complain.prs.ind.3sg that him.dat have.prs.ind.3pl dislike ‘S/he complains that they dislike him/her.’

b. Em va agradar que em me.dat aux.prs.ind.3sg please.inf that me.acc

van convidar a tot. aux.prs.ind.3pl invite.inf to everything



‘It pleased me that they treated me to everything.’

This kind of subjunctive also surfaces in subject clauses in preverbal posi­tion. The factive interpretation is sometimes made even more explicit by the use of the NP el fet ‘the fact’ introducing the subject clause. (19) (El fet) que no hagi arribat m’inquieta. the fact that not have.prs.sbjv.3sg arrive.ptcp me-worry.prs.ind.3sg ‘The fact that s/he hasn’t arrived worries me.’

Argument clause fronting licenses the subjunctive in principle, but only if there is a causal connection between the main and the subordinate pre­di­ca­tions, as in (19). If this connection is lacking, as in (20), the only option is in­dicative.

 Josep Quer

(20) Que menteix/ *menteixi, és obvi per a tothom. that lie.prs.ind.3sg/ lie.prs.sbjv.3sg be.prs.ind.3sg obvious for everyone ‘That s/he is lying is obvious to everyone.’

3.2.1  Argument clauses It is important to notice that the generalizations drawn for mood distribution ac­cording to verb classes also hold for argument clauses that are com­ple­ment to the related nouns and adjectives. So, for instance, like volitional pre­di­cates, the noun desig ‘desire’ and the adjective desitjós ‘eager’ ex­clusi­ve­ly take the volitional subjunctive in their complements. (21) a.

El desig que el jubilin/ *jubilen aviat. the desire that him.acc retire.prs.sbjv.3sg/ retire.prs.ind.3sg soon ‘the desire that they retire him soon’

b. Desitjós que el jubilin/ *jubilen aviat. eager that him.acc retire.prs.sbjv.3sg/ retire.prs.ind.3sg soon ‘eager to be retired soon’

It is important to notice that some categories of embedded clauses never al­low for subjunctive complements, even if the main predicate is negated or ques­tioned. This is the case of embedded interrogative clauses, as illustrated in (22). (22) a.

No pregunta si en tenim/ *tinguem ganes. not ask.prs.ind.3sg if ptl have.prs.ind.1pl/ have.prs.sbjv.1pl eagerness ‘S/he is not asking whether we feel like it.’

b. Investiguen què ha/ investigate.prs.ind.3pl what have.prs.ind.3sg/

*hagi passat. have.prs.sbjv.3sg happen.ptcp



‘They are investigating what happened.’

Eventuality-introducing predicates like resultar ‘turn out’ require indicative in their complement as well (23). (23) Resulta que tenen/ *tinguin raó. turn-out.prs.ind.3sg that have.prs.ind.3pl/ have.prs.sbjv.3pl right ‘It turns out that they are right.’

Verbs of speech and communication show a systematic double pattern with res­pect to mood selection: when used as assertive verbs, they take the in­di­ca­tive (24a),6 but when they are interpreted as directive verbs they take the vo­li­tional subjunctive (24b).

.  Unless when they are affected by negation or yes/no question, in which case they can also take dubitative subjunctive.



(24) a.

Mood in Catalan

Va cridar que tenia por. aux.prs.ind.3sg shout.inf that have.prs.ind.3sg fear ‘S/he shouted that s/he was scared.’

b. Va cridar que ens apartéssim. aux.prs.ind.3sg shout.inf that refl move_aside.pst.sbjv.1pl ‘S/he shouted at us to move aside.’

Other categories of predicates that take a non-lexically selected subjunctive, but can have it licensed by negation or in a yes/no question are epistemic verbs, assertive verbs, fiction verbs and perception verbs.

3.2.2  Relative clauses Restrictive relative clauses can appear with both moods, but the subjunctive must be licensed by an intensional element such as a volitional verb, ne­ga­tion or a yes/no question, for instance. The choice of mood has clear in­ter­pre­tive consequences, though: while the indicative generally flags a specific or referential reading of the antecedent (25a), the subjunctive triggers a non-spe­ci­fic or non-referential interpretation of the head noun (25b). In the latter case a purpose reading obtains sometimes (25c). (25) a.

Vol una nina que parla. want.prs.ind.3sg a doll that speak.prs.ind.3sg ‘S/he wants a (certain) doll that speaks.’

b. Vol una nina que parli. want.prs.ind.3sg a doll that speak.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘S/he wants a doll such that it speaks.’ c.

Vol una nina que la distregui. want.prs.ind.3sg a doll that her entertain.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘S/he wants a doll to entertain her.’

However, indicative relatives in generic contexts do not yield a specific or re­fer­ential interpretation of the antecedent, as in (26). (26) Sempre recompensen l’ alumne que s’ esforça. always reward.prs.ind.3pl the-student that refl-strive.prs.ind.3sg ‘They always reward the student that tries hard.’

3.2.3  Adjunct clauses In this section we will briefly mention a number of core cases of mood dis­tri­bution in the domain of adjunct clauses. Next to purpose clauses men­tion­ed above (see 3.2), the ones introduced by sense que ‘without that’ re­quire sub­junctive (27). (27) Va entrar sense que el sentíssim. aux.prs.ind.3sg enter.inf without that him.acc hear.pst.sbjv.1pl ‘He came in without us hearing him.’





Josep Quer

Temporal clauses can take the subjuntive when they have future reference, but future indicative is the preferred option in the standard language (28). (28) Descansaré quan ho hagi/ relax.fut.ind.1sg when it.acc have.prs.sbjv.1sg/ hauré entregat. have.fut.ind.1sg submit.inf ‘I will relax when I will have submitted it.’

Conditional sentences yield distinct interpretations according to the mood choices in the antecedent and the consequent, respectively: indicative – in­di­ca­tive in real conditionals (29a), past subjunctive – conditional in unreal (pres­ent counterfactual) conditionals (29b) and pluperfect subjunctive – con­di­tional perfect in past counterfactual conditionals (29c). In a more learn­ed form, unreal conditionals can take past imperfective indicative in the an­te­cedent (29d). (29) a.

Si té gana, agafarà una galeta. if have.prs.ind.3sg hunger take.fut.ind.3sg a cookie ‘If s/he is hungry, s/he will take a cookie.’

b. Si tingués gana, agafaria una galeta. if have.pst.sbjv.3sg hunger take.cond.3sg a cookie ‘If s/he were hungry, s/he would take a cookie.’ c.

Si hagués tingut gana, if have.pst.sbjv.3sg have.ptcp hunger



hauria agafat una galeta. have.cond.3sg take.ptcp a cookie



‘If s/he had been hungry, s/he would have taken a cookie.’

d. Si tenia gana, agafaria una galeta. if have.pst.ind.3sg hunger take.cond.3sg a cookie

‘If s/he were hungry, s/he would take a cookie.’

Concessive clauses can display indicative or subjunctive depending on the in­ten­ded interpretation of the subordinate clause: when it is asserted, the in­di­ca­tive is chosen (30a); when it is presented as shared or old information, the thematic subjunctive surfaces (30b). (30) a.

Tot_i_que s’equivoca, el recolzaré. although refl-be_mistaken.prs.ind.3sg him.acc support.ind.fut.1sg ‘Although he is wrong, I will support him.’

b. Encara.que siguis el meu amic, no even.though be.prs.sbjv.2sg the my friend not

t’ho perdono. you.dat-it.acc forgive.prs.ind.1sg



‘Even though you are my friend, I will not forgive it to you.’



Mood in Catalan

Concessive conditionals in all their varieties obligatorily take a subjunctive, yield­ing either present or past counterfactual readings (31). (31) a.

Vingui qui vingui, ens divertirem. come.prs.sbjv.3sg who come.prs.sbjv.3sg refl have_fun.fut.ind.1pl ‘Whoever comes, we will have fun.’

b. Hagués trucat o no, hauríem patit. have.pst.sbjv.3sg call.ptcp or not have.cond.1pl suffer.ptcp ‘Whether s/he had called or not, we would have suffered.’ c.

Encara_que protestin, ho farem. even_though protest.prs.sbjv.3pl it do.fut.ind.1pl ‘Even if they protest, we will do it.’

3.3  Modal uses of indicative mood In this section we will briefly present some of the modal uses of indicative tens­es, including the conditional.7 The present tense can be used in a prospective way to express future e­vents or intentions (32). It can also receive an imperative nuance when the sub­ject is identified with the interlocutor (33). (32) a.

Li ho comunico ara_mateix. him.dat it communicate.prs.ind.1sg right_now ‘I will tell him/her right now.’

b. Què li dic? What him.dat tell.prs.ind.1sg ‘What should I tell him?’ (33) Demà vas i ho compres. Tomorrow go.prs.ind.2sg and it buy.prs.ind.2sg ‘Tomorrow you go and buy it.’

The imperfective past, next to the use in the antecedent of unreal condi­tion­als instead of past subjunctive, has some modal uses: (i) imperfective past of frus­trated actions to  express hindered plans (34a); politeness imperfective past, used in dialogue contexts to express a desire or to ask for an intention in alternation with the conditional (34b); imperfective past in a conditional con­sequent, used colloquially instead of the conditional in order to em­phas­ize emotional expression (34c) (cf. 3.2.3 for its use in the antecedent).

.  For a more detailed account, see Pérez Saldanya (2002).



 Josep Quer

(34) a.

Marxava ahir de vacances, però leave.pst.impf.ind.2sg yesterday on holidays but



es va posar malalt. refl aux.prs.ind.3sg get.inf sick



‘He was leaving yesterday on a holiday, but he got sick.’

b. Volia dues ampolles de vi blanc. want.pst.impf.1sg two bottles of wine white ‘I would like two bottles of white wine.’ c.

Si estigués aquí, li ho deia tot. if be.pst.sbjv.3sg present, him.dat it tell.pst.impf.ind everything ‘If s/he were here, I would tell him/her everything.’

The future, as a consequence of its temporal reference, usually acquires mo­dal readings next to the strictly temporal ones: intentions and plans (35a); im­perative nuance when the interlocutor is associated to the subject (35b), or generic obligation (35c). (35) a.

Li ho explicaré tot. him.dat it explain.fut.ind.1sg everything ‘I’ll explain everything to him.’

b. Em regaràs les plantes, oi? me.dat water.fut.ind.2sg the plants right ‘You’ll water my plants, right?’ c.

El sol·licitant presentarà un currículum abreujat. the applicant hand-in.fut.ind.3sg a CV shortened ‘The applicant must/will hand in a short CV.’

The future can also be used to express probability, although this use is less wi­de­spread than in other Romance languages. Moreover, it can acquire con­ces­sive (36a) or surprise (36b) meanings in certain contexts. (36) a.

Serà flamenc, però parla el neerlandès fatal. be.fut.ind.3sg Flemish but speak.prs.ind.3sg the Dutch awfully ‘He might be Flemish, but he speaks awful Dutch.’

b. Serà galtes! be.fut.ind.3sg cheeky

‘Isn’t he cheeky!’

Finally, the uses of the conditional will be presented. The modal ones seem to have more prominence than the temporal ones in contemporary language, but its characterization as future in the past is still valid, especially in re­port­ed speech contexts (37). It can also transfer to the past the modal uses of the fu­ture tense just mentioned. Among the modal uses of the conditional, we must emphasize its occurrence in conditional consequent clauses (see 3.2.3), its politeness use – in parallel with the imperfective past indicative – (38a) and



Mood in Catalan

its use as evidentiality marker (38b). This last use of the conditional ap­pears in formal contexts where the utterer wants to make it clear that the in­for­mat­ion must be attributed to someone else or that the source of informat­ion is not completely reliable. (37) Vaig prometre que ho acabaria. aux.prs.ind.1sg promise.inf that it finish.cond.1sg ‘I promised that I would finish it.’ (38) a.

Voldria dues ampolles de vi blanc. want.cond.1sg two bottles of wine white ‘I would like two bottles of white wine.’

b. L’ atracador hauria marxat a peu. the-robber have.cond.3sg leave.ptcp on foot ‘The robber apparently left on foot.’

4.  Conclusions In this chaper we sketched an overview of the forms and uses of verbal moods in Catalan. After presenting the paradigms and the grammatical feat­ures that are realized in them, we focused on the uses of non-indicative moods in main clauses. Next we concentrated on the distribution of sub­junc­tive and indicative in embedded clauses. After characterizing the three types of subjunctive clauses, the main traits of mood distribution in different sub­ordi­nat­ion domains were highlighted. Finally, we presented an inventory of the main modal uses of indicative tenses, including the conditional. In the end it should have become clear that no rigid characterization for the inter­pre­tation and the distribution of mood can be maintained. Nevertheless, a de­tailed study of the interaction of lexical meaning of main predicates and the grammatical categories of mood, tense and aspect provides a better un­der­standing of the overall articulation of modal notions in the ­grammar of Cata­lan.

References IEC. 2003. Documents de la Secció Filològica, IV. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans. Moll, Francesc de B. 2006. Gramàtica històrica catalana. València: Publicacions de la Universitat de València. Perea, M.P. 2002. Flexió verbal regular. In Gramàtica del Català Contemporani, Vol. 1, J. Solà, M.R. Lloret, J. Mascaró & M. Pérez Saldanya (eds), 583–646. Barcelona: Editorial Empúries. Pérez Saldanya, M. 1988. Els sistemes modals de l’indicatiu i el subjuntiu. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat. Pérez Saldanya, M. 1998. Del llatí al català. Morfosintaxi verbal històrica. València: Publicacions de la Universitat de València.



 Josep Quer Pérez Saldanya, M. 2002. Les relacions temporals i aspectuals. In Gramàtica del Català Contemporani, Vol. 3, J. Solà, M.R. Lloret, J. Mascaró & M. Pérez Saldanya (eds), 2567–2662. Barcelona: Editorial Empúries. Picallo, C. 1985. Opaque Domains. Doctoral dissertation, CUNY. Quer, J. 1998. Mood at the Interface. The Hague: HAG. Quer, J. 2002. Subordinació i mode. In Gramàtica del Català Contemporani, Vol. 3, J. Solà, M.R. Lloret, J. Mascaró & M. Pérez Saldanya (eds), 2799–2866. Barcelona: Editorial Empúries. Veny, J. 1982. Els parlars catalans. Mallorca: Moll. Wheeler, M. 2002. Flexió verbal irregular i verbs defectius. In Gramàtica del Català Contemporani, Vol. 1, J. Solà, M.R. Lloret, J. Mascaró & M. Pérez Saldanya (eds), 647–729. Barcelona: Editorial Empúries. Wheeler, M.W., Yates, A. & Dols, N. 1999. Catalan. A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.

Mood in Italian Mario Squartini Torino

1.  Italian Italian is a Romance language with a rich morphological system that is regularly expressed as fusive inflectional endings on nouns and adjectives, but is mostly concentrated on the verb as synthetic inflections and analytic auxiliary forms with various functions (tense, aspect, mood, person and voice). In addition, Italian verbs host a large set of clitics, either pronominal or encoding argument relations (reflexives and reciprocals), as well as syntactic structures (middle, anticausative, impersonal and passive). Some features of this complex grammatical system are largely dependent on stylistic and regional variation, which will be marginally mentioned in what follows. The main focus will be on the standard variety of modern Italian, thus excluding the varied array of Romance dialects that coexist with the (regional) standard in some areas (for a general survey on the dialects of Italy, including their verb systems see Maiden & Parry 1997).

2.  The Italian verb system Tense, aspect and mood are expressed by synthetic and analytic verb forms, whose coexistence characterizes the whole architecture of the Italian verb system (see Bertinetto 1986 for a comprehensive account). The analytic forms, deriving from late Latin or proto­Romance innovations, are dedicated to a given aspectual meaning, while in the synthetic forms aspectual, temporal and modal meanings are combined, in some cases showing a form-function distribution that can be traced back to the Latin verb system. There are two basic analytic forms, the compound perfect (auxiliaries ‘have’ or ‘be’ + the (past) participle of the lexical verb) and the progressive (the verb stare ‘be (mainly as locative and postural verb)’ + the gerund of the lexical verb), both having a specific aspectual meaning. Nonetheless, it must be emphasized that their grammatical status is not comparable for the Perfect is an obligatory form, while the Progressive can be substituted by synthetic forms. The compound perfect expresses a perfect meaning, i.e. anteriority with respect to a reference time, that can coincide with the speech time but can also be located in the past (Pluperfect) and in the future (Future Perfect). In some varieties of spoken Italian (mostly but not only Northern varieties, see Bertinetto & Squartini 1996) the Present Perfect ousted the synthetic perfective form (Simple Past), eventually ­covering



Mario Squartini

any perfective functions. On the other hand, progressive forms are consistently dedicated to progressive meaning, irrespectively of temporal restrictions, as is demonstrated by the compatibility with past, future and present temporal references (see Table 1). Their speciali­ zation as imperfective is confirmed by the non-occurrence with intrinsically perfective forms: unlike some other Romance languages the Simple Past Progressive and the Present Perfect Progressive do not exist in contemporary Italian. The synthetic Imperfect, Simple Past, Conditional and Future require a multifunctional definition that involves aspect, tense and modality. The Simple Past has aspectual and temporal functions, being aspectually perfective but also inherently past, while the Imperfect, Conditional and Future not only have aspectual and temporal, but also modal functions. However, analytic and synthetic forms are strictly intertwined. As shown in Table 1, all the synthetic tenses except the Simple Past display a Progressive and a Perfect inheriting the intermingled (aspectual, temporal and modal) nature of the synthetic forms. Thus, the system admits only one past progressive based on the Imperfect, but two different Pluperfects that combine the Imperfect (aveva cantato) and the Simple Past (ebbe cantato) with the analytic participial perfect, the former mixing canonical perfect-in-the-past and past-in-the-past functions with the modal functions inherited from the Imperfect. The Conditional and the Future also have progressive and perfect forms in which the specific aspectual meaning of the latter is combined with the intrinsic temporal and modal meanings of the Future and Conditional. Table 1.  Synthetic and analytic verb forms in Italian (3rd person singular) imperfect Synthetic forms Perfect Progressive

simple past present

cantava cantò aveva cantato ebbe cantato stava cantando *

future

conditional

canta canterà canterebbe ha cantato avrà cantato avrebbe cantato sta cantando starà cantando starebbe cantando

The passive voice is also expressed analytically by two coexisting paradigms made of the auxiliaries ‘be’ and ‘come’ that can be combined with all synthetic forms while they have notable morphological gaps in the combination with Progressives and Perfects (see Squartini 1999 for details).

3.  Italian moods 3.1  Subjunctive The Italian verb system also comprises a full paradigm of forms traditionally called Congiuntivo ‘Subjunctive’ that mirrors the combination of synthetic and analytic forms described above. The two basic synthetic forms, the Present and Imperfect Subjunctive, are



Mood in Italian 

combined with the analytic Progressive and Perfect, the latter producing the Subjunctive Perfect and Pluperfect. As shown in Table 2, this distribution delivers a system in which the Simple Past, Future and Conditional Subjunctive do not occur. Table 2.  Italian Subjunctive (3rd person singular) Synthetic forms Perfect Progressive

imperfect

simple past

present

future

conditional

cantasse avesse cantato stesse cantando

* * *

canti abbia cantato stia cantando

* * *

* * *

3.2  Imperative Despite its partial homophonicity with different forms of the Indicative, the Italian Imperative can be considered as a separate morphological mood due to its morphosyntactic properties. In particular, clitic position disambiguates between homophonous forms. In (1) the postverbal clitic lo ‘it’ forces the interpretation of the form as an Imperative, which is also compatible with the falling intonational pattern of the utterance. On the contrary, in an interrogative clause (2) the same form with preposed clitic is interpreted as the 2nd singular of the Present Indicative: (1) Leggi-lo qui! read.imp.sg-it here ‘Read it here!’ (2) Quando lo leggi? when it read.ind.prs.2sg ‘When do you read it /are you going to read it?’

The alternation in (1)–(2) also occurs with the 1st and 2nd persons plural. In the scope of negation the 2nd singular form occurring in imperative clauses is homophonous with the Infinitive: (3) Non legger-lo! neg read.inf-it ‘Don’t read it!’

Jussive illocutionary acts referred to other grammatical persons, in particular the 3rd singular and plural used as reverential forms are expressed by the Subjunctive, that, unlike the Imperative, requires preposed clitics: (4) Lo legga / leggano qui! it read.sbjv.prs.3sg read.sbjv.prs.3pl here ‘Read it here, (please)!’

 Mario Squartini

3.3  Other moods? Along with three non-finite moods, the Infinitive, the Gerund and the (past) Participle, traditional Italian grammars also consider the Conditional as a proper mood. Actually, this form has a prominent temporal function (future in the past) that is strictly intertwined with modal functions (non-factuality), and in fact its interpretation as a mood or a tense is still a debated issue in Romance linguistics (Squartini 2004). Note, however, that the same inconsistency is shown by the Future, which is also characterized by the coexistence of temporal (futural) and modal (epistemic) functions in one and the same form. Moreover, the Conditional and the Future can be lumped together due to their morphological diachronic origin, for they both derive from a parallel process of gradual univerbation of two analytic proto-Romance forms made of the infinitive of the lexical verb followed by different forms of the verb ‘have’. Nonetheless, there are synchronic arguments demonstrating that the Conditional shares some significant features with the Subjunctive, making it distinct from the Future and the other Indicative forms. The Conditional and the Subjunctive jointly occur in conditional clauses, the Subjunctive in protases and the Conditional in apodoses. In this context the Imperfect Subjunctive and the Conditional denote situations presented as still factually possible and therefore not compatible with past temporal reference (see Mazzoleni 1991 for details): (5) Se adesso/ domani/ *ieri fosse qui, finiremmo. if now/ tomorrow/ yesterday be.sbjv.impf.3sg here finish.cond.1pl ‘If s/he were here now/tomorrow/yesterday, we would finish it.’

If the protasis contains a Subjunctive Pluperfect and the apodosis a Conditional Perfect the situation is presented as less factual, including counterfactual interpretations. With these forms there are no temporal restrictions, present, future and past reference being equally grammatical, which demonstrates the primary role played by modality, while temporal meaning is secondary or totally neutralized.1

.  In informal varieties of Italian the same neutralization is attested with the Imperfect and Pluperfect Indicative (i)–(ii), two forms having other significant aspectual and temporal functions as imperfective past and perfect in the past respectively, but also admitted as counterfactual marker in conditional clauses as well as in other modal uses (Squartini 1995:  120–123). The difference between the Imperfect and the Pluperfect in (i)–(ii) is connected to their aspectual meaning: the Pluperfect has a perfectal interpretation indicating anteriority with respect to a given reference time, which is denoted by the adverb already ‘già’ in (ii). (i)

Se adesso/ domani/ ieri era qui, finivamo. if now/ tomorrow/ yesterday be.ind.impf.3sg here finish.ind.impf.1.pl ‘If s/he had been here now/tomorrow/yesterday we would have finished it.’ Se adesso/ domani/ ieri era già arrivato, if now/ tomorrow/ yesterday be.ind.impf.3sg already arrive.ptcp.m.sg avevamo finito. have.ind.impf.1pl finish.ptcp.m.sg ‘If now/tomorrow/yesterday he had already arrived, we would have finished it.’



Mood in Italian

(6) Se adesso/ domani/ ieri fosse if now/ tomorrow/ yesterday be.sbjv.impf.3sg stato qui, avremmo finito. be.ptcp.m.sg here have.cond.1pl finish.ptcp.m.sg ‘If s/he had been here now/tomorrow/yesterday, we would have finished it.’

From this point of view, the Subjunctive and the Conditional show a different behaviour with respect to the Future, that, even if occurring in conditional clauses and involving a reduction of factuality, still maintains its intrinsic temporal meaning. The Future is admitted in future but not in present (7) and past contexts (8), the latter being also incompatible with the Future Perfect (8): (7) Se (*adesso)/ domani sarai stanco, puoi dormire if now/ tomorrow be.fut.2sg tired.m.sg may.ind.prs.2sg sleep.inf ‘If now/tomorrow you are tired, you may have a rest.’ (8) *Se ieri sarai/ sarai stato if yesterday be.fut.2sg/ be.fut.2sg be.ptcp.m.sg stanco, dovevi dormire. tired.m.sg must.ind.impf.2sg sleep.inf ‘If yesterday you’ll be tired, you should have had a rest.’

These data are particularly interesting if one considers that the Italian Future (9) and Future Perfect (10) do appear in present and past contexts expressing the speaker’s own conjectures on a given state of affairs: (9) Adesso sarai stanco. now be.fut.2sg tired.m.sg ‘You must be tired now.’ (10) Ieri sarai stato stanco. yesterday be.fut.2sg be.ptcp.m.sg tired.m.sg ‘You must have been tired yesterday.’

The contrasts (7) vs (9) and (8) vs (10) demonstrate that the epistemic meaning expressed by the Future in (9)–(10) is not compatible with the reduction of factuality inherent in ­conditional clauses, where the Future can only occur with its temporal meaning (7), this being a significant difference with respect to the Subjunctive and the Conditional.

Note, however, that unlike the Conditional and the Subjunctive in (6) the Imperfect and Pluperfect Indicative only convey a counterfactual meaning (see Mazzoleni 1991: 762–763 for ­disambiguating examples).



 Mario Squartini

Another element demonstrating the functional relationship of the Conditional and the Subjunctive is provided by (11), a substandard and acquisitional L1 example, showing that the Conditional not only collocates with the Subjunctive in conditional clause, but can also replace the Subjunctive in protases: (11) Se sarebbe in casa, risponderebbe. if be.cond.3sg at home answer.cond.3sg ‘If he were at home, he would answer.’

These functional and syntactic properties of the Conditional confirm the similarity with the Subjunctive, singling out both forms with respect to other forms of the Italian verb system and providing support to the traditional view that considers the Subjunctive and the Conditional as moods opposed to the Indicative.

3.4  Restrictions of moods to specific tense-aspect As shown in Table 2 the Subjunctive has a complete set of verb forms covering different temporal and aspectual functions. As far as tense-aspect is concerned, the Subjunctive partially mirrors the semantics of the Indicative with some neutralizations. The basic aspectual opposition between perfectivity and imperfectivity is expressed by the pair Perfect/Imperfect Subjunctive, with the Pluperfect partially sharing the aspectual meaning of the Perfect. If combined with the adverb già ‘already’, the Perfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive unambiguously convey a perfectal interpretation, as in (12), where a past situation is presented in its current results with respect to the speech time (12a), and to a past reference time (12b). On the contrary, the Imperfect Subjunctive can denote an ongoing situation, as confirmed by the compatibility with the progressive interpretation in (12c): (12) a. Credo che abbia già mangiato. believe.ind.prs.1sg comp have.sbjv.prs.sg already eat.ptcp.m.sg ‘I believe that s/he has already eaten.’ b. Credevo che avesse già mangiato. believe.ind.impf.1sg comp have.sbjv.impf.3sg already eat.ptcp.m.sg ‘I believed that s/he had already eaten.’ c.

Credevo che mangiasse già. believe.ind.impf.1sg comp eat.sbjv.impf.3sg already ‘I believed that s/he was already eating.’

In the aspectual domain, the distinction between the Indicative Perfect and Simple Past is neutralized by the Perfect Subjunctive, as is also the case with the temporal distinction between the Present and the Future, which is neutralized by the Present Subjunctive (there is no Future Subjunctive).



Mood in Italian 

Unlike the Subjunctive, the Conditional has a reduced paradigm with a simple and a compound form (see Table 1 above), a distinction that is interpreted as not only aspectual but also as temporal, the Perfect being the only Conditional form occurring with past temporal reference, as shown in (5)–(6) above.

3.5  Syntactic restrictions Among the Italian finite moods the Subjunctive and the Imperative can be singled out due to their syntactic restrictions for they never occur in declarative independent clauses. The Imperative is restricted to imperative clauses, an independent non-declarative syntactic structure in which the Subjunctive can also appear (see Section  4.1.4). The Subjunctive occurs in various syntactic structures (see Section 4.1), including complement subordinate clauses (13), while it is excluded in declarative main clauses (14), where the Indicative is grammatical: (13) Temo che sia lui a-l telefono. fear.ind.prs.1sg comp be.sbjv.prs.sg him at-def phone ‘I am afraid it’s him on the phone.’ (14) È / *sia lui a-l telefono. be.ind.prs.3sg be.sbjv.prs.sg him at-def phone ‘It’s him on the phone.’

This basic syntactic restriction also distinguishes the Subjunctive not only from the Indicative but also from the Conditional, which can occur in declarative main clauses with its own modal meaning. In (15) the Conditional might be used to mitigate the illocutionary force of the assertion in a context in which the speaker prevents possible objections from the addressee: (15) Sarebbe lui a-l telefono … be.cond.3sg him at-def phone ‘It would be him on the phone …’

Note, however, that the distribution of the Subjunctive and the other moods cannot be described as totally complementary, for the Indicative is also admitted in subordinate clauses, such as a complement clause depending on the matrix verb pensare ‘think, believe’: (16) Pensavo che fosse / era tardi. believe.ind.impf.1sg comp be.sbjv.impf.3sg be.ind.impf.3sg late ‘I believed it was late.’

Data such as (16) demonstrate that the Subjunctive is not always obligatory in dependent clauses, its occurrence being submitted to a multifarious array of semantic but also sociolinguistic and geographic factors that will be mentioned in Section 4.1.1. As far as morphosyntactic properties are concerned it must be added that in a context such as (16)

 Mario Squartini

the Subjunctive becomes mandatory if the complementizer is omitted, a morphosyntactic structure that excludes the Indicative Imperfect (Schmitt-Jensen 1970: 92; Giorgi & Pianesi 1997: 232–234):2 (17) Pensavo (che) fosse / *(che) era tardi. believe.ind.impf.1sg comp be.sbjv.impf.3sg comp be.ind.impf.3sg late ‘I believed it was late.’

Even though controversial (see Nilsson-Ehle’s 1947 data but also Giorgi & Pianesi 1997: 270, fn. 41), the complementizer omission is also admitted with the Conditional and, more marginally, with the Future: (18) Penso (che) sarebbe meglio smettere. think.ind.prs.1sg comp be.cond.3sg better stop.inf ‘I think it would be better to stop it.’ (19) Penso ?(che) sarà meglio smettere. think.ind.prs.1sg comp be.fut.3sg better stop.inf ‘I think it will be better to stop it.’

Whatever functional interpretation of this morphosyntactic phenomenon should be proposed (see Wanner 1981 and Schneider 1999: 191–193), it is a fact that it partially crosscuts the list of possible Italian moods, for it includes the Subjunctive and the Conditional, while not totally excluding the Future.

4.  Meaning and use of the Italian moods 4.1  Subjunctive Among non-declarative and subordinate clauses the Subjunctive occurs in various syntactic structures, including complement, adverbial, relative, independent non-declarative clauses such as imperative clauses. The selection of the Subjunctive, as opposed to other moods in these syntactic structures, is due to the multifarious interplay of diverse semantic, morphosyntactic and stylistic features (see Wandruszka 2001; Prandi 2002; Blücher 2003), that will be briefly summed up in the following sections.

4.1.1  Complement clauses The role of semantics in the selection of the Subjunctive is particularly apparent in complement clauses, where the Subjunctive is not admitted in clauses depending on verbs of .  For the diachronic and stylistic variation of this phenomenon see Blasco-Ferrer (1994) and Schneider (1999:  191–192). Note, however, that some of their data are controversial, being also possibly interpreted as parenthetic uses instead of instances of complementizer omission.



Mood in Italian

­ erception. These require the Indicative due to their intrinsic commitment to the factuality p of the objectively perceived situation: (20) Mi accorgo che è/ (ind)obj.1sg realize.ind.prs.1sg comp be.ind.prs.1sg *sia partito. be.sbjv.prs.sg leave.ptcp.m.sg ‘I realize that he (has) left.’

On the contrary, the Subjunctive occurs in clauses depending on predicates not committed in asserting the propositional content, expressing volition (21a) and deontic necessity (21b), modulating the epistemic commitment (21c), or evaluating the propositional content, thus presupposing and pragmatically presenting it as thematic (21d): (21) a.

Voglio che A. parta oggi. want.ind.prs.1sg comp A. leave.sbjv.prs.sg today ‘I want A. to leave today.’

b. È necessario che A. parta oggi. be.ind.prs.3sg necessary comp A. leave.sbjv.prs.sg today ‘It’s necessary for A. to leave today.’ c.

Credo che A. parta oggi. think.ind.prs.1sg comp A. leave.sbjv.prs.sg today ‘I think that A. is leaving today.’

d. Mi dispiace che A. parta oggi. (ind)obj.1sg regret.ind.prs.3sg comp A. leave.sbjv.prs.sg today ‘I regret that A. is leaving today.’

The influence of the thematic function of the complement clause is confirmed by the contrast in (22a–b), which demonstrate that the Subjunctive is admitted even with strongly assertive predicates (sapere ‘know’) provided that the complement clause is left-dislocated, thus signalling its thematic function: (22) a. *So che sia partito. know.ind.prs.1sg comp be.sbjv.prs.sg leave.ptcp.m.sg ‘I know that he (has) left.’ b. Che sia partito lo so. comp be.sbjv.prs.sg leave.ptcp.m.sg it know.ind.prs.1sg ‘I know that he (has) left.’

Significant elements interacting with the intrinsic semantics of the matrix predicate are negations and interrogatives, which independently require the Subjunctive (Giorgi & Pianesi 1997: 200). The role of negation is demonstrated by (23), where the Subjunctive is only admitted if the strongly assertive predicate dire ‘say’ is negated:



 Mario Squartini

(23) a. *Dico che sia partito. say.ind.prs.1sg comp be.sbjv.prs.sg leave.ptcp.m.sg ‘I say that he (has) left.’ b. Non dico che sia partito. neg say.ind.prs.1sg comp be.sbjv.prs.sg leave.ptcp.m.sg ‘I don’t say that he (has) left.’

As far as interrogatives are concerned, the Subjunctive in the complement clause embedded in a direct yes/no question (24) can be compared to its declarative counterpart (22a) barring the Subjunctive, but it can be noted that Italian more generally admits the Subjunctive in indirect questions (25): (24) Sai se sia partito? know.ind.prs.2sg if be.sbjv.prs.sg leave.ptcp.m.sg ‘Do you know whether he (has) left?’ (25) Chiedono se sia partito. ask.ind.prs.3pl if be.sbjv.prs.sg leave.ptcp.m.sg ‘They ask whether he (has) left?’

It must be added that the occurrence of the Subjunctive in complement clauses varies according to geographic (Schneider 1999: 188) and sociolinguistic factors, the Indicative being traditionally described as replacing the Subjunctive in oral varieties and informal registers. Nonetheless, the sociolinguistic variation seems to be sensitive to the semantic nature of the matrix clause: the Subjunctive has been demonstrated as more resistant when depending on verbs of volition or desire (Lombardi Vallauri 2003), while Schneider (1999:  136–138) concludes that a lower degree of epistemic commitment favours the occurrence of the Subjunctive in data from oral corpora.

4.1.2  Adverbial clauses Along with conditional clauses (see 3.3), the Subjunctive occurs in other adverbial clauses (mostly concessive, purpose and temporal clauses) depending on sociolinguistic factors. In some cases its occurrence is triggered by the collocation with a given subordinative conjunction. Consider the concessive clauses in (26), in which the Subjunctive is required by the conjunction sebbene (26a), while anche se (26b) triggers the Indicative, despite the semantic similarity of the two conjunctions: (26) a.

Sebbene fosse presto, era buio. even_if be.sbjv.impf.3sg early be.ind.impf.3sg dark ‘Even though it was early, it was dark.’

b. Anche se era presto, era buio. even if be.ind.impf.3sg early be.ind.impf.3sg dark ‘Even though it was early, it was dark.’



Mood in Italian 

4.1.3  Relative clauses The Subjunctive also occurs in restrictive relative clauses declaring some properties of the antecedent without asserting its referential existence (27). Non-referentiality, even reinforced by a negative element, does not exclude the Indicative (28a), while asserted referentiality does exclude the Subjunctive (28b): (27) Cerco qualcuno che parli russo. look.ind.prs.1sg someone rel speak.sbjv.prs.sg Russian ‘I am looking for someone who can speak Russian.’ (28) a.

Non vedevo nessuno che neg see.ind.impf.1sg nobody rel



conoscevo/ conoscessi. know.ind.impf.1sg/ know.sbjv.impf.1/2sg



‘I did’t see anybody I knew.’

b. Vedevo uno che conoscevo/ *conoscessi. see.ind.impf.1sg one rel know.ind.impf.1sg/ know.impf.sbjv.1/2sg ‘I saw somebody I knew.’

4.1.4  Subjunctive and Imperative in independent non-declarative clauses As mentioned in Section 3.2, both the Subjunctive and the Imperative occur in imperative clauses with a formal split sensitive to the grammatical person (see (1) and (4) above). While in these cases they share the same iussive function, there are other contexts in which they are not semantically interchangeable: unlike the Imperative, the Subjunctive can also acquire a different illocutionary force expressing a wish rather than an order (29). This construction is characterized by the optional occurrence of the complementizer che and admits different degrees of factual commitment requiring the Imperfect Subjunctive (29b) for wishes considered as less probable than those expressed by the Present Subjunctive (29a): (29) a.

(Che) Dio ti benedica! comp God you bless.sbjv.prs.sg ‘God bless you!’

b. Almeno piovesse! if only rain.sbjv.impf.3sg ‘If only it would rain!’

In independent non-declarative clauses the Subjunctive can also acquire an epistemic meaning (dubitative conjectures), occurring in interrogative clauses with mandatory complementizer che: (30) [La luce è accesa] Che sia a casa? [The light is on] comp be.sbjv.prs.sg at home ‘Is s/he at home?’

 Mario Squartini

4.2  Conditional As mentioned in Section  3.3, the Conditional collocates with the Subjunctive in conditional clauses, where it canonically occurs in the apodosis. Reference to possible worlds, such as those characterizing conditional clauses, is a primary semantic feature of the Conditional even when it occurs in complement clauses. Consider the Conditional in (31), that can be compared with the Subjunctive in (21c). Unlike the Subjunctive, that has no modal additional overtone, the Conditional is acceptable only when implying a modal condition (if s/he could), thus instantiating a possible world: (31) Credo che partirebbe oggi [se potesse]. think.ind.prs.1sg comp leave.cond.3sg today [if s/he could] ‘I think that s/he would leave today.’

Along with its modal meaning connected to different degrees of non-factuality the Conditional also has a specific temporal meaning denoting the future in the past in sequence of tenses (32a) as well as independent clauses (32b). Unlike other Romance languages, the form required is the Conditional Perfect and not the simple Conditional, the latter being still attested in 19th c. literary texts: (32) a.

A. disse che sarebbe arrivata alle 5. A. say.pst.3sg comp be.cond.3sg arrive.ptcp.f.sg at.def.f.pl 5 ‘A. said that she would arrive at 5.’

b. Noi siamo arrivati alle 4. we be.ind.prs.1pl arrive.ptcp.m.pl at.def.f.pl 4

A. sarebbe arrivata un’ ora più tardi. A. be.cond.3sg arrive.ptcp.f.sg indf hour more late



‘We arrived at 4. A. was to arrive one hour later.’

Like other Romance languages, the Italian Conditional also occurs in evidential contexts expressing a report ascribed to a given source or a generic hearsay: (33) Secondo lui A. sarebbe già partita. according him A. be.cond.3sg already leave.ptcp.f.sg ‘According to him, A. has already left.’

Among pragmatic extensions possibly derived from its modal meaning, example (15) above demonstrates that the Conditional can also mitigate the illocutionary force of the assertion.

5.  Analytic mood markers? Among possible analytic mood markers, it can be mentioned that the Italian deontic and epistemic modal dovere ‘must’ + infinitive also occurs in combination with the Subjunctive



Mood in Italian 

Imperfect in protases of conditional clauses with no specific epistemic (inferential, conjectural) or deontic meaning. In such contexts dovere + infinitive only contributes to marking the reduction of the factual commitment intrinsically expressed by the Subjunctive Imperfect: (35) (Se) dovessero chiamare, avverti-mi. if must.sbjv.impf.3pl call.inf inform.imp-me ‘Should they call, let me know.’

6.  Conclusion The description presented above has confirmed the primary role of the Italian Subjunctive as prototypical mood having syntactic restrictions combined with a modal meaning particularly apparent in conditional clauses. The Imperative also associates a modal (deontic) meaning with specific syntactic restrictions, while the Conditional mixes different meanings not only modal (non-factuality, evidentiality and future in the past) and is not only subordinative. On the other hand, non-finite moods only have syntactic restrictions but no intrinsic modal meaning, and other finite forms such as the Future, the Indicative Imperfect and Pluperfect have, among others, modal meanings but no syntactic restrictions.

References Bertinetto, P.M. 1986. Tempo, aspetto, azione nel verbo italiano. Il sistema dell’indicativo. Florence: Accademia della Crusca. Bertinetto, P.M. & Squartini, M. 1996. La distribuzione del Perfetto Semplice e del Perfetto Composto nelle diverse varietà di italiano. Romance Philology 49: 383–419. Blasco-Ferrer, E. 1994. Italiano colloquiale “Temo sia molto incavolato con me”, español coloquial “Temo esté cabreabo conmigo”. Analisi descrittiva e diacronica delle completive senza complementatore. In Sprachlicher Alltag. Linguistik – Rhetorik – Literaturwissenschaft. Festschrift für Wolf-Dieter Stempel, A. Sabban & C. Schmitt (eds), 41–72. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Blücher, K. 2003. Modalità, modo, ‘concordanza modale’. Una prospettiva teorica. In Il verbo italiano. Studi diacronici, sincronici, contrastivi, didattici [Atti SLI 46], M. Giacomo-Marcellesi & A. Rocchetti (eds), 169–177. Rome: Bulzoni. Giorgi, A. & Pianesi, F. 1997. Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP. Lombardi Vallauri, E. 2003. Vitalità del congiuntivo nell’italiano parlato. In Italia linguistica anno Mille. Italia linguistica anno Duemila [Atti SLI 45], N. Maraschio & T. Poggi Salani (eds), 609–634. Rome: Bulzoni. Maiden, M. & Parry, M. (eds). 1997. The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge. Mazzoleni, M. 1991. Frasi avverbiali: Ipotetiche. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. 2, L. Renzi & G. Salvi (eds), 751–784. Bologna: il Mulino. Nilsson-Ehle, H. 1947. Les propositions complétives justapoxées en italien modern. Lund.

 Mario Squartini Prandi, M. 2002. C’è un valore per il congiuntivo? In Intorno al congiuntivo, L. Schena, M. Prandi & M. Mazzoleni (eds), 29–44. Bologna: clueb. Schneider, S. 1999. Il congiuntivo tra modalità e subordinazione. Rome: Carocci. Schmitt Jensen, J. 1970. Subjonctif et hypotaxe en italien. Une esquisse de la syntaxe du subjonctif dans les propositions subordonnées en italien contemporain. Odense: Odense University Press. Squartini, M. 1995. Tense and aspect in Italian. In Tense Systems in European Languages II, R. Thieroff (ed.), 117–134. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Squartini, M. 1999. Voice clashing with aspect: The case of Italian passives. Rivista di Linguistica 11: 341–365. Squartini, M. 2004. La relazione semantica tra Futuro e Condizionale nelle lingue romanze. Revue romane 39(1): 68–96. Wandruszka, U. 2001. Frasi subordinate al congiuntivo. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. 2, L. Renzi & G. Salvi (eds), 415–481. Bologna: il Mulino. Wanner, D. 1981. Surface complementizer deletion: Italian “che-0”. Journal of Italian Linguistics 6: 47–82.

Mood in Rumanian Martin Becker Cologne

1.  Introduction The Rumanian language belongs, together with the extinct Dalmatian, to the so-called Balkanromania and comprises four variants, namely Dacorumanian (spoken in ­Rumania and the Republic of Moldova), Istrorumanian (Croatia), Aromunian (Albania, Macedonia) and Meglenorumanian (Macedonia and North Greek). Seen from a typological point of view, Rumanian has many ties: it shares phonetic features with the members of the Eastern Romania (for instance Standard Italian). With the preservation of the Latin futurum exactum until the 16th century in Dacorumanian and still some traces in Aromunian and Istrorumanian, the language turns out to be a true member of the Peripherical Romania (the so-called Randromania) (see Puşcariu 1943: 281).1 Another kinship, which is particularly highlighted by the typological research, is the belonging of Rumanian to the so-called Balkan sprachbund. A central feature, which is put forward in the debate, is the fact that Rumanian like other members of this group (e.g. Bulgarian, Macedonian) selects a Subjunctive and not an Infinitive construction in control structures (see below). The Subjunctive in these contexts has been labelled as ‘Balkan infinitive’, a term which might be more misleading than helpful as we will see in this article (for a detailed account see Haase 1994).

2.  M  orphology: Present indicative, present subjunctive and the competing conditional The inflectional paradigm of the Rumanian Subjunctive had been strongly reduced until the 16th century when the language surfaced for the first time in written texts, especially in religious translations in the environment of the Reformation and in historical chronicles.

.  The Latin futurum exactum developed into a synthetic conditional in Rumanian. Given the homonymic paradigm with the perfect subjuntive (cantaverim, cantaveris, cantaverit), which disappeared quite early in the evolution of Latin, there is still a debate about the impact of that form (see Álvarez Rodríguez 2001). The synthetic conditional has the following paradigm (Rosetti 1968: 153 & 549): întrare/întraru, întrari, întrare, întrarem(u), întraret/întrareţi, întrare. See also CaragiuMarioţeanu 1969, 270s.



Martin Becker

Given that the Indicative can only be distinguished morphologically from the Subjunctive in the third person singular (and with some verb classes also in the third person plural), the invariable particle să has become essential for mood marking. Some verbs entirely lack mood distinctions by inflection, for instance the verbs a ştie ‘know’ (el/ea ştie and să ştie) and a scrie ‘write’ (el/ea scrie and să scrie). Unfortunately, we do not know anything about the reanalysis of the conditional particle să, which derived from the Latin conjunction si (se (16th century) > să). Greek represents a well-attested example for the reanalysis of a conjunction: Here too, the inflectional system fell apart and the subordinator ina (in COMP), which was morpho-phonologically reduced to na, was reanalysed as a mood particle and hence incorporated into the IP-complex (Philippaki-Warburton & Spyropoulos 2004). However, we should be cautious with drawing a direct parallel to developments in Rumanian, given that Greek ina was a subordinator in the context of final clauses, whereas să acted and still acts (see below) as a conditional conjunction. In view of the lacking documentation until the 16th century, the question why să changed into a mood particle, which predominantly occurs in the deontic and buletic domain (i.e. in sentences introduced by wish and want predicates), is likely to remain a secret. In the following tables we give an overview of the Indicative and the Subjunctive of the different verb classes: the a-class: lat. cantare > a cînta, the ea-class: lat. habere > a avea, the e-class: lat. quaerere > a cere, the i-class: dormire > a dormi and the generally ignored2 î-class, whose members normally do not have a Latin etymology: a coborî. Taking a glance at the Indicative paradigm, we see that for the a- and the î-class the singular and the plural forms of the third person are the same, whereas for the other classes the forms of the first person singular and the third person plural coincide (a cădea, a cere and a dormi). Table 1.  The Indicative paradigm in Rumanian Class

A-class

EA-class

E-class

I-class

Î-class

Infinitive

a ajut-a ‘help’ ajut-∅ ajuţ-i ajut-ă ajut-ăm ajut-aţi ajut-ă

a căd-ea ‘fall’ cad-∅ caz-i cad-e căd-em căd-eţi cad-∅

a cer-e ‘desire’ cer-∅ cer-i cer-e cer-em cer- eţi cer-∅

a dorm-i ‘sleep’ dorm-∅ dorm-i doarm-e dorm-im dorm-iţi dorm-∅

a cobor-î ‘go down’ cobor-∅ cobor-i coboar-ă cobor-îm cobor-îţi coboar-ă

1 sg 2 sg 3 sg 1 pl 2 pl 3 pl

.  Caragiu-Marioţeanu 1969, 254ss. distinguishes, for example, only 4 groups in her contribution to the ambitious History of the Rumanian Language (Istoria Lîmbii Române) edited by the Academy of the Socialist Republic of Rumania.



Mood in Rumanian

The comparison of the Subjunctive paradigm shows that only the form of the third person singular and of the third person plural diverge for all verb classes from the Indicative flexional morphology. Table 2.  The Subjunctive paradigm in Rumanian Class

A-class

EA-class

E-class

I-class

Î-class

Infinitive 1 sg 2 sg 3 sg 1 pl 2 pl 3 pl

a ajut-a să ajut-∅ să ajuţ-i să ajut-e să ajut-ăm să ajut-aţi să ajut-e

a căd-ea să cad-∅ să caz-i să cad-ă să căd-em să căd-eţi să cad-ă

a cer-e să cer-∅ să cer-i să cear-ă să cer-em să cer- eţi să cear-ă

a dorm-i să dorm-∅ să dorm-i să doarm-ă să dorm-im să dorm-iţi să doarm-ă

a cobor-î să cobor-∅ să cobor-i să coboar-e să cobor-îm să cobor-îţi să coboar-e

In contrast to other languages, Rumanian does not dispose of a past Subjunctive form any more: the Latin etymon, the Subjunctive Pluperfect (cantavissem, cantavisses, cantavisset etc.), had evolved into an Indicative Pluperfect (cântasem, cântaseşi, cântase). Interestingly enough, the plural forms are a fusion of the Pluperfect Indicative and the Pluperfect Subjunctive paradigm (cantavissemus + cantaverat: cântaserăm, cântaserăţi, cântaseră). Given these developments, the accomplished aspect has to be expressed by an analytic Perfect Subjunctive form, which is composed of the mood particle followed by the Infinitive of a fi ‘be’ and the past participle, for instance: (eu) să fi plecat ‘that I have gone’, (tu) să fi văzut ‘that you have seen’, (el/ea) să fi deschis ‘that he/she has opened’ etc. The Conditional, on the other hand, has been successful in supplanting the Subjunctive in several domains (see below). The periphrastic construction combines the Conditional marking morphology of the auxiliary a avea ‘have’ with the Infinitive form of the respective verb as in the following example with a face ‘make’: (eu) aş face ‘I would do’, (tu) ai face ‘you would do’, (el/ea) ar face ‘he/she would do’, (noi) am face ‘we would do’, (voi) aţi face ’ you would do’, (ei/ele) ar face ‘they would do’. The Perfect Conditional is composed of the Conditional marking forms of a avea ‘have’, the Infinitive form of a fi ‘be’ and the invariable past participle form of the verb in question (see Avram 2001: 237) as illustrated by the forms (eu) aş fi făcut ‘I would have done’, (tu) ai fi făcut ‘you would have done’, (el/ea) ar fi făcut ‘he/she would have done’ and so forth.

3.  Mood in Rumanian 3.1  Main clause contexts In contrast to most other Romance languages, the Rumanian Subjunctive still has an important presence in a large variety of main clause contexts. This applies particularly to modalised questions, which are generally expressed by modal verbs in Romance, but in





Martin Becker

Rumanian the Subjunctive can still indicate deontic (obligation) and, with less frequency, epistemic modality (an inference or a conjecture). The Subjunctive in interrogative contexts can be traced back to the early period of the Latin languages as attested by the plays of Terence and Plautus, for example: (1) Tibi ego rationem reddam? you.dat I reason give.sbjv.prs.1sg ‘What? I have to give you an explanation?’  (Plautus, Aulularia 47, quoted after Ernout & Thomas 1953: 243)

In Rumanian the Subjunctive still occurs frequently in the following interrogative contexts: ––

in dubitative and polemic questions expressing deontic modality:

(2) Vai demine! Eu, să cumpăr? strigă Safta. go from_me I mp3 buy.prs.1sg? shouted Safta ‘Go away ! I shall buy ? shouted Safta. Get out of my house!’  (I. Slavici, Nuvele din popor (1881: 56), quoted after GLR 1: 218)

–

in interrogatives in which the speaker expresses a conjecture characterised by a high epistemic uncertainty (see Squartini 2005: 259):

(3) Să fi plouînd? mp be.inf rain.ger ‘It might be raining?’

The so-called optative is another basic main clause function still realised by the Subjunctive mood. Real wishes can only be expressed exclusively by morphologic means if the relevant inflectional features are distinctive (e.g. traieşte vs. traiască), otherwise the mood particle să has to occupy the first position of the clause. Irreal (or past counterfactual) optatives require the Perfect Subjunctive: (4) Trăiască Republica Socialistă România! live.sbjv.prs.3sg Republic Socialist Rumania ‘Long live the Socialist Republic of Rumania.’

(GLR 1: 242)

(5) Să ne vedem sănătoşi. mp us see.prs.1pl. healthy ‘I hope we will see us kicking and alive.’

.  The gloss mirrows the fact that, with the exception of the third person singular and plural, inflectional mood distinctions have vanished in modern Rumanian. We indicate, therefore, the mood marking particle să as mp and the undifferentiated present tense paradigm.



(6) Să fi aşteptat la casa ta. mp be.inf wait.ptcp in house your ‘Had you waited in your house!’

Mood in Rumanian

(Beyrer et al. 1987: 245)

Note that the use of conditional morphology alone or in combination with a de-construction is a suitable alternative when it comes to uttering shattered wishes and hopes: (7) De-am avea la car o cergă mică! if cond.1pl4 have.inf in cart a horse-cloth little ‘I wish we had a little horse-cloth in the cart.’

(Beyrer et al. 1987: 244)

(8) Aş fi mîncat mai mult. cond.1sg be.inf eat.ptcp more much ‘I would have like to eat more.’

The imperative represents the third main clause context in which the Subjunctive appears, substituting now and then the second person imperative (cf. vino in (9) versus ‘să treci la noi !’ in (10)). The subjunctive variant, on the other hand, is available for all persons: (9) Vino tu la mine, eu n- am timp! come.imp.2sg you to me I not have time ‘Come to me, I have no time !’

(Beyrer et al. 1987: 240)

(10) Să treci pe la noi! mp pass.prs.2sg by at us ‘Come and visit us!’ (ibid.) (11) Să plecăm! mp leave.1pl ‘Let’s go!’

Assumptions, hence epistemic modality, can also be couched in a să-construction. However, a future construction with the periphrasis a voi ‘want’ + Infinitive is available, too: (12) Să fi avut el douăzeci de ani. mp be.inf have.ptcp he twenty of years ‘Probably, he got 20 years old.’ (13) Cine ştie, va fi uitat ceva. who knows go.prs.3sg be.inf forget.ptcp something ‘Who knows, he probably forgot something.’

.  The label cond indicates that the – sometimes particular – forms of  ‘have’ (aş, ai, ar, am, aţi, ar) serve as Conditional markers, which vary in accordance with the different grammatical persons.



 Martin Becker

Finally, it should be mentioned that evidentiality (i.e. source-marking of an assertion) is indicated as in all Romance languages by non-Subjunctive morphology: (14) Se spune/zice că regele a abdicat. one tells/says tha the_king have.prs.3sg abdicate.ptcp ‘People say that the king has abdicated!’ (Beyrer et al. 1987: 246)

3.2  Contexts of subordination We can generally distinguish three types of subordination in keeping with the syntactic status of the constituent realised by a subordinate clause: a. substantive or complement clauses, which represent an argument of the verb frame b. relative ‘adjective’ clauses, which comply the function of modifying the noun phrase they are referring to c. adverbial clauses, which have the status of an adjunct. Given our remarks for Portuguese (Becker 2010), we will not treat relative clauses in a detailed manner. Yet, we will concede much more space to să-complement clauses, which are selected by control and related verbs. These constructions are a peculiarity of the Rumanian language, given that in other Romance languages the Infinitive following these verbs is obligatory.

3.2.1  Substantive (complement) clauses Substantive clauses can be subdivided into the following clause types, given the function they fulfill with respect to the matrix sentence. a. Attributive clauses: (15) a.

Mi s- a oferit plăcerea să o conduc. me.dat refl have.prs.3sg offer.ptcp the pleasure mp her drive.prs.1sg ‘I had the pleasure to drive her/to take her with me.’ (GLR 2: 277)

Compare the French equivalent: (15) b. J’ ai eu le plaisir de la conduire. I have.prs.1sg have.ptcp the pleasure to her drive

b. Predicative clauses: (16) Porunca mea e să- ţi dau acest paloş. order my is mp to you give.prs.3pl this sword ‘My order is that they give you this sword.’

(GLR 2: 272)



Mood in Rumanian

c. Subject clauses: (17) Este drept ca fiecare să poarte ponosul it_is just that everybody mp wear.sbjv.prs.3sg the_cloth faptelor şi ziselor sale. of_the_facts and of_the_words his ‘It is just that everybody wears the cloth (= lives with the consequences) of what he did and what he said.’ (GLR 2: 270)

d. Object clauses: (18) El doreşte să vorbească cu responsabil clubului. he wish.prs.3sg mp talk.sbjv.prs.3sg with manager of_the_club ‘He wants to talk with the manager of the restaurant.’

As the survey of substantive clauses shows, there are some remarkable aspects in Rumanian, which deserve a more detailed comment: First, the realisation of predicative or attributive functions by a subjunctive clause as in Rumanian is extremely rare in Romance (compare the French clauses). This shows that the Rumanian Subjunctive succeeded in intruding more pervasively into the infinitival domain. Second, the domain of wishes, purposes and necessity (which means buletic and deontic modality) turns out to be a core domain of the Subjunctive in Rumanian. Therefore, predicates like a dori ‘wish’, a porunca ‘order’, a plăcea ‘like’, a cere ‘demand’ and a teme ‘fear’, which implies ‘to wish that not’ typically select a subjunctive complement clause. In contrast to this group, Indicative morphology is selected with epistemic (a ştie: ‘to know’ and doxastic verbs (a crede, a socoti: ‘believe’), verbs of perception (a vedea: ‘see’, verbs of communication (a spune: ‘say’, but also with verbs of appearance like a părea ‘seem’. The fact must be underlined that the Subjunctive and the Indicative correlate with different complementisers. So Subjunctive clauses are introduced by the conjunctions ca … să and să, whereas Indicative clauses only allow for the conjunction că (deriving from Latin quod). We give some examples for the Indicative groups: ––

Verbs of perception:

(19) Se vede că eşti născută în codru. one see that be.prs.2sg born in forest It is obvious that you have been born in the forest.’

––

(GLR 2: 268)

Verbs of appearance, which combine with Conditional morphology:

(20) Vulpea pare că ar fi moartă. the_fox seem.prs.3sg that cond.3sg be.inf dead ‘The fox seems to be dead.’

(GLR 2: 273)





Martin Becker

––

Epistemic and doxastic verbs in affirmative contexts:

(21) Cred că ai dreptate. believe.prs.1sg that have.prs.2sg right ‘I believe that you are right.’

(Beyrer et al.: 334)

However, some details have to be added in order to round off the general picture. Epistemic and doxastic verbs in the scope of the negation operator require the Subjunctive because their interpretation is counterfactual, which means that p is not the case at the considered index. (22) Nu cred să fi greşit. not believe.prs.1sg mp be.inf wrong ‘I do not believe that I am wrong.’

(GLR 2: 366)

Another fundamental contrast to most Romance languages is the selection of Indicative mood following factive-emotive verbs, which have the property of presupposing the truth of their complement, for example: (23) Se bucura mama că- i veneau neamurile. refl be_happy.imp.3sg the_mother that to_her come.imp.3pl the_relatives ‘My mother was happen that relatives come to visit her.’ (GLR 2: 290)

Yet, in non-veridical contexts the Subjunctive is the rule after emotive verbs such as a se bucura ‘be happy’. In the following examples the proposition p does not hold at the utterance time: (24) M- aş bucura să vină vara. refl cond.1sg be happy.inf mp come.sbjv.prs.3sg the sommer ‘I would be glad if he came in summertime.’

(GLR 2: 290)

Axiologic expressions, which introduce a norm, are also compatible with the Subjunctive if the content of the subordinate clause is non-veridical. In the following example the subordinate clause lays down ideal conditions to be complied in order to reach the norm or ideal set up by the matrix clause (in this context: justice and righteousness). (25) Este drept ca fiecare să poarte ponosul faptelor şi ziselor sale.

(Cf. (17))

As the mood distribution in complement clauses reveals, the principle of veridicality in its relativised variant – which means: according to the beliefs of the matrix subject or of the speaker – is pivotal for the mood system in Rumanian (for the concept of veridicality see Giannakidou 1997: 109ss. & 1999: 388ss.).

3.2.2  Relative (‘adjective’) clauses Rumanian, like other Romance languages (see for example Portuguese), distinguishes referential from attributive relative clauses, which lay down ideal (necessary and/or sufficient) conditions to be met in order to be relevant for the main clause predication. So the relative clauses only hold true in particular possible worlds in which ideal conditions



Mood in Rumanian

are met. As Farkas showed in her pioneering 1982 study, subjunctive relative clauses are in the scope of particular operators, which create so-called intensional contexts. The most frequent operators are strong intensional verbs (the group of buletic and deontic verbs), the conditional operator IF, the Imperative (imp), negation (Neg), the interrogative (Q) and the prominence (SAL) operator. We quote four examples taken from Farkas’ study (see Farkas 1982): ––

Strong intensional verbs:

(26) Caut o fată care să ştie englezeşte. look.for.prs.1sg a girl who mp know.prs.3sg English ‘I am looking for a girl who knows English.’

––

NEG-operator:

(27) Nu am văzut nimic care să- mi placă. not have seen anything that mp I.dat please.sbjv.prs.3sg ‘I did not see anything that pleases me.’

––

Q (interrogative)-operator:

(28) Ai văzut pe5 cineva care să- i semene? you_have seen to anybody who mp him equal.sbjv.prs.3sg ‘Did you see anybody who equals him?’

––

the salience-operator (SAL):

(29) Eu sînt primul/ultimul care să o recunosc. I am the_first/the_last who mp it acknowledge.prs.1sg ‘I am the first/last to acknowledge that.’

3.2.3  Adverbial clauses 3.2.3.1  Purpose, consecutive and comparative clauses Purpose clauses constitute the core domain for the Subjunctive, given that they are related to wish and want predicates in that they also project an ideal target state involving a buletic modal base, for example: (30) Eu îţi spun asta ca să ştii şi tu I to_you tell.prs.1sg this that mp know.prs.2sg also you despre ce e vorba. abou what is the_talk ‘I tell you this so that you also know what we are talking about.’  (Beyrer et al. 1987: 353)

.  To simplify things we translate the marker of animate direct objects as ‘to’.



 Martin Becker

The same holds for consecutive and comparative constructions, which do not reflect a real circumstance, but an ideal or a projected target state. In the first sentence, for example, a past state is described, whereas in the second one an ideal future state (the deserved retirement) is foreshadowed: (31) Aşa am fost supărat, că n- am mai putut să so I_have been upset that not I have even could mp mă liniştesc de loc. refl come down.prs.1sg at all ‘I was so upset that I felt unable to come down.’ (32) El socotea că muncise de_ajuns, ca să he believed that he_had_worked enough, so that poată să se odihnească la_băţrîneţe can.sbjv.prs.3sg mp refl take_a_rest.sbjv.prs.3sg at_old_age ‘He believed to have worked enough, so that he could spend a lazy life in his old days.’

3.2.3.2  Temporal clauses The Subjunctive is much less entrenched in other domains. It is true that in the temporal domain the Subjunctive is possible after înainte (ca) să ‘before’ and pîna cînd ‘until’, but an Infinitive construction or the use of more recent variants like pîna când or pîna ce, which select an Indicative clause, are largely preferred (see among others Beyrer 1987: 343). Some examples illustrate this point:   Pîna să/înainte să + Subjunctive: (33) Pînă să se însănătoşească a trecut multă vreme. until mp refl recover.sbjv.prs.3sg has passed much time ‘Until recovering, much time has passed by.’ (Beyrer et al. 1987: 343)   Înainte + Infinitive: (34) El s- a descălţat înainte de a_intra în cameră. he refl has taken off the shoes before to enter.inf in room ‘He took off his shoes before entering the room.’ (Beyrer et al. 1987: 343)   Pîna ce/când + Indicative: (35) Stai la mine pînă ce/cînd vine Radu! stay.imp with me until when come.prs.3sg Radu ‘Stay with me until Radu comes.’

(Beyrer et al. 1987: 343)

3.2.3.3  Conditionals and concessive-conditionals In the conditional and concessive-conditional domain the state of affairs is comparable. The traditional conditional structure, which is introduced by să and in which this ­element has still preserved its ancient status as a conditional conjunction, is still available though not very common. The verbal category is able to express hypothetical



Mood in Rumanian

c­ onditions as well as counterfactual assumptions. In any case, the main clause requires Conditional or Imperfect morphology as the form atacam ‘I attacked’ in the following example reveals: (36) Să fi fost eu în locul lui Bozzari, nu mp be.inf be.ptcp i in the_place of Bozzari, not atacam pe la aripa dreaptă. attack.impf.1sg at the wing right ‘If I were Bozzari, I would not attack on the right wing.’

(GLR 2: 324)

The more recent conditional system revolves around the conjunction dacă, which only allows for Indicative morphology. There are some parallels to the conditional system of other Romance languages, which also replaced subjunctive morphology by Indicative forms (as is the case of French). The conjunction dacă selects the present tense for highcertainty conditionals and Conditional or Imperfect morphology for low-certainty conditionals and for counterfactuals. The matrix clause of the latter type is compatible with the Conditional and with Past morphology: (37) Dacă vrei, eu îţi arăt un drum mai scurt. if want.prs.2sg, I to_you show a way most short ‘If you want, I show you the shortest way.’ (GLR 2: 324) (38) Dacă aş avea/ aveam bani, aş if cond.1sg have.inf/ have.imp.1sg money cond.1sg pleca în Bulgaria. travel.inf in Bulgaria ‘If I had some money, I would travel to Bulgaria.’

(Beyrer et al. 1987: 348)

Comparative as-if-clauses (ca şi cum/parcă) behave like modern-type conditions in that they only select for Indicative, mainly Conditional morphology as in: (39) Face ca_şi_cum/ de_parcă nu m- ar cunoaşte. do.prs.3sg as_if as if not me cond.1sg know.inf ‘He does as if he does not know me.’ (Beyrer et al. 1987: 356)

The mood distribution of conditional concessive constructions is exactly the same as that of their conditional kins (for a typology see Haspelmath & König 1998: 562ss.): Polar concessive sentences (which are characterised by the focus particle chiar ‘even’) can be construed by means of a traditional să-construction or, preferably, by the more recent conjunction de, which uniquely combines with Indicative (Conditional) morphology: (40) Chiar să fi insistat, tot n- aş fi even mp be.inf insist.ptcp, all not cond.1sg be.inf plecat pe asemenea vreme. leave.ptcp at the_same weather ‘Even if you had insisted, I would not have left in such weather.’



 Martin Becker

(41) Chiar de ar fi dînşii de o sută de even if cond.3pl be.inf themselves of one hundred of mii de ori mai mulţi de cum sînt acuma. thousands of times more much of how they_are now ‘Even if they were one hundred thousand times more than they are now.’  (Beyrer et al. 1987:351)

Constructions with the free choice particle ori- (= parametric concessives), which widens the modal base relevant for the evaluation to virtually all possible cases, however marginal they might be, only combine with Conditional morphology. (42) Orice sume ar fi trecut prin mîna-i, whatever sums cond.3pl be.inf pass.ptcp by hand-of_him, el tot nefericit ar fi fost. he entirely unhappy cond.3sg be.inf be.ptcp ‘Whatever sum would have passed by his hands, nevertheless he would have been unhappy.’ (Beyrer et al. 1987: 352)

Real concessives (introduced by deşi) and causal clauses (displaying a large number of conjunctions as pentru că, fiindcă, că, căci, deoarece, o dată ce, din cauză că and the like) select only the Indicative mood, given that they presuppose the truth of the underlying proposition in the base (or ‘real’) world: (43) Deşi ţi- am spus adevărul, nu m- ai crezut. Though to_you have.prs.1sg speak.ptcp truth not me you have believed. ‘Though I have told you the truth, you did not believe me.’ (Beyrer et al. 1987: 351) (44) Deoarece n- ai sosit la timp, ţi- am since not have.prs.2sg arrive.ptcp in time, to_you I_have vîndut biletul. sold the ticket ‘Since you did not arrive in time, I have sold your entrance ticket.’

3.4  Competitions between the Subjunctive and the Conditional Summarising the distribution of the Subjunctive and its relationsship to the Conditional, we can assert that the Subjunctive has been successful in maintaining its exclusive status in contexts which anticipate or project ideal target states involving a buletic modal base. It is, however, seriously challenged in traditional domains like future-temporal, conditional and conditional-concessive contexts where it has been replaced by more recent structures, which uniquely select Indicative morphology. Especially the Conditional has achieved to oust the Subjunctive as a marker of modality in important contexts. To round off the picture we give an overview of the different functions, which have been taken over by the Conditional construction:



Mood in Rumanian 

First, the Conditional can occur in the protasis as well as in the apodosis of conditional and concessive-conditional (‘even if ’-)clauses. The form signals that the worlds taken into consideration in the protasis are distant from the actual world, given that they represent either low-probability or even counterfactual situations (see Avram 2001: 207). In scalar concessive contexts, on the other hand, the focus is laid on least probable alternatives, which induce a generalisation of the consequent state to all other, the more probable, cases of the scale (scalar implicature): (45) Chiar de-ar veni, nu mi- ar fi de folos. even if cond.3sg come.inf not to_me have.cond.3sg be.inf of interest. ‘Even if he came, he would not be of interest for me.’ (46) Oricare ar fi intenţiile tale … whatever cond.3sg be.inf the_intentions your ‘Whatever might be your intentions’

In irreal or ‘as if ’-comparisons the Conditional highlights situations which being ‘false appearances’ do not hold in the base world, but are appropriate for the characterisation of a current state of affairs: (47) Se uită la el ca_şi_cum nu l- ar cunoaşte. refl looks at him as_if not him cond.3sg know.inf ‘He looks at him as if he did not know him.’

The Conditional also reveals itself as an appropriate device for marking wishes and hopes, thus taking over the function of an optative: (48) De-ar veni vara! if cond.3sg come.inf the_summer ‘If summer arrived!’ (49) Aş vrea puţină apă. cond.1sg want.inf a_little_bit water ‘I would like to have some water.’

Finally, and beyond the typical conditional-like contexts, the form is able to signal a particular instance of evidentiality, which is generally called ‘prezumtiv’ in Rumanian grammars. By using conditional morphology the speaker signals that he is reluctant to assume any responsibility for the proposition he quotes, given that its source is either unknown or dubious to him. Therefore, in these contexts the Conditional acts as a kind of polyphonymarker (see Ducrot 1984): (50) Se spune că ar pleca şi el. one say.prs3sg that cond.3sg leave.inf also he ‘He is said to leave, too.’

(Avram 2001: 208)

 Martin Becker

3.5  Să-constructions in Infinitive contexts (the so-called ‘Balkan infinitive’) As we already mentioned in the introductory part, the spread of the să-construction into the Infinitive domain is a particular feature of the Rumanian language it shares with other members of the so-called Balkan sprachbund. Yet, we should be very cautious with overgeneralisations as to the impact of the phenomenon: the să-construction has not totally been replaced by the Infinitive, which still preserves a strong position in some welldefined areas of the Rumanian language system. The replacement of the Infinitive was already underway in the 16th century when the Rumanian language surfaced for the first time in religious and historical texts. The tendency of gradual substitution started in the south of Rumania and spread northward and northwestward. The process was triggered by language contact with Slavonic languages, which, like Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbian, patterned their finite complements on that of Greek (see Sandfeld & Olsen 1936 and Dyer 1985: 364). In particular Popular Bulgarian acted as a mediator for Rumanian in a period and a region of co-existence and (most probably) of bilingualism (see Rohlfs 1958: 734). However, since the 19th century there has been a reverse tendency towards a strengthening of the Infinitive, especially in scientific and political prose, which is due to the influence of the French language and the close contacts of the intellectual elite of Rumania with the French culture (education in France, translations from French etc.) (see Dyer 1985: 367). In the Northern region (Transilvania and Moldova) the Infinitive has still a marginal, but constant presence in the relevant domains of substitution (approximately 10%, according to Diaconescu 1977: 132). Yet, the Infinitive (which is marked by the preposition a after the loss of the long Infinitive ending in -re) has still a residual domain where it competes with the să-subjunctive or where its predominant presence is uncontested: It occurs especially a. in combination with the preposition pentru (pentru a face ‘in order to make’), fără (fără a face ‘without to make’), înainte (înainte de a face ‘before doing’); b. in the negative imperative construction: nu merge! ‘do not go!’, nu face! ‘do not do!’ etc. c. in conditional constructions based on the conditional forms of ‘to have’: (aş, ai, ar + Infinitive): (51) Aş vrea cumpăra o maşină. cond.1sg want.inf buy a car ‘I would like to buy a car.’

d. in the traditional periphrastic future construction, which has been derived from lat. volo (+ preposition) + Infinitive: (52) Voi cînta astăzi. want.prs.1sg sing.inf today ‘I will sing today.’



Mood in Rumanian

e. in more recent Infinitive constructions with the pattern Adjective + Preposition (gata de a pleca: ready to go). f. Besides, it must be stressed that the Infinitive can realise subject and predicative function in complex clauses: (53) A tăcea înseamnă a–i accepta minciunile. to be_silent.inf means to his accept the_lies ‘Keeping silent means accepting his lies.’  (Alboiu & Motapanyane 2000: 39)

g. it is able to take over attributive functions: (54) Mă înspăimânta gândul *(de) a iubi un monstru. me scared the_thought of to love a monster ‘The thought of loving a monster scared me.’ (Alboiu & Motapanyane 2000: 39)

h. sometimes, but quite rare, it even competes in aspectual, modal and some raising constructions with subjunctive complement clauses: (55) Am început a citi. I have started to read ‘I have started reading.’

(Alboiu & Motapanyane 2000: 39)

With these remarks on the residual areas of the Infinitive we can now focus on the typical să-constructions, which have taken over important functions in the Infinitival domain. In contemporary standard Rumanian the să-subjunctive is generally used in the following contexts: 1. with modal verbs like a putea ‘can’, a trebui ‘must’, a avea ‘have’, a şti ‘can’ = ‘know’: (56) Trebuie să cumpăr fructe. must.prs.3sg mp buy.prs.1sg fruits ‘I have to buy (some) fruit.’

2. with aspectual verbs, which mark a particular stage (or phase) of an eventuality: a începe ‘begin’, a continua ‘continue’, a înceta ‘stop’, a sta ‘be about’, a veni ‘be like’: (57) Ion a început să cînte. John have.prs.3sg begin.ptcp mp sing.sbjv.prs.3sg ‘John began to sing.’

3. apart from the verbs in 2. other control verbs like a ştie să ‘know how’, ‘be able to’, a încerca ‘try’ (with subject control), a convinge ‘convince’ and a învăţa ‘teach’ with direct object control, a ruga ‘beg’ with indirect object control: (58) Ion a încercat să- l pedepsească pe Mihai. John have.prs.3sg try.ptcp mp him punish.sbjv.prs.3sg to Mihai ‘John tried to punish Michael.’ (Dobrovie-Sorin 1989: 373)



 Martin Becker

4. in causatives constructions: a încuraja ‘encourage’, a face ‘make’, a izbuti ‘succeed’, a reuşi ‘succeed’, a lăsa ‘let’, a obliga ‘force’, a permite ‘to allow’: (59) Asta a făcut- o să rîdă. this have.prs.3sg make.ptcp her mp laugh.sbjv.prs.3sg ‘This made her laugh.’ (Tasmowski-De Ryck 1992: 261)

5. with raising verbs like a se nimeri ‘happen’, a părea ‘seem’ (60) Toţi băieţii s- au nimerit să fie bolnavi. all children refl have.prs.3pl happen.ptcp mp be.sbjv.prs.3pl ill ‘All children happened to be ill.’ (Alboiu & Motapanyane 2000)

6. Finally, the să-construction is selected in the two innovative future constructions based on habere and volere, which showed up during the 16th century (or earlier?). The different future constructions are an excellent example to illustrate the restructuring of the complementation system, which involves a competition between the Infinitive and the Subjunctive (and may lead in the long run to the substitution of the first by the latter) (see Dyer 1985: 371). So apart from voi ajuta ‘I will help’ two Subjunctive future constructions are now available: o să ajut (originally: va (< volo) să ajut) and am (< habeo) să ajut. When passing in review the contexts of occurrence, the question arises whether there is a semantic motivation for the replacement of the Infinitive. The systematic substitution in a delimited number of environments suggests that there must be a zone of functional overlap between the Infinitive and the Subjunctive. And indeed, there is a semantic zone with blurry boundaries between the two constructions in question, which can be denoted as ‘zone of abstract predication’. An abstract predication does not refer to a particular situation (e.g. a description of an event at an index i*), but to a whole class of events of the same type. Formally, this corresponds to a proposition which abstracts over world-time indexes, hence turns out to be a function from indexes to truth values. Let us take the să-construction să citesc o carte (something like ‘I to read a book’), for example: by focussing on the să-complement we are just considering the event type of me-reading-a-book as such (formally: λi [citi(EU, o carte) at i]) – irrespective of when and in which world(s) a particular instance of the eventtype might hold. (Note that, in Romance, this kind of abstract predication generally occurs in the context of dislocated complement clauses (the construction type QUE p, Pred.), which are not available in Rumanian). If we review the matrix verbs, which select a să-construction as their complement, we become aware that they are all of the same type: they take an abstract event type (a class of events of the same type) for which they introduce a modality (like the modal verbs), or single out a relevant phase (aspectual verbs), or specify a generic or abstract activity (control verbs like ‘a învăţa’ ‘learn’), indicate the mode of givenness of an event



Mood in Rumanian 

(raising verbs: the event might be a happening ‘a se nimeri’ or only an appearance ‘a părea’). This analysis also accounts for Farkas’ observation that the time reference of să-constructions is restricted (“restricted time reference”, see Farkas 1984: 363). So the temporal interpretation of să-constructions hinges on the finite morphology of the matrix verb, which anchors the sentence in a particular index (or a set of indexes). Therefore, a clause like Ion a început să cînte ‘John has begun to sing’ asserts the beginning of an event of the event-type ‘singing’ whose starting point is situated at a near past index i*(in formal representation: λi [începe (EL, λj (sing at j)) at i] (i*), the interpretation of j being semantically dependent on the particular index i*at which the sentence is said to hold). Yet, there is a second remarkable aspect we have to stress when we are dealing with să-constructions of the analysed type: their null subjects have to be coreferential with an argument of the matrix clause, a requirement which is lexically-conditioned. Yet, non-coreferential readings are licensed with strong intensional verbs like a vrea ‘to want). This contrast is illustrated by the following examples (with the indices i and j indicating the referential relationsship between the subject of the main clause and of the subordintate clause, respectively): (61) Ioni vrea să plecei/j devreme mîine. John want.prs.3s gmp leave.prs.sbjv.3sg early tomorrow ‘John wants to leave early tomorrow.’ (Dobrovie-Sorin 1989: 373) (62) Ioni a început să citească i o carte interesantă. John have.prs.3sg begin.ptcp mp read.prs.sbjv.3sg a book interesting ‘John has begun to read an interesting book.’

The non-obviational character of volitional clauses in Rumanian, which contrasts sharply with the syntactic behaviour of other Romance languages as well as the requirement of ­co-reference for infinitive-like să-constructions, has aroused much interest among (generative) linguistics. Different binding-theoretic interpretations have been proposed by the scholars to account for the contrastive data (see Kempchinsky 1986, 1998; Rivero 1988, 1994; Dobrovie-Sorin 1989, 1993; Alboiu & Motapanyane 2000; Motapanyane 1990, 1995).

4.  Concluding remarks To summarise, it must be emphasised that the Rumanian mood system is a special case within the Romance family, with some Subjunctive domains in decline and others in expansion. The Rumanian mood system is characterised on the one hand by the same historical trends which have been relevant for a language like French, in which the traditional complex mood system has been reduced to core domains, with still a strong presence of the Subjunctive in the area of volitional and deontic expressions. As in French,

 Martin Becker

the Rumanian Subjunctive lost progressively its historical status in temporal, conditional and concessive-conditional contexts. It was never able to advance to the group of factiveemotive predicates. On the other hand, the Rumanian Subjunctive succeeded, probably under the influence of its Balkan neighbours, in ousting the Infinitive in some of its central areas (constituted especially by modal, aspectual, control and raising-verbs), which in other Romance languages are uncontested Infinitive domains. However, developments are motivated in so far as there is a conceptual overlap with the Subjunctive: the Infinitive as well as the Subjunctive are capable of marking contexts of abstract predication, where not a particular event is taken into account, but a certain event-type as such. We have also seen that the mood particle să displays some interesting properties, which vary in accordance with its contexts of occurrence. In volitional contexts it either introduces the subordinate clause or it co-occurs with the complementiser ca (ca … să). In contrast to other Romance languages, these sentences do not display obviational effects so that a coreferential reading of the subordinate subject is available in Rumanian. Infinitive-like să-constructions exclude the complementiser ca and they are subject to an obligatory coreferential reading. The status of să within different contexts of occurrence is still open to debate and may reflect its historical trajectory from a conditional conjunction (with complementiser status) to a mood particle (incorporated into the inflexional (= IP) domain).

References Academia Republicii Socialiste România (ed.). 21966. Gramatica Limbii Române (GLR), 2 Vols. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Academia Republicii Socialiste România (ed.). 1969. Istoria Limbii Române, Vol. 2. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Alboiu, G. & Motapanyane, V. 2000. The generative approach to Romanian grammar: An overview. In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, V. Motapanyane (ed.), 1–48. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Álvarez Rodríguez, A. 2001. El futuro de subjuntivo, del latín al romance [Analecta Malacitana/Anejos 40]. Málaga: Universidad de Málaga. Avram, M. 2001. Grammatica pentru toţi. Bucharest: Humanitas. Becker, M. 2010. Mood in Portuguese. This volume. 179–197. Beyrer, A., Bochmann, K. & Bronsert, S. 1987. Grammatik der rumänischen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Caragiu-Marioţeanu, M. 1969. 6. Verbul. In Istoria Limbii Române, Vol. 2, Academia Republicii Socialiste România (ed.), 254–278. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Diaconescu, I. 1977. Infinitivul în limba română. Bucharest: Editura ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1989. Emploi du subjonctif et structure de la phrase en roumain. In Revue des Langues Romanes 93(2): 373–400. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1993. The Syntax of Romanian [Comparative Studies in Romance]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ducrot, O. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Ed. de Minuit. Dyer, D.L. 1985. The Interplay of Subjunctive and Infinitive Complements in Romanian. Folia Slavica 7(3): 362–380. Ernout, A. & Thomas, F. 21953. Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.



Mood in Rumanian 

Farkas, D. 1982. Intensionality and Romance Subjunctive Relatives. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Farkas, D. 1984. Subjunctive complements in Rumanian. In Papers from the XII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 26], P. Baldi (ed.), 355–372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giannakidou, A. 1997. The Landscape of Polarity Items. Groningen: Dissertations in Linguistics. Giannakidou, Anasthasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421. GLR = Academia Republicii Socialiste România (ed.). Haase, M. 1994. Finite Infinitive. In Der Sprachvergleich in der Romania, C. Schmitt & W. Scheickhard (eds), 128–149. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. Haspelmath, M. & König, E. 1998. Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, J. van der Auwera (ed.), 563–640. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kempchinsky, P. 1986. Romance Subjunctive Clauses and Logical Form. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Kempchinsky, P. 1998. Mood phrase, case checking and obviation. In Romance Linguistics. Theoretical Perspectives. Selected Papers from the 27th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Langauges (LSRL XXVII), Irvine, 20–22 February 1997, A. Schwegler [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 160], B. Tranel & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds), 143–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Motapanyane, V. 1990. The switch from infinitive to subjunctive clauses in Romanian. In Papers from the fourteenth annual meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, November 9–10, 1990/Actes du Quatorzième Colloque Annuel de l’Association de Linguistique des Provinces Atlantiques, Université Memorial Saint-Jean, Terre-Neuve le 9–10 novembre 1990, J. Black (ed.), 115–130. St. John: Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association. Motapanyane, V. 1995. Theoretical Implications of Complementation in Romania. Padova: Unipress. Philippaki-Warburton, I. & Spyropoulos, V. 2004. A change of mood: The development of the Greek mood system. Linguistics 42(4): 791–817. Puşcariu, S. 1943. Die Rumänische Sprache. (Deutsche Übersetzung von Heinrich Kuen). Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. Rivero, M.-L. 1988. Exceptional case marking effects in Rumanian subjunctive complements. In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Langagues Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 1988. [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 69], D. Wanner & D.A. Kibbee (eds), 273–298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rivero, M.-L. 1994. Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 63–120. Rohlfs, G. 1958. La perdita dell’infinitivo nelle lingue balkaniche e nell’Italia meridionale. In Omagiu lui Iorgu Iordan. Comitetul de iniţiativa, B. Cazacu et al. (eds), 733–744. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare. Rosetti, A. 1968. Istoria Limbii Române (de la origini pînă în secolul al XVII-lea). Bucharest: Editura Pentru Literatură. Sandfeld, K. & Olsen, H. 1936. Syntaxe roumaine. Paris: Droz. Squartini, M. 2005. L’ evidenzialità in rumeno e nelle altre lingue romanze. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 121: 246–268. Tasmowski-De Ryck, L. 1992. Infinitif et subjonctif après a putea, a şti et a vrea dans quelques textes du 19e siècle. In Beiträge zur rumänischen Sprache im 19. Jahrhundert. Akten des Kolloquiums ”Die rumänische Sprache im 19. Jahrhundert, Regensburg 26–28, April 1990, E. Gerhard & B. Weber (eds), 261–269. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

part iii

Celtic

Mood in Irish Dónall P. Ó Baoill Belfast

1.  Introduction The aim of the present study is to describe the mood system of Irish. In doing so, the lexical, morphological and grammatical resources available in the language to indicate mood will be examined and illustrated. The paper also contains information on the interaction of the Irish morphological system and the expression of semantic distinctions, as well as showing the possible combinations of tense and mood morphology in expressing the three nonindicative moods in Irish, namely, Imperative, Conditional and Subjunctive. Irish belongs to the Celtic family of Indo-European. Its basic word order in finite clauses is Verb-Subject-Object (VSO). It does not have SVO order as an alternative but otherwise it shows all the typical characteristics of VSO languages (Greenberg 1963). It should be pointed out, however, that in non-finite clauses the normal order is SVO or SOV, which is subject to dialectal distribution (Stenson 1981: 40–47; McCloskey 1983: 10–12; 1991: 261–62; Ó Siadhail 1989: 205–211). The verbal categories of Modern Irish can be summarised briefly as follows. They are described more fully in Ó Baoill (1994). For ease of exposition, they are divided into finite and non-finite forms. ––

Finite forms –– The past, present and future tenses are morphologically marked, including impersonal endings.1 A description of the relevant markers is outlined below. –– There are three non-indicative moods, namely Imperative, Conditional and Subjunctive (Past and Present). –– There is a formal aspectual distinction between habitual and non-habitual actions in the past. This distinction is morphologically marked on all verbs. A similar distinction is found in the present tense. However, in this latter case the distinction is formally marked only in the substantive verb. –– There are two verbs of existence: a copula linking the subject to a nominal phrase and a substantive verb which connects the subject to adjectival, prepositional or

.  These impersonal endings often have the semantics of passive constructions. They are defective to the extent that human agents cannot co-occur with them as subjects in the same sentence. The use of non-human or instrumental agents, however, is allowed. The unmarked preposition for human agents is ag ‘at, by’ and for non-human agents le ‘with, by’.

 Dónall P. Ó Baoill

adverbial phrases. The substantive verb participates fully in mood structures but the copula is somewhat defective with regard to the imperative. ––

Non-finite forms –– Verbal noun constructions play an important role in making very fine aspectual distinctions. Their use in Irish is similar to the way the English gerund/participle is used in progressive constructions such as ‘John is coming tomorrow’ and in infinitival constructions corresponding to English ‘I have to stay at home’. Irish verbal nouns carry no tense, mood, voice or person markers but they still continue to exhibit noun-like morphology. When verbal nouns occur as direct objects in progressive constructions, they are marked for genitive case. Similarly, if the direct object happens to be a pronoun, it is marked as a possessive. Adverbial modification of verbal nouns in non-finite constructions is also possible. –– The ‘after’ construction As Irish does not possess a verb HAVE, various tense combination of bí ‘be’ followed by such phrases as i ndiaidh/tar éis ‘after’ plus the verbal noun are used to render the ‘have’ constructions of English e.g. ‘I have just spoken to him’. –– Verbal adjective Verbal adjectives are derived from verbs and hence the name e.g. díol ‘sell’ gives díolta ‘sold’, ceannaigh ‘buy’ gives ceannaithe ‘bought’ etc. They can act as normal adjectives and take the same morphological changes (gender and case, in particular) as basic adjectives. However, in combination with the verb bí ‘be’ plus the preposition ag, they form a passive type construction where the semantics indicate completion of an action e.g. tá sé díolta agam ‘I have sold it/I have it sold’.

2.  The imperative mood This mood is used with commands, requests or to express incitement. It has different characteristics depending on the type of relationship pertaining between the speaker and the hearer or prospective agent. In positive forms there is no common imperative marker. There is a specific ending for all persons including an impersonal marker.2 Negation is expressed by the general particle ná which precedes the verb with its appropriate personal endings. I give below two different paradigms one for each of two conjugations in Irish. All verbs with one syllable in their imperative 2nd singular form and verbs ending in -(e)

.  These impersonal endings are identical with the impersonal endings found with the ­Habitual Present tense of both conjugations of the verb. Their semantic interpretation, however, is quite different.



Mood in Irish

áil belong to the first conjugation. Verbs with two or more syllables in their 2nd singular imperative form are placed in the second conjugation. Table 1.  Imperative verbal conjugations3 Conjugation 1

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl aut4

Conjugation 2

ól ‘drink’

bris ‘break’

ordaigh ‘order’

éirigh ‘rise’

ólaim ól óladh sé/sí ólaimis ólaigí ólaidís óltar

brisim bris briseadh sé/sí brisimis brisigí brisidís bristear5

ordaím ordaigh ordaíodh sé/sí ordaímis ordaígí ordaídís ordaítear

éirím éirigh éiríodh sé/sí éirímis éirígí éirídís éirítear6

2.1  Function and status of the Irish imperative Because of the nature of commands and requests they are restricted as to the number of semantic distinctions that they express and their use with different tenses. Irish, as we have seen above, has grammaticalized all persons as many other languages do (Palmer 1986:  109–11). These endings must be regarded as joint realizations of both person and mood. However, the second person singular is probably to be regarded as the unmarked directive. It has zero marking and is in many senses more basic and simpler to use. Imperatives merely present a course of action which the speaker desires the hearer to fulfill. The actual force of the directive will depend on the immediate circumstances in which it is given and the authority of the speaker. The use of the imperative is largely restricted to main clauses although there is evidence that it can occur in subordinate clauses particularly if ­preceded by another imperative in the main clause Ó hUiginn (2001). Here are some examples from modern Irish of the use of the imperative.

.  The 2nd singular imperative is identical with the root of the verb in Irish. All other moods and verbal forms are derived from it through the addition of various endings and initial consonant mutations. .  The abbreviation aut refers to the autonomous form of the verb. It is also referred to in Irish grammars as the impersonal form. They are a type of passive construction where the subject is omitted. .  The spelling differences for the different endings are the result of Irish spelling conventions and have no consequences for pronunciation. Thus each of the pairs -aim/-im, ‑adh/-eadh, -aimis/-imis, -aigí/-igí, and -aidís/-idís are pronounced the same. The endings beginning with a indicate the preceding consonant is velarised and those beginning with i or e that the preceding consonant is palatalized. The velarised/palatalized dichotomy carries phonemic status in Irish. .  See Footnote 2 above.



 Dónall P. Ó Baoill

Verbs of telling and saying are often used in requests for information.7 (1) Abair liom cá bhfuil an cruinniú. tell.imp.2sg to_me where is the meeting ‘Tell me where the meeting is taking place.’

In other cases the speaker merely wants to reassure someone by carrying out some action in order to gain their confidence: (2) Fan go dtóga mé an chloch as do bhealach. wait.imp.2sg until lift.prs.sbjv.1sg I the stone out your way ‘Wait until I remove the stone out of your way.’

The speaker may at times make an appeal on the basis of a close relationship or kinship to be granted some wish or information, which is being withheld from him, as in (3). (3) Duine agaibh féin mise. Insígí rud beag dom person of_you.pl self I.emph tell.2pl thing small to_me faoin scéal seo. about_the story this ‘I am one of your own. Tell me a little about this story.’

Imperatives, which are instructional in nature, usually have a universal interpretation. There is generally no need for immediate compliance as in (4). (4) Gráigí bhur gcomharsa agus gráfaidh Dia sibh. love.imp.2pl your neighbour and love.fut God you.pl ‘Love your neighbour and God will love you.’

Palmer (1986: 109) reports that many languages have specific 1st and 3rd person forms for exhortation and this is indeed the case for Irish. These are also sometimes described as “performatives” in the literature (Lyons 1977: 751). It is unclear whether or not these 1st and 3rd person forms should be accorded the same status as the unmarked 2nd person, whose directive has to be carried out by someone other than the speaker. Sentences (5)–(7) below exemplify these usages. (5) Bíodh sí anseo amárach ar a dó dhéag. be.imp.3sg she here tomorrow on ptl two ten ‘She is to be here tomorrow at twelve o’clock.’ (6) a.

Ní bhfaighidh tú aon dinnéar anseo. neg get.fut you any dinner here ‘You won’t get any dinner here.’

b. Bím gan é mar.sin. be.imp.1sg without it.acc therefore ‘Let me be without it then.’ .  Similar examples are to be found in McQuillan’s discussion of the subjunctive and other moods in Old and Middle Irish (McQuillan 2002: 26–27).



Mood in Irish

(7) Fágaimis uainn é mar scéal. leave.imp.1pl away_from it.acc as story ‘Let’s drop the whole story.’

In some contexts the speaker may wish a certain course of action for the target of his comments. In such contexts the use of the 3rd person imperative is similar to the optative usage as found in the subjunctive. This is exemplified in (8) (8) Duine ar bith atá ag teacht, tógadh sé person on earth is.dir.rel at come.vn lift.imp.3sg he a mhála agus leanadh sé Dónall go_dtí an bus. his bag and follow.imp.3sg he Dónall to the bus ‘Whoever is coming, let him pick up his bag and follow Dónall to the bus.’

2.2  Impersonal/autonomous forms A feature of Irish grammar is the use of impersonal/autonomous forms of all verbs including bí ‘be’, as imperatives. The verb is not marked for subject and is used for generalized instructions where no agent is specified. (9) Óltar an tae seo. drink.imp.aut the tea this ‘Let this tea be drunk (Someone should drink this tea).’ (10) Bítear ag an obair ar a hocht ar maidin. be.imp.aut at the work on ptl eight on morning ‘Let everyone be at work at eight in the morning.’

Note the following line from a well known song with two different imperative forms, an impersonal form and a 3rd person singular non-specific form. (11) Líontar domsa an crúiscín agus bíodh sé lán. fill.imp.aut for_me.emph the jug and be.imp.3sg it full ‘Let the jug be filled for me up to the brim.’

2.3  Imperatives in concessive clauses The imperative forms of all verbs are used extensively in Irish to introduce concessive conditional clauses. The forms used are generally in the 3rd person but the 1st person is also often found with such usages. I should point out that the relevant personal pronoun, which follows the negative form of the imperative after ná, is omitted even when the pronoun is attached to the verb as in (13) below. The verbal form used is the unmarked 3rd person singular. (12) Cuireadh sé nó ná cuireadh, rachaidh mé ann. rain.imp.3sg it or neg rain.imp go.fut I in_it ‘Whether it rains or not, I’m going to go there.’



 Dónall P. Ó Baoill

(13) Bímis bocht nó ná bíodh, caithfimid díol as. be.imp.1pl poor or neg be.imp must.fut.1pl pay for_it ‘Whether we are poor or not, we must pay for it.’ (14) Óltar é nó ná hóltar, is Cuma. drink.imp.aut it or neg drink.imp.aut cop matter ‘It doesn’t matter whether it is drunk or not.’

3.  The subjunctive mood There are many definitions of mood and the work of Jacobson (1971:  135), Bybee (1985: 165) and Lyons (1995: 179) among others has striven to find solutions to what is a complicated relationship between syntactic and semantic processes of language use. Such definitions have been of a sufficiently broad nature and reflect to some degree problems arising in trying to correlate form and function. The work of researchers such as Bybee et al. (1994: 236) clearly indicates that the semantic content of grammatical morphemes denoting the subjunctive mood is not easily identified. They are not as transparent in meaning as those grammatical markers which indicate tense or aspectual contrasts in most languages. Further work such as Givon’s (1995) analysis of the subjunctive as a subset of irrealis in language in general seem much more attractive and promising in helping us get a better understanding of the evolving relationship in Irish between the conditional and subjunctive moods and the strong historical tendency within the language of moving towards the conditional right up to the present day. One of the overall imperatives of any present study is consideration of the syntactic nature of subjunctives and conditionals and in particular their association and use in subordinating constructions. Croft (1990) has observed that that the main issue is one of relating form to function. His structural/morphosyntactic definition may prove helpful in exploring possible semantic and pragmatic characterizations of mood in Irish, both historically and diachronically. There has been throughout the history of Irish a coherence about the appearance of mood in a variety of different subordinating or dependent contexts. Semantic consistency between all the contexts in which purpose and relative clauses occur seems to be of the utmost importance. In order to account for the coherence of mood variation across different language contexts and over a variety of languages, we need to look at how linguistic typologists and those interested in a broadly functional view of language have approached this matter. The notion of linguistic prototypes has been adopted by many scholars, including Lakoff (1987), Givón (1989: 35–67), Winters (1989, 1991) and Taylor (1995), with various degrees of success. The main characteristics of linguistic prototypes can be summarised as follows. They are polysemous in nature with a variety of related meanings. The core of such meanings cluster around a functional means based on salience and frequency. Consequently, some members of a category can be considered more central to its meaning and many of the



Mood in Irish 

marginal meanings are derived from this central meaning. Some meanings are ­prioritised within existing hierarchies and this conceptualisation helps us account for synchronic variation across languages and to understand diachronic change.

3.1  The verbal morphology The two subjunctives in Irish are conveniently referred to in Irish grammars as the present and the past subjunctive, respectively.8 Table 2.  The present subjunctive9 Conjugation 1 Default case9 1pl aut

Conjugation 2

ól ‘drink’

bris ‘break’

ordaigh ‘order’

éirigh ‘rise’

go n-óla/nár óla

go mbrise/nár bhrise

go n-éirí/nár éirí

go n-ólaimid/ nár ólaimid go n-óltar/ nár óltar

go mbrisimid/ nár bhrisimid go mbristear/ nár bhristear

go n-ordaí/ nár ordaí go n-ordaímid/ nár ordaímid go n-ordaítear

go n-éirimid/ nár éirímid go n-éirítear/ nár éirítear

Table 3.  The past subjunctive Conjugation 1 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl aut

Conjugation 2

ól ‘drink’

bris ‘break’

ordaigh ‘order’

éirigh ‘rise’

dá

dá

dá

dá

n-ólainn n-óltá n-óladh sé/sí n-ólaimis n-óladh sibh n-ólaidís n-óltaí

mbrisinn mbristeá mbriseadh sé/sí mbrisimis mbriseadh sibh mbrisidís mbristí

n-ordaínn n-ordaíteá n-ordaíodh sé/sí n-ordaímis n-ordaíodh sibh n-ordaídís n-ordaítí

n-éirínn n-éiríteá n-éiríodh sé/sí n-éirímis n-éiríodh sibh n-éirídís n-éirítí

3.2  Usage The jussive subjunctive became obsolete during the Middle Irish10 period and will not be discussed here. The second most important diachronic development, which occurred in the history of Irish, is the obligatory use of Old Irish co, Modern Irish go, as a marker of .  It should be noted that both subjunctives are preceded by various particles and complementizers such as the negative markers ná/nár/nára ‘may … not’, the complementizer go ‘may, until, so that’ and the conditional marker dá ‘if ’. .  All persons except the 1st person plural take the same form. Each form must be followed by the relevant pronoun mé ‘I’, tú ‘you’, sé/sí ‘he/she’, sibh ‘you.pl’ and siad ‘they’. .  This is roughly a period of 300 years (900–1200 AD).

 Dónall P. Ó Baoill

subordination and ná(r) as the corresponding negative.11 This heralds the beginning of the syntacticization of the subjunctive. The optative subjunctive expresses a hope that a certain event will take place or that a certain state of affairs will have been attained. The present subjunctive in Irish functions as an optative or ‘volative’ (Palmer 1986: 116) conveying hope or a realizable wish. Originally it was augmented by ro but now and since the 9th century by co/go. These usages are exemplified in the following. (15) Nár laga Dia thú. neg.comp weaken.sbjv.prs.3sg God you.acc ‘May God not weaken you.’ (16) Go dté tú seacht n-uaire ar mire. comp go.sbjv.prs.2sg you.emph seven times on madness ‘May you go into a mad frenzy.’

The use of the optative subjunctive is often accompanied by performative predicates such as guigh ‘pray, request’, iarr ‘ask, request’ and mol ‘recommend’. In such sentences the speaker mentions explicitly the actions he is performing or wishes to perform. The subordinated clause then becomes an ‘indirect speech’ act. (17) Guímse Dia go dtuga sé slán sibh. pray.prs.1sg.emph God comp take.sbjv.prs.3sg he safe you.pl ‘I pray that God brings you safely home.’

Irish is particularly fond of the mood sequence – imperative in a main clause and the present subjunctive in a following subordinate clause. This was also the case as far back as Old Irish, the subordinate clause now always introduced by go. (18) Fan go dtaga d’athair. stay.imp.2sg comp come.sbjv.prs.3sg your_father ‘Wait until your father comes.’

The present subjunctive is often used in suboordinate clauses in Irish to denote purpose and reason. The main clause verb normally takes the future tense form and is often a verb indicating motion, though not exclusively. These sentences also express a strong likelihood that the action mentioned will take place. (19) Rachaidh mé chun an aonaigh go gceannaí mé bó. go.fut.1sg I to the fair.gen.sg comp buy.sbjv.prs.1sg I cow ‘I will go to the fair (in order) to buy a cow.’

.  These changes occurred more slowly in negative clauses. The first examples of co being used in affirmative clauses are found in 8th and 9th century texts such as Félire Óengus. For further discussion see McQuillan (2002: 46).



Mood in Irish

3.2.1  Non-finite structures In Irish, there is a strong tendency which has been accentuated since the Old Irish period to use non-finite verbal noun constructions in subordinate clauses, replacing original subjunctive structures (Genee 1998: 440–452 and Ó hUiginn 1998: 136ff). In the following “subjunctive” contexts, the verbal noun construction has been preponderant since the Old Irish period. (20) Ghuigh sé Dia a tharrtháil. pray.pst.3sg he God he_to rescue.vn ‘He prayed that God would save him (He asked God to save him).’ (21) D’ordaigh sé an príosúnach a thabhairt chuige. order.pst.3sg he the prisoner to bring.vn to_him ‘He ordered that the prisoner be brought to him.’

3.2.2  Go as a temporal conjunction Go in Irish introduces ‘until’-clauses. It is not always easy to differentiate between such clauses and the type of purpose clause which was discussed earlier. This is principally a matter of the control exercised from the main predicate, which is a lot weaker in the case of the ‘until’ clauses. The future context is provided by the use of an imperative or of a future tense form. (22) Fuireoidh mé go raibh siad réidh. wait.fut.1sg I comp be.sbjv.prs.3pl they ready ‘I’ll wait until they are ready.’

3.2.3  Explicitness and pragmatic strengthening In the course of its history from Old Irish onwards, the evolution of more explicit conjunctions to express purpose and time, is one of the most striking and enduring features of Irish syntax. Such change has been referred to as pragmatic strengthening in the literature (Hopper & Traugott 1993: 87–93). This overt expression of meaning is a sign of renewal and change. Single conjunctions are prone to generalization and when this happens there is a loss of semantic content and functioning and hence the need to replace them in order to clarify opaque interclausal relationship. We will focus here on a few of these ‘strengthened’ conjunctions, which still play a pivotal role in the modern dialects, namely dóigh go, sa dóigh go, ionnas go and nó go.12 Depending on the tense/mood used with these “new” augmented conjunctions, they can be interpreted as either purpose or result clauses and can be translated by ‘since’/‘because’. .  For detailed discussion of the historical development of subjunctive structures following such augmented and unaugmented conjunctions and subsequent diachronic change, see Mc Quillan (2002: 122ff).



 Dónall P. Ó Baoill

(23) Cha dtéim ann nó go mbí/raibh an lá ann. neg go.prs.hab.1sg in_it or comp be.sbjv.prs.3sg the day in_it ‘I won’t go there until/unless it is morning time.’ (24) Fág ansin é (sa) dóigh go bhfagha leave.imp.2sg there it (in_the) way comp get.sbjv.prs.3sg sé greim air. he hold on_him ‘Leave it there so that he may catch/get hold of it.’ (25) Tabhair dom an fíon (ionnas) go n-óla give.imp.2sg to_me the wine (so) comp drink.sbjv.prs.1sg mé braon de. I drop of_it ‘Give me the wine until/so that I may drink a drop of it.’

The dichotomy found in Old Irish between the use of the subjunctive or a verbal noun construction following certain kinds of verbs in purpose clauses (Disterheft 1985: 115), is also to be found in the modern language, but these patterns are not without exception.13 There would also seem to be a dialectal split where the Ulster variety seems to maintain the use of both constructions, while the other two main dialects, Connacht and Munster, prefer the use of finite subordinate clauses introduced by augmented/unaugmented conjunctions. (26) and (27) illustrate modern Ulster usages. (26) D’imigh siad chun an bhaile á ní féin. go.pst.3sg they to the home.gen.sg at_their wash.vn self ‘They went home to wash themselves.’ (27) D’imigh siad chun an bhaile go go.pst.3pl they to the home.gen.sg comp níodh siad iad féin. wash.sbjv.prs.3pl they them.acc self ‘They went home in order to wash themselves.’

It would seem that the use of the subjunctive form in (27) indicates an “irrealis” situation where there is some uncertainty about whether or not the action will be/was carried out. Such uncertainty does not apply to (26) where the speaker assumes that the action will be/ has been carried out. Furthermore, in sentences of type (27), the verb in the purpose clause is often rendered in the Conditional mood. What is clear is that the matrix clause plays a crucial and central role in clarifying our understanding of the successful realization of the predicate action in the subordinate clause.

.  The original distribution was that motion verbs governed verbal noun constructions while non-motion verbs took subjunctive clauses.



Mood in Irish

3.2.4  The development of ach(t) go The ach(t) go conditional conjunction is another of the augmented forms which still survives into the modern period. The original conjunction in Old Irish was ach (pronounced [ax]). The history of this conjunction is duly outlined by Ó Buachalla (1972). It can be followed by all tenses and by both the Subjunctive and Conditional moods. It has a specific time reference with the meaning ‘when, as soon as’ and has been attested in all three main dialects.14 (28) Ní bhogfaidh sí ach go mbí sí cinnte. neg move.fut.3sg she but comp be.sbjv.prs.3sg she certain ‘She won’t move until she is certain.’

The g of go is often deleted in pronunciation except in Ulster Irish where the [g] may be retained as in sentences of type (28) and (29). In the following realizations of acht go, its meaning has a negative connotation and is best rendered in English as ‘if it were not for’. Two phonetic realizations are possible, [ax6] and [ax g6], which seems to point to ach(t) go as the possible origin of both pronunciations.15 Sentences such as (29) properly belong to the discussion of the conditional mood and will be discussed further in 4.2. (29) Ach gurb é gur labhair tú, bhí tú buailte agam. but cop it comp speak.pst.3sg you be.pst.2sg you beaten by_me ‘Had you not spoken, I would have struck you.’

4.  The Conditional 4.1  The Morphology The forms of the Conditional are represented in Table 4. Table 4.  The Conditional Conjugation 1

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl aut

Conjugation 2

ól ‘drink’

bris ‘break’

ordaigh ‘order’

éirigh ‘rise’

dá

dá

dá

dá

n-ólfainn n-ólfá n-ólfadh sé/sí n-ólfaimis n-ólfadh sibh n-ólfaidís n-ólfaí

mbrisfinn mbrisfeá mbrisfeadh sé/sí mbrisfimis mbrisfeadh sibh mbrisfidís mbrisfí

n-ordóinn n-ordófá n-ordódh sé/sí n-ordóimis n-ordódh sibh n-ordóidís n-ordófaí

n-éireoinn n-éireofá n-éireodh sé/sí n-éireoimis n-éireodh sibh n-éireoidís n-éireofaí

.  The phonetic realization of ach(t) go is normally [ax6] in all dialects. However, in Ulster dialects, particularly Donegal, the g of go is often heard as in examples (37) and (38) [ax g6]. .  This is also the conclusion reached by Ó Buachalla (1972: 153).



 Dónall P. Ó Baoill

4.2  Conditional sentences and the expression of mood There are many ways of approaching the study of conditional clauses. They generally consist of two proposals – a preceding conditional clause referred to as the protasis and a consequent clause referred to as the apodosis. A potential cause and effect relationship is envisaged between the two clauses (Comrie 1986: 80). The works of Sweetser (1990, 1995) and Fillmore (1990) have focused their attention on semantic classification and on the extent to which the relationship existing between protasis and apodosis is reflected in the use of verbal forms, tenses and moods. In examining Irish conditionals, three types can be differentiated on the basis of the connectives that may be chosen to mark them. When there is an if type relationship, modern Irish employs both má and dá to grammaticalize this conditional relationship. Both conjunctions operate across the actual and non-actual (realis and irrealis) domains of reference. Cé/Gidh go are used in the creation of concessive conditionals and they also operate across actual and non-actual domains. Restrictive conditionals with the restrictive meaning only if are introduced by ach and ach má. (30) Má bhí siad ann, ní fhaca mise iad. if was they in_it neg see.pst.1sg I.emph them.acc ‘If they were there, I didn’t see them.’ (31) Dá mbíodh/ mbeadh sé ann, labharfainn leis. if be.sbjv.pst.3sg/ cond.3sg he in_it speak.cond.1sg with_him ‘Had he been there, I would have spoken to him.’

Má is obligatory in all variants of Irish rather than optional in some and is normally followed by the non-conditional forms of the verb. The Future Indicative is disqualified from the condition clause where prediction is inherently impossible and is replaced by the Habitual Present. The verb in the main clause carries the future tense.16 (32) Má ólann tú an deoch, déanfaidh sí maith duit. if drink.prs.hab.2sg you the drink make.fut.3sg it good to_you ‘If you take the drink, it will do you good.’

4.3  Concessives When concessive sentences have no element of conditionality, the modern language makes use of the indicative, as in the earlier language.

.  In Munster, usages such as má bheadh (má + conditional form) have been attested in speech and in written sources.



Mood in Irish

(33) Cé/Gidh go bhfuil an fear sé bliana marbh, although comp be.prs.3sg the husband six years dead char phós sí riamh. neg marry.pst.3sg she ever ‘Although her husband has been dead for six years, she never married.’

Irish also often uses the imperative form of the verb bí ‘be’ plus is/agus ‘and’17 in such clauses e.g. bíodh (is), replacing cé/gidh ‘although’ without any change in meaning. (34) Bíodh is go bhfuil … (see (33)) be.imp.3sg and comp be.prs.3sg ‘Although/Even though her husband has been dead …’

It is not always easy to distinguish between ‘normal’ conditionals and ‘concessive’ conditionals in Irish and this has been the case since the Old Irish period. The main reason is that the latter type allow a certain freedom of interpretation because of the structure of the protasis. It seems as if what is said in the protasis is irrelvant and the speaker goes on to assert an apodosis despite the fact the (s)he knows that the truth value being expressed is inherently improbable. In König (1986: 231) concessive conditionals are referred to as ‘irrelevance’ conditionals. The “indefinite” types mentioned by Thompson & Longacre (1985: 198) seem to share a similar characteristic of irrelevance. (35) Cé go scaoilfí thú, ba chuma leat. although comp shoot.cond.aut you.acc cop.cond care with_you ‘If you were to be shot/Even though you could be shot, you wouldn’t care.’

Despite the fact that the agent in the subordinate clause in (35) is well aware of the dangers of being shot, nevertheless, (s)he does not care and carries out some action that is likely to lead to his/her being shot.

4.4  Conditional markers 4.4.1  The conditional and new markers The ongoing trend away from the use of the subjunctive and its replacement by the conditional continues unabated within the modern language. Therefore, the subjunctive is restricted to the use of older makers. Such new introductory phrases as ar eagla go ‘for fear that/in case’, sa dóigh go ‘in order that’, chun/le go ‘so that’ and many others are now almost universally followed by the conditional.

.  It is assumed that is is a reduced form of the conjunction agus. In most instances of such reduction, either form can be used but the preference in these concessive constructions is to use only is.



 Dónall P. Ó Baoill

(36) Chuaigh mé i bhfolach ar eagla go bhfeicfí mé. go.pst.1sg I in hiding on fright comp see.cond.aut me.acc ‘I went into hiding in case I should/would be seen.’

4.4.2  The restrictive conditionals acht (go) and ach má The form of this conditional was acht in Old Irish. However, towards the end of the Old Irish period c. 900 AD, the conjunction was augmented by the use of co, modern go, with the new phrase having roughly the same meaning. Ó Buachalla (1972) outlines the diachronic development of acht go down to the Modern Irish period and goes on to show that a semantic shift occurred whereby the meaning of the conjunction moved away from its restrictive conditional sense to include a variety of temporal meanings.  (37) is similar in meaning to the historical restrictive meaning. (38)–(39) show modern developments. (37) Ba chuma liom ach go bhfeicfinn é. cop.cond mind with_me but comp see.cond.1sg it ‘I wouldn’t mind if I saw him (If I had the opportunity to see him).’ (38) Ach go dtige an sáile air, chan fhuil maith a ithe. but comp come.sbjv.prs.3sg the brine on_it neg be.prs.3sg good to eat ‘It is not worth eating until it has been touched by sea-water.’ (39) Ach gurb é an gortú, bheinn ann. but cop it the injury be.cond.1sg there ‘If it were not for the injury, I would be present.’

The use of ach má is similar in nature to ach(t) go both in relation to usage and the semantic and pragmatic distinctions it can express. Its meaning corresponds generally to the English expression ‘only if ’. (40) Ní mholfaidh mé é ach má thig sé. neg recommend.fut.1sg I him but if come.prs.3sg he ‘I will recommend him only if he comes (is present).’

4.5  Negative conditionals Irish possesses two conjunctions to introduce negative conditional main clauses. There is the standard form mura and its dialect variant muna, both followed by similar initial mutation alternations. Secondly, the forms murach/murab é are used in the sense of ‘if it were not for’. In the case of mura/muna they may be followed by either the subjunctive or conditional mood or indeed any other tense. Usage is dictated mostly by the sociolinguistic and pragmatic context in which sentences are uttered.



Mood in Irish 

(41) Mura mbíodh sí go maith d’fhanfadh sí neg be.pst.hab.3sg she comp well stay.cond.3sg she ina luí. in_her lying_down ‘If she weren’t feeling well, she would stay in bed.’ (42) Mura mbeinn tinn, rachainn ann. neg be.cond.1sg sick go.cond.1sg in_it ‘If I weren’t sick, I’d go there.’

The use of murach/murab é is illustrated in sentences (43)–(44).18 The conjunctions are normally followed by the complementizer go/gur, except for copula sentences. (43) Murab é go dtáinig siad aréir. neg.cop it comp come.pst.3pl they last_night ‘Unless they arrived last night.’ (44) Murach Pádraig, bheinn caillte. neg Patrick be.cond.1sg lost ‘If it weren’t for Patrick, I’d be lost.’

4.6  Conditionals and the realis-irrealis continuum I have shown above that certain usages of the Conditional mood can be viewed along the realis-irrealis axis, through the use of the conjunctions má and dá, respectively. However, the most common use of the Conditional in modern Irish is non-referential in nature and indeed in many cases there is no condition attached to its usage. Two recent papers (Wigger 2009 and Eshel-Benninga 2007) have focused on this fact, based on speech and writing corpora from the Connacht (Galway) dialect of modern Irish.19 (45)–(47) exemplify the use of the conditional mood on its own without any perceived condition attached to its use or to be implied. (45) Chomh maith díreach is dá mbeifeá ag éisteacht leis. as good straight and if be.cond.2sg at listen.vn with_him ‘Almost as good as if you were listening to him.’

.  Murach is a combination of mura ‘if not’ and the conjunction ach ‘but’, giving the meaning ‘if it were not’, ‘had X not …’ .  Wigger’s paper gives a great deal of information about the use of the conditional and its frequency based on the material in his own book Caint Ros Muc (2004). This in turn has been based on the large database of colloquial speech collected by Hans Hartmann in the Ros Muc area of West Galway. The second paper was delivered at the XIII International Congress of Celtic Studies in Bonn in July 2007 by Eshel-Benninga. Her Irish materials were based on evidence from Pádraic Ó Conaire’s novel Deoraíocht.

 Dónall P. Ó Baoill

(46) An mbeadh briseadh fiche punt agat? q be.cond.3sg change twenty pound at_you ‘Would you have twenty pounds change?’ (47) Cé a shílfeadh díot é? who rel.dir think.cond.3sg of_you it ‘Who would have thought it possible of you (to do such a thing)?’

4.6.1  Diachronic changes In the course of its long history, Irish has shown a tendency for movement away from the use of the subjunctive in what has been called in the literature “indefinite concessives” (Thompson & Longacre 1985: 198; König 1986: 231). The subjunctive has been replaced by Future tense or Conditional forms.20 The choice has to do with whether or not irrealis is to be marked. If so, irrealis tends to be marked by the use of the Conditional. This is shown clearly by the options in (50). (48) Cibé duine a rachas ann, chan mise é. whoever person rel.dir go.fut.rel in_it, neg i.emph him ‘Whoever goes there, it won’t be me.’ (49) Dá bhfaighinn duine agaibh a choimeádfadh if get.cond.1sg person at_you rel.dir watch.cond.3sg an teach dom. the house for_me ‘If I were to/could get someone of you to take care of the house for me.’ (50) Níl duine ar an tsaol a bhuailfeas/ bhuailfeadh é. be.neg person on the world rel.dir beat.fut.rel/ cond.3sg him ‘There is no one in the world who will/would beat him.’

4.6.2  Indefinite antecedents There is a tendency to combine an indefinite antecedent with modality either in the main clause or in the relative clause that follows. In a sense, the speaker seems to deny the existence of an antecedent that ought to match the description that follows in the relative clause. Here again we get an irrealis or negative marking of the main clause and the antecedent of the relative clause is indefinite or to be understood. In an earlier stage of the language, main and relative clauses were both marked by the use of the Subjunctive.21 In the modern language, the verbal form in the relative clause tends to be expressed by the Conditional

.  For more detailed discussion and examples relating to this change see McQuillan (2002: 200–223). .  See McQuillan (2002: 200–205).



Mood in Irish 

mood. The type of relative clause used is termed indirect by Irish grammarians.22 This is shown by an initial consonant morphophonemic sound change and is referred to as eclipsis or urú in Irish grammars. The urú is also shown in writing and is marked in bold in (51). (51) Níl duine a dtroidfinn nach mbuailfinn. be.neg person rel.indir fight.cond.1sg neg.comp beat.cond.1sg ‘No matter who I would fight, I would beat that person.’

4.7  The conditional in indirect speech Reported or indirect speech, whose basic form was uttered using the future tense, is communicated through the use of the conditional. (52) Dúirt siad go mbeadh siad ann. say.pst.3pl they comp be.cond.3pl they in_it ‘They said they would be there/present.’

5.  Conjunction and complementizer sequences Mood harmony between sequential clauses follows fairly predictable lines. They can be summarized as follows: Protasis Past Subjunctive >> Conditional >>

Apodosis Conditional Conditional

(53) Dá mbíodh airgead agam, bheinn ceart go_leor. if be.pst.hab.3sg money at_me be.cond.1sg right enough ‘If I had the money, I would have been alright.’ (54) Dá ndíolfá an teach, bheadh airgead agat. if sell.cond.2sg the house be.cond.3sg money at_you ‘If you sold/were to sell the house, you would have money.’

Similarly, in subordinate clauses introduced by the complementizers go/gur, the tendency is to have the Conditional mood in both the main and subordinate clauses. (55) Dá n-íosfainn é agus go n-éireoinn tinn. if eat.cond.1sg it and comp become.cond.1sg sick ‘If I were to eat it and get sick (as a result of my eating).’

.  This rule is similar to the use of indirect clauses following words such as sin, gach etc. which indicate an entire entity e.g. Sin a bhfuil ‘That’s all’, Gach a raibh ann ‘Everything that was there’ where bhfuil and raibh are indirect forms of the verb.

 Dónall P. Ó Baoill

There is a strong tendency in the modern language to replace the finite subordinate clause with a non-finite clause containing the verbal noun construction, contrary to Old Irish usage. It parallels similar developments elsewhere in the diachronic syntax of the language. (56) Dá rachfá chun cainte léi agus do if go.cond.2sg to talk.gen.sg with_her and your scéal a mhíniú di. story to explain.vn to_her ‘If you were to talk to her and explain your story to her.’

6.  Conclusion In the course of this paper, we have outlined the major uses of the mood system of modern Irish. It has been shown that diachronic change has been a slow process – that the use of the Subjunctive is still very much alive in the modern language, although its domain of usage has been restricted since the Old Irish period. Furthermore, there has been a huge increase in the use of the Conditional mood in conditional clauses in all varieties of Irish, and in due course it will have taken over the domains previously occupied by the Subjunctive. The use of Imperative forms is now quite common in the formation of various concessive clauses. There is a tendency in the modern dialects to substitute Future tense in domains which until very recently have been exclusive to the Conditional.

Abbreviations aut autonomous form emph emphatic dir direct relative marker preceding a clause which is called a “direct relative clause” and whose verb initial consonant has the process of lenition applied to it. indir indirect relative marker preceding a clause which is called an “indirect relative clause” and whose verb initial consonant has the process of eclipsis applied to it. vn verbal noun

References Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Form and Meaning [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The Chicago University Press.



Mood in Irish

Comrie, B. 1986. Conditionals: A typology. In Traugott et al. (eds). 77–99. Croft, W. 1990. Linguistic Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP. Disterheft, D. 1985. Purpose and consecutive in Old Irish. Ériu 36: 107–23. Eshel-Benninga, O. 2007. The structure of the conditional in Irish. Paper presented to the 13th International Celtic Congress, Bonn. Fillmore, C. 1990. Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. Papers from the 26th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 137–162. Genee, I. 1998. Sentential Complementation in a Functional Grammar of Irish. The Hague: HAG. Givón, T. 1989. Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Greenberg, J.H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, J.H. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Jacobson, R. 1971. Selected writings. Vol. II. 130–147. The Hague: Mouton. König, E. 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives. In Traugott et al. (eds), 229–246. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago IL: The Chicago University Press. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, 2 Vols. Cambridge: CUP. Lyons, J. 1995. Linguistic Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. McCloskey, J. 1983. A VP in a VSO language? In Order, Concord and Constituency, G. Gazdar, E. Klein & G.K. Pullam (eds), 9–55. Dordrecht: Foris. McQuillan, P. 2002. Modality and Grammar: A History of the Irish Subjunctive [Maynooth Studies in Celtic Linguistics]. Maynooth: National University of Ireland, Department. of Old Irish. Ó Baoill, D. 1994. Tense and aspect in modern Irish. In Tense Systems in European Languages, R. Thieroff & J. Ballweg (eds), 201–218. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Ó Buachalla, B. 1972. Stair an chónaisc acht co. Ériu 23: 143–161. Ó hUiginn, R. 1998. Complementation in early Irish: The verba dicendi. Ériu 49: 121–148. Ó hUiginn, R. 2001. Embedded imperative clauses. Ériu 52: 231–234. Ó Siadhail, M. 1989. Modern Irish. Grammatical Structure and Dialectal Variation. Cambridge: CUP. Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP. Stenson, N. 1981. Studies in Irish Syntax. Tübingen: Narr. Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Sweetser, E. 1995. Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions. In Fauconnier and Sweetser, 318–333. Taylor, J. 1995. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge: CUP. Thompson, S.A. & Longacre, R. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In: T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 2. 171–234. Cambridge: CUP. Traugott, E., ter Meulen, A., Snitzer Reilly J. & Ferguson, C. (eds). 1986. On Conditionals. Cambridge: CUP. Wigger, A. 2009. An Modh Coinníollach Neamhchoitianta. Dátaí agus smaointe i dtaobh mhodhanna briathartha na Gaeilge in Diasa Díograise in eagar ag Mícheál Mac Craith agus Pádraig Ó Héalaí, 473–489. Indreabhán: Cló Iar-Chonnachta. Winters, M. 1989. Diachronic prototype theory: On the evolution of the French subjunctive. Linguistics 27: 702–30. Winters, M. 1991. Towards a theory of syntactic prototypes. In: S. Tsohatzidis (ed.) Meanings and Prototypes. Studies in Linguistic Categorization. 185–306. London: Routledge.



Mood in Breton Steve Hewitt UNESCO

1.  Historical and sociolinguistic background Breton, the only Brythonic (Welsh, Cornish, Breton) Celtic language to have preserved the original name, OBr. brethonec, Mod.Br. brezhoneg, is thought to have been brought to Armorica (NW peninsula of France) by immigrants from Britain in the 5th–7th centuries. The traditional view is that the sparse local population was already Romanized, and that Breton thus represents a purely Insular Celtic import. Falc’hun (1963; 1981), however, proposed that the aberrant SE dialect of Gwened (G, Vannes) constituted a hybrid of Gaulish and Insular Brythonic, and later came to believe that Gwened was pure Gaulish and that the remaining dialects of Leon (Léon, L: NW), Kerne (Cornouaille, K: SW and C) and Treger (Trégor, T: NE) were the result of a mixture of Gaulish and Insular Brythonic. The most recent authoritative statement on the subject is Fleuriot (1980: Chapter 3), who turned Falc’hun’s arguments around: if Gaulish, as he agrees is likely, still survived at the time, it was most probably in the remoter north-western regions of the Osismii than among the more Romanized south-eastern Veneti. For Fleuriot, then, the KLT (Kerne, Leon, Treger) dialects represent a blend of Gaulish and Brythonic, and Gwened is the result of a re-Celticization of an area of Romance speech; this scenario convincingly accounts for certain traits that are shared by Gwened and Insular Brythonic to the exclusion of the KLT dialects. The documented history of Breton begins with Old Breton (OBr.), roughly 800–1200, with numerous glosses of sufficient length to reconstitute the grammar and vocabulary in some detail (Fleuriot: 1964b, 1964a); this language is quite close to Old Welsh (800–1100), with which it shares most orthographical conventions. There follows a troubled period in which only placenames and personal names are found. Middle Breton (1350–1660), with numerous texts, many devotional in nature, from 1450 on, is as different from Old Breton as Middle English is from Anglo-Saxon, and for similar reasons. The orthography, apart from a few special conventions, is now Frenchbased. There is a mass of Romance vocabulary grafted onto the native stock (Piette 1973); uniquely among the Celtic languages, there is now a fully-fledged verb ‘have’ based on oblique proclitic personal pronouns plus (existential) forms of ‘be’: m-eus [to.me-there.is] ‘I have’, together with perfect tenses on the French compound tenses model: ‘have’/‘be’ + past participle: meus gweled [have.1sg.prs see.pp], on aed [be.1sg.prs go.pp]; and finally, undoubtedly from contact with Old French, a strong tense-second (t-2) constraint, which interacts in interesting ways with the traditional Insular Celtic predicate-subject-object pso order, as we shall see below.



Mood in Breton 

With the 1659 Le Sacré-Collège de Jésus (Breton catechism, with a dictionary and grammar) by Julien Maunoir, the non-marking of initial consonant mutations disappears, and Modern Breton is deemed to begin; all writing is henceforth identifiable by dialect. Apart from these cosmetic changes, there is initially little grammatical difference. However, during the course of the 18th century, the old system of proclitic object pronouns me en gwel [I 3sg.obj see0prs] ‘I see him’ gradually gives way in the KLT dialects, but not in G, to a new construction with a post-verbal person-marked preposition a ‘of ’: me a=wel aneżañ [I aff see0prs of.him = 3sg.m.obj], which is structurally more similar to English. Even though it is today barely understood by KLT native speakers, the old construction is widely maintained in Standard Breton (possibly owing to its structural similarity with French). Falc’hun, working with Le Roux’s Atlas linguistique de la Basse-Bretagne and a map of Roman roads extant in medieval times, identified an area of linguistic innovation radiating out from the central town of Karaes (Carhaix). There is thus a broad central NE-SW band of innovative dialects of T and K along which intercomprehension is relatively easy; this is flanked by two peripheral dialects, L and G, with G being particularly different from the rest. The latter two areas having traditionally produced more priests than elsewhere, post-Maunoir written Breton came to have twin standards, based on L and G, rather than a linguistically more central norm reflecting usage along the NE-SW axis. L thus came to be used in T and K, but this is not to say that it was actively accepted by speakers of those dialects as a workable literary norm for them. Beginning in the early 19th century with Le Gonidec, but especially since 1925 and the Gwalarn (literary journal, ‘North-West’) movement, Standard Breton has become increasingly divorced from traditional, spontaneous forms of the language, with the result that most native speakers find it rather difficult to follow without special study. There is no standard spoken form of Breton; in formal situations, native speakers who are literate in Breton usually speak their own dialect as clearly as possible, occasionally substituting more standard morphology for excessively local forms; learners for the most part apply more or less French phonology to what they see in writing, this, coupled with an excessively puristic lexicon, but French-inspired phraseology, means that their oral production is barely comprehensible to native speakers. The history of Breton orthography is complex (cf. Hewitt 1987 and 2005, and especially Wmffre 2007). In 1941, under Nazi auspices, KLT and G were artificially combined in a Peurunvan ‘fully unified’ orthography widely known as ZH (zh: KLT z ~ G h). In reaction against ZH, Falc’hun promulgated in 1955 the Skolveurieg/Orthographe universitaire (OU) orthography, with parallel standards for KLT and G. In 1975, a third Etrerannyezhel/Interdialectale (ID) orthography was launched. At present, ZH, linguistically the least suitable, as it violates several native-speaker phonological intuitions, dominates, with at least 85%; OU has 10–12%; and the remaining 3–5% use ID. I use a personal refinement of ID, an Etymological orthography, which has several extra supradialectal conventions that accurately predict dialect reflexes, and which links up better with Middle Breton and

 Steve Hewitt

Welsh. In any case, there is well under 1% functional literacy (the ability to write a simple personal letter) in Breton among native speakers; if a particular orthography were well known and actively used by a significant number of native speakers, that would be the obvious choice, but that is not the case. In the interests of consistency and comparability for non-specialists, all examples here are given in Etymological orthography. Forms reflect majority usage, but may differ in some details from Standard Breton.

2.  Linguistic background Breton, like all other Celtic languages, has grammaticalized initial consonant mutations which are historically the complex result of final vowel loss and sandhi; these will be indicated here, whenever a mutation has applied, with =, ≠, °, etc: dibriñ [eat.inf], o≠tibriñ [prog eat.inf] ‘eating’, a=zebr [aff eat0prs] ‘eats’; penn, ma°fenn [head, my head], etc.; see abbrevations – naturally, these symbols are not used in normal written Breton. The three tense particles, a= ‘direct’ affirmative tense particle aff (after subject, object, infinitive), e≠ ‘indirect’ affirmative tense particle aff (after other elements, such as prepositional phrase, adverb, etc.), ne= negative tense particle neg, and the progressive infinitival particle o≠ (é≠ in some areas) prog are often elided in normal tempos, but the initial consonant mutations they trigger remain. In the central NE-SW dialects, e≠ is usually replaced by a=, with the result that all tensed forms with an initial lenitable consonant have lenition (this tendency is not reflected here). Basic Breton word order1 may be succinctly described with the following formula (see abbrevations): (x) (aux) p s o… and t-2 (tense-second), where x may be s, o, po, adv, etc., and t attaches either to aux, if there is one, or to the simple verb v; the negative tense particle ne neg is ambivalent: it may either itself fill the x slot or allow some other element to its left. There is a primary division into an information-neutral ‘bare presentation’ with an initial p (the whole utterance is relatively new), and various ‘lead-in presentations’ with in initial position some other element x, which, in a secondary division, may be either thematic (given, scene-setting) or rhematic (new, focus, contrast, emphasis, etc.). One of the most common elements to fill the x slot is actually the subject, such that spo order is more frequent than pso, even if it is not necessarily the most neutral from the point of view of information structure. The interaction of this framework with the t‑2 constraint means that, quite uniquely among languages, the Breton simple affirmative sentence in ‘bare presentation’ does not have the simplest structure,

.  For a fuller account of Breton verbal syntax, see Hewitt (1988), and especially Hewitt (2002b); for vso vs vgn (verb-given-new) word order typology, see Hewitt (2002a).



Mood in Breton

but usually undergoes one of two ‘transformations’. With simple verbs, there is Dummy Auxiliary Creation in order to get t into second position, such that (1) without the initial adverb neuse becomes (2): (1) neuse e≠tebr an=dud krampouzh so aff eat0prs the people crêpes ‘so people eat crêpes’ (2) dibriñ a ra an=dud krampouzh eat.inf aff do0prs the people crêpes ‘people eat crêpes’

With auxiliary structures (auxiliary ‘be’/‘have’ + past participle; copula + predicate; existential operator eus + existential entity), there is Auxiliary-Predicate Inversion: (3) neuse e meus gweled so aff have.1sg.prs see.pp ‘so I have seen’ (4) gweled e meus see.pp aff have.1sg.prs ‘I have seen’

The general rule is no person/number marking in the verb (tensed element); when a verb is marked for tense only, it will be glossed with 0: …e≠tebr an=dud […aff eat0-prs the people] ‘the people eat’. There are two exceptions to the rule of tense-marking only: (1) when a subject pronoun may be thought to follow the tensed element, there is Subject Inclusion: *ra+me [do0 + I] > ran [do.1sg.prs] or [I.do], giving rise to the personal forms of the TAM (tense-aspect-mood) sets (including the ‘impersonal form’, a seventh form in each set referring to some indeterminate human agent ≈ French on, English one, but there is no corresponding subject pronoun – see Hewitt 2002b for further details); (2) when an initial subject is followed by a tensed form in the negative, so (5a) without person agreement in the affirmative, but (5b) with person agreement in the negative: (5) a.

an=dud a=zebr the people aff eat0prs ‘the people eat’

b. an=dud ne=zebront ked the people neg eat.3pl.prs not ‘the people do not eat’

As a result of its unique morphological origin, the verb ‘have’ always uses person-marked forms: m-eus [1sg.obl-be.exist0prs] ‘I have’. In addition, there is a strong tendency in the central NE-SW dialects to add regular personal endings in the plural: Standard Breton hon‑eus [1pl.obl-be.exist0prs] ‘we have’ > *hon-eus-omp [1pl.obl-be.exist0prs.1pl.prs] >



 Steve Hewitt

neusomp > neump; (hom-eus) > meusomp > meump ‘we have’. Since ‘have’ is derived from ‘be’, the infinitive of auxiliary ‘have’ is simply ‘be’, to be interpreted according to context: (6) ne meus ked c’hŵant da =veżañ debred neg have.1sg.prs not desire to be.inf eat.pp ‘I do not want to be eaten’ (7) red e≠vo deomp beżañ debred a-=benn nav eur 0 necessary aff be fut to.1pl be = have.inf eat.pp by nine hour ‘we will have to have eaten by nine o’clock’.

As a lexical verb meaning ‘possess’, ‘have’ has a suppletive infinitive kaoud < kavoud ‘find’. In addition to the simple tenses or TAM sets reviewed below (other useful terms to avoid using the slightly inaccurate ‘tense’ or ‘conjugation’ are ‘screeve’, coined from the Georgian mc․․k rivi ‘row’, or French tiroir ‘drawer’), and the compound perfect tenses alluded to above, Breton has a periphrastic progressive construction consisting of ‘be.sit’ + o [prog] + inf, as in (8), which is very similar in range of use to English, the main divergence being that English appears to be developing in the direction of ‘progressive > contingent situation, even state’, whereas Breton appears to correlate the progressive strongly with ‘control by the subject’; for more details, see Hewitt 1986 and 1990. ≠tibriñ krampouzh (8) emañ an=dud o be.sit0prs the people prog eat.inf crêpes ‘the people are eating crêpes’

3.  Evolution of the Breton TAM sets and values Table 1 shows the evolution of the six basic Breton TAM sets. In the middle period of Breton, the primary value of each set was quite similar to Welsh, and most of the individual forms were clearly related, apart from 2sg and 2pl in sets 1a and 2a, and 2sg in set 3a. Since then, however, the two languages have diverged.2 Breton has kept all six sets, but apart from 3a ‘preterite’, which has become moribund, rather like the French passé simple, and 1b ‘imperfect’, their primary values have evolved significantly: 1a MBr. present/ future > Mod.Br. present; 2a MBr. present subjunctive > Mod.Br. future; 2b MBr. imperfect subjunctive > Mod.Br. potential conditional; 3b OBr. pluperfect > MBr., Mod.Br. hypothetical conditional/secondary future (future-in-past). In fact, all these uses were already present, at least secondarily, in MBr., and, as we shall see, the primary MBr. value often remains in residual use in Mod.Br., so Table 1 is a little too schematic (furthermore, the

.  On this topic, cf. Humphreys (1990).



Mood in Breton 

Table 1.  Evolution of the Breton sets Middle Breton

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl impersonal

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl impersonal

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl impersonal

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl impersonal

1a pres/fut

orth.  ch  -ff  s  z phon.  /h¸  –˜v˜  z  ð, ð/ ¨ 2a pres.sbjv

3a pret

-aff  /ãv˜/ -ez -, -a -omp -et, -it -ont -er

-iff  /ĩv˜/ -y -o -homp -het -hint -her

-is -sot -as -somp -soch -sont -at

1b impf

2b impf.sbjv>pot

3b plup>hyp

-enn -es -e -emp -ech -ent -et

-henn -hes -he -hemp -hech -hent -het

-senn -ses -se -semp -sech -sent -set

Modern Breton

orth.  c’h j ff ou s z phon.  /h¸ Š f u z z/ [literary register] G: Gwened (Vannes)

1a pres

2a fut/sbjv

3a pret [literary]

-an  /ã~ãn~Áãõ~Á-õ/ -ez -, -a -omp G -amp -et, -it, -oc’h -ont G -ant -er

-in /ĩ~ĩ\~ĩn/ -i -o -ffomp, -imp G -éemp -ffet, -(ff)oc’h, -ot G -éet -ffont, -int G -éent -ffer, -or

[-is] [-jout] -as [-jomp] [-joc’h] [-jont] [-jod]

1b impf

2b pot/sbjv

3b hyp/2fut

-enn -es -e -emp -ec’h -ent [-ed]

-ffenn -ffes -ffe -ffemp -ffec’h -ffent [-ffed]

G -ëhenn, etc.

-jenn  j /Š~∫/ -jes -je -jemp -jec’h -jent [-jed]

 Steve Hewitt

pluperfect value of set 3b is clear for Old Breton, but by MBr. the set appears already to have acquired the more modern values of hypothetical conditional/secondary future). It would be more accurate to say that there has been a shift of emphasis in the primary values of the various TAM sets between MBr. and Mod.Br. A special development in the value of the 3b ‑se- set is evident in the SE. In 1987, Breton dialectologists were startled (local speakers, naturally, had known it all along) by Evenou’s revelation of ‑ise- forms with imperfect habitual value not only for the two verbs ‘be’ and ‘have’ for which such a TAM set is traditionally recognized, but also for the three semi-irregular (contraction of vocalic stem and endings) verbs ober ‘do’, mond ‘go’, and dond ‘come’: rise [do0imp.hab], yise [go0imp.hab], tise [come0imp.hab]. Furthermore, in Enes Groe (Île de Groix, dialect now extinct), Ternes (1970) found such forms for all verbs. This seems related to a general reluctance in the SE to recognize a hypothetical conditional value for set 3b, which there is secondary future (future-in-the-past) and, in some areas at least (more research is needed to see how widespread the development is, and which verbs are affected) imperfect habitual. Breton has an expanded range of TAM sets for ‘be’, shown in Table 2.

Table 2.  Breton TAM sets for beżañ/boud ‘be’ (1sg) 1a irregular pres

1a irregular pres.sit*

on

emaon (nw) emon (sw, c)

1b irregular stem impf

1b irregular stem impf.sit (nw)

oann

edonn evedonn emedonn

1a regular pres.hab (l) =veżan

(l)

1b regular impf.hab (l)

=veżenn

2a regular fut

1b irregular stem pret

=vezin =vin

(l) (xl)

2b irregular stem pot.hist. pres.hab (xl) =vénn

oenn 2b regular pot modern =vehenn

=veffenn

3b

hyp

impf.hab (xl)

=vîenn

=visenn =vijenn

=vichenn

Bold: main written form. For the habitual sets, L 1a veżan, 1b veżenn are preferred to the more widely used 2b irregular vénn, 3b vijenn, etc. l Leon; xl outside Leon; nw North-West only; sw, c South-West, Centre only. *In the whole of the East, only 3sg, pl: emañ, emaint (the historical situation)

In addition to the six TAM sets of the regular verb, there are 1a irregular ‘present situative’, 1a regular ‘present habitual’, 1b irregular stem ‘imperfect situative’, 1b regular ‘imperfect habitual’, 2b irregular stem ‘potential’ (historical form), also borrowed outside



Mood in Breton 

L for the ‘present habitual’; 2b regular ‘potential’ (dominant modern form created by ­analogy). Just  as the historical 2b irregular set has been borrowed outside L for the present habitual, 3b ‘hypothetical/secondary future’ has been borrowed outside L for the imperfect habitual; indeed in G, that is now its only value. The past habitual veżenn /ve˜εn/ was identified with vi(h)enn, visenn, vijenn /vi˜εn, vi˜zεn, vi˜Šεn/, and in areas using vijenn, a new distinction between vije [impf.hab lennffomp 2b lennhemp > lennffemp

3a lennsomp > lennjomp 3b lennsemp > lennjemp

4.  The future The future set 2a (-o, -h- > -ff- – present subjunctive > future, subjunctive of purpose) is now mainly used for a straighforward future: (12) gweled a rin ahanout a-=benn arc’hŵazh see.inf aff do.1sg.fut 2sg.obj by tomorrow ‘I will see you tomorrow’



Mood in Breton

However, there are numerous traces of the earlier use of the set as a present subjunctive of purpose: (13)

goulenn a ra ma vo gwraed ul lesenn neweż ask.inf aff do.3sg.prs that be0fut/sbjv do.pp a law new ‘he/she asks that a new law should be made’ Fr. il/elle demande qu’une nouvelle loi soit faite

More work needs to be done on the precise distinction between the use of the 2a future set and that of the 2b potential set with subjunctive force. Some dialects, such as WL, may have a broader use of the 2a future set for the subjunctive.

5.  Two conditionals The two conditionals are: a. Potential set 2b: -he- > -ffe- – imperfect subjunctive > potential, subjunctive b. Hypothetical set 3b: -se- > -je- (-che-) – pluperfect > hypothetical (irrealis); secondary future (future-in-past) For reasons that will become apparent, the two conditionals, the potential set 2b in ‑ffe- (G ‑ehe-) and the hypothetical set 3b in ‑je- (‑che-, G ‑ese-), need to be dealt with together. The potential set was historically an imperfect subjunctive, and the hypothetical set historically (Old Breton) a pluperfect. Set 2b is variously referred to as conditional 1, present conditional, potential (conditional); set 3b as conditional 2, past conditional, hypothetical (conditional). In the traditional system, examples (14–16) in principle illustrate increasing degrees of unlikelihood: (14) ma meffe arc’hant e prenffenn an ti-se if have.1sg.pot money aff buy.1sg.pot the house-that ‘if I had money, I would buy that house’ [potential – I must make an appointment with my bank manager] (15) ma mije arc’hant e prenjenn an ti-se if have.1sg.hyp money aff buy.1sg.hyp the house-that ‘if I had money, I would buy that house’ [hypothetical – not likely to happen] (16) ma mije bed arc’hant if have.1sg.hyp be = have.pp money e mije prened an ti-se aff have.1sg.hyp buy.pp the house-that ‘if I had had money, I would have bought that house’ [counterfactual – irrealis]

However, a clear three-way opposition between ‘potential’, ‘hypothetical’ and ‘counterfactual’ is not well maintained, especially with regular verbs (finer distinctions may persist



 Steve Hewitt

with ‘be’ and ‘have’; this needs to be investigated). Instead, the system is being reduced to a two-way distinction between a general potential conditional using simple conditional sets (either (14) -ffe- or (15) -je- (increasingly -che-)) indiscriminately (with a concomitant possibility of mixing sets between protasis (if-clause) and apodosis (then-clause)) and a hypothetical, counterfactual conditional, for which the compound perfect construction (16) with a conditional auxiliary and a past participle is unambiguously used, cf. the double translation possible for the following heckler’s comment to a notary public/estate agent trying to auction off an old fold-up razor, for which the bidding had reached 10 francs: (17) ma ≠viche bed ’wid troc’hañ da =c’hoûg if be = have.3sg.hyp be.pp for cut.inf your throat e miche lakeed pemp kant lur ’zhpenn aff have.1sg.hyp put.pp five hundred franc on.top ‘if it were to cut your throat with, I would bid five [new] francs more’ ‘if it had been to cut your throat with, I would have bid five francs more’

Sommerfelt (1921) for Kastell-Paol (St.-Pol-de-Léon, EL) and Ploneis (1983) for Berrien (NK) show widespread confusion of the ‑ffe- and ‑je- (‑che-) sets, as does the voluminous corpus of Jules Gros’s Trésor du breton parlé (TBP, 1970–76) from Tredraezh (Trédrez, WCT).4 It is furthermore clear in TBP3 that the tendency to use the compound perfect construction with a conditional auxiliary and a past participle for hypotheticals/counterfactuals is very strong; in this case, the auxiliary is almost invariably of the hypothetical ‑je- (‑che-) set rather than the potential ‑ffe- set. On the edges of the SE area, Humphreys (1985) for Bothoa (EK) only has ‑ffe- forms for the conditional, and uses the compound perfect with the conditional of ‘be’ or ‘have’ plus past participle for counterfactuals; the ‑ijeset for ‘be’ and ‘have’ appears to be reserved for the imperfect habitual. This is reminiscent of the adjacent G (SE) area, where the only conditional is in ‑ehe-, and the ‑ese-/‑ise- forms are reserved for imperfect habitual or secondary future (see above). In T and the NE generally, and perhaps further afield (this needs investigation) there may be replacement of the conditional (whether potential or hypothetical) forms of ‘be’ and ‘have’ with the imperfect in matrix clauses (i.e. the reverse of English and French), cf. (18, 20a > 19, 20b, and 21): ≠veffes (18) ma ≠viches lamped ase e marw if be = have.2sg.hyp jump.pp there aff be.2sg.pot dead ‘if you jumped there, you would be dead’

(19) ma ≠viches lamped ase e oas marw if be = have.2sg.hyp jumped.pp there aff be.2sg.impf dead ‘if you jumped there, you would be dead’

.  I thank Philippe Anger for providing me with his scanned version of Vol. 3, thus making it possible to extract all -ffe- and ‑je- forms.



Mood in Breton 

(20) a.

ma miche gweled aneżañ e miche lared deżañ if have.1sg.hyp see.pp 3sg.m.obj aff have.1sg.hyp say.pp to.3sg.m ‘if I saw him, I would tell him/if I had seen him, I would have told him’

b. ma miche gweled aneżañ e moa lared deżañ if have.1sg.hyp see.pp 3sg.m.obj aff have.1sg.impf say.pp to.3sg.m ‘if I saw him, I would tell him/if I had seen him, I would have told him’ (21)

lavi lava an hini n- eo ked kwached ‘la vie la va the one neg be.3sg.prs not hide.pp ma karje e oa if want.3sg.hyp aff be.3sg.impf ‘‘la vie la va’, whoever is not hidden, if they wished to, they might be’ [hide-and-seek]

Breton also has the French ‘hearsay’ use of the conditional in matrix clauses: (22) (herweż klewed) Sarkozy a ≠veffe/ ≠viche (according.to hear.inf) Sarkozy aff be0pot/ 0hyp o prepariñ kemer ssocialisted all bah ar gouarnamant prog prepare.inf take.inf Socialists other in the government (Apparently/they say) Sarkozy is preparing to bring other Socialists into the ­government.

The potential set (and with the confusion between the two, also the hypothetical set) is used for the French subjunctive of doubt, uncertainty: ≠h-äche (23) ne soñj ked din e ≠h-äffe/ neg think0prs not to.1sg aff go.3sg.pot/ go.3sg.hyp = sbjv ‘I do not think he will go’ Fr. je ne pense pas qu’il aille

When the matrix clause has past reference, the hypothetical = secondary future forms are used: (24)

ne soñje ked din e ≠h-aje 0 neg think impf not to.1sg aff go.3sg.hyp = sbjv ‘I did not think he would go’ Fr. je ne pensais pas qu’il aille/allât

This is according to a more general principle whereby the hypothetical set is used following matrix verbs of past reference (imperfect or compound perfect tenses) for the secondary future (future-in-the-past), so (25a) may become either (25b) or (25c): (25) a. b.

lared a ra din e ≠h-äyo say.inf aff do.3sg.prs to.1sg aff go.3sg.fut ‘he/she tells me he/she will go’ ≠h-aje lared a raë din e say.inf aff do.3sg.impf to.1sg aff go.3sg.hyp = 2fut ‘he/she was telling me he/she would go’

 Steve Hewitt

c.

≠h-aje lared e neus din e say.pp aff have.3sg.prs to.1sg aff go.3sg.hyp = 2fut ‘he/she told me he/she would go’

The 2b irregular vénn set (historically imperfect subjunctive, forms for ‘be’ and ‘have’ only) may be used as an alternate form for the 2b veffenn set, in subjunctive use in embedded clauses, but not usually for conditional use in either embedded or matrix clauses: ≠ves/≠veffes (26) diŵall e taped berr take-care.2sg imp aff be.2sg.pot = sbjv catch.pp short ‘take care lest you be caught out/short’

Finally, either conditional set may be used in matrix clauses with modal auxiliaries: (27) me a =garffe/ =garche goûd petra a siniffi se I aff like0pot/ hyp know.inf what aff mean0prs that ‘I would like to know what that means’

6.  The imperative The imperative of regular verbs is simply the stem for 2sg, and the normal present endings for 1pl and 2pl: sell, sellomp, sellet (L, SBr. sellit) [look.2sg.imp, look.1pl.imp, look.2pl. imp,] ‘look (sg), let us look, look (pl)’. In the negative, the 2sg present is often substituted for the stem imperative: na sellez ked ~ na sell ked [neg look.2sg.pres not ~ neg look.2sg. imp not] ‘do not look’. There are vestigial traces of a 3rd person optative, today mainly in the singular, but these forms are hardly productive: (28) béwed Breizh live.3sg.opt Brittany ‘[long] live Brittany’ (29) evel-sse beżed gwraed like-that be.3sg.opt do.pp ‘thus may it be done’ = amen,  Fr. ainsi soit-il

The future indicative may be used for polite, but firm orders: (30) kass a ri ar saout er-maes. send.inf aff do.2sg.fut the cows outside ‘[please] take the cows outside’

The future interrogative may be used for polite requests: (31) digeriñ a ri an nnor din? open.inf aff do.2sg.fut the door to.1sg ‘will you open the door for me?’



Mood in Breton

The simple infinitive may also be used with imperative force, as in (32), or in the heated exchange between a drunken son and his irate mother in (33). (32)

[what did the doctor advise?] dibriñ banàn hardî! eat.inf bananas right.ahead ‘eat plenty of bananas!’

(33) – kaoc’h! – dibriñ! – shit! – eat.inf! ‘– shit! – eat [it]!’

Another common way of expressing a wishful imperative or suggestion is to use the infinitive of ‘be’ (= ‘have’ for compound perfect tenses), which is elliptical for ‘(if you had only wanted to) have done’: (34) (ma karjes) beżañ lared din (if like.2sg.hyp) be = have.inf say.pp to.1sg ‘you should have told me’

With modal auxiliaries in a conditional mood and a compound perfect tense, Breton, like English, tends to put the auxiliary in the conditional and the lexical verb in an infinitival compound perfect, unlike French, which has a conditional compound tense on the auxiliary – (35a) is normal; (35b) is often the sign of a non-native speaker: (35) a. me a =c’hallffe beżañ taped aneżañ I aff could0pot be = have.inf catch.pp 3sg.m.obj ‘I could have caught it’, Fr. j’aurais pu l’attraper b. ?me a miche galled tapoud aneżañ I aff have.1sg.hyp can.pp catch.inf 3sg.m.obj ‘I could have caught it’, Fr. j’aurais pu l’attraper

7.  Conclusion In Breton, where five out of the six TAM sets are much better preserved than in Welsh, there has been a shift of emphasis in their basic values between MBr and Mod.Br.: present/ future > future; present subjunctive > future, subjunctive of purpose; imperfect subjunctive > potential conditional, subjunctive of doubt; OBr. pluperfect > hypothetical conditional, secondary future. Outside L, the present habitual set veżan [I.am.hab] is universally replaced with the old irregular imperfect subjunctive set 2a vénn, which also retains its subjunctive use; similarly, the imperfect habitual set veżenn [I.was.hab] is replaced outside L with the hypothetical set



 Steve Hewitt

3b vijenn (also vîenn, visenn), with a concomitant emerging phonetic distinction between vije [impf.hab. Piette, J.R.F. 1973. French Loanwords in Middle Breton. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Ploneis, J.-M. 1983. Au carrefour des dialectes bretons – Le parler de Berrien: Essai de description phonématique et morphologique. Paris: Société d’études linguistiques et anthropologiques de France (SELAF). Sommerfelt, A. 1921. Le breton parlé à Saint-Pol-de-Léon, Paris: Champion. (New edition with IPA transcription by François Falc’hun: Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1978.). TBP 1, 2, 3: see Gros, 1, 2, 3. Ternes, E. 1970. Grammaire structurale du breton de l’Île de Groix. Heidelberg: Winter. Wmffre, I. 2007. Breton Orthographies and Dialects: The Twentieth-Century Orthography war in Brittany, 2 Vols. Bern: Peter Lang.

Mood in Welsh Johannes Heinecke Lannion, France

1.  Introduction The Welsh language (Cymraeg, yr iaith Gymraeg) is the most lively language of the ­remaining Celtic languages with about half a million native and near-native speakers.1 It forms, together with Breton (Brittany) and Cornish (Cornwall) the P-Celtic or Britannic branch of the Insular Celtic languages. The other branch being the Q-Celtic or Goidelic branch which comprises Irish (Ireland), Scottish Gaelic (Scotland) and Manx (Isle of Man). Welsh is mainly spoken in Wales (UK), however there are some towns in Patagonia (Argentina) which have been founded by emigrants from Wales in the 19th century where Welsh can still be heard today. Other Welsh communities exist in North America and Australia. Spoken and written Welsh are quite different. In written Welsh, we can distinguish two styles, namely a more formal, traditional style which we will refer to as Classical Welsh and a more colloquial style which ressembles the spoken language much more. This colloquial or informal style can be found in some journals (cf. Y Golwg) as well as on the Internet.2 Classical Welsh can be found in literature, especially written before the 1960’s as well as in legal texts and the Bible, to give an approximation. The spoken language can be divided into two main dialect groups (Thomas 1973), a Southern variant (until a line Machynlleth, Newtown and Welshpool) and a Northern variant. Both groups have further subdivisions. Welsh and the other modern Celtic languages possess some interesting typological features3 which are unusual with respect to the neighbouring Indo-European languages. There are two important differences on a syntactic level. First, Welsh is a verb-first language, i.e. in unemphasised phrases, the verb is always in the initial position of a sentence, only preceded by some discourse markers. Second, there is no verb like the ­English have to denote possession (or to be used in composed tenses). Welsh uses a prepositional construction. On the morphological level, one of the striking features is that prepositions agree in person and number with pronouns. Historically this is a contraction of the preposition

.  Cf. 2001 census at the Welsh Language Board http://www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk/. .  Cf. http://cy.wikipedia.org/. .  We only list the most important features. For more details see Jones & Thomas 1977; Thorne 1993; Ball & Fife 2002, for a resume see Heinecke 1999.



Johannes Heinecke

with the pronoun that follows, but in contemporary language, a “new” pronoun has to follow the inflected preposition (ohonof fi ‘from me’). The most striking feature is that of initial consonantal mutations. These mutations, which were caused originally by phonetic contexts, are now at the morphological level, independent from phonological contexts. There are three kinds of mutations in Welsh: soft mutation or lenition (SM); nasal mutation (NM); and aspirate mutation or aspiration (AM). The mutations are triggered most frequently by prepositions and possessives, however sometimes the syntactic functions are expressed by a mutation. For instance, indefinite direct objects of finite verb forms undergo the soft mutation as well as some adverbials. Finally, there are some typological features like finite impersonal forms of verbs and missing past participles which are discussed in Section 2.

2.  The verbal system in Welsh The Welsh language possesses both inflectional and composed verbal forms, in order to express the categories time, aspect, person and number. Number is only relevant with pronominal subjects, since with nouns, verbs are always in the 3rd person singular, irrespective of the number of the subject. A further typological feature which distinguishes Celtic languages from other Indo-European languages (in Europe) is the so-called impersonal form, which exists in addition to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd singular and plural. Although some authors categorise them as passive forms (Pilch 1975; Fife 1985), they can occur for all verbs, including intransitive verbs and are employed when the agent of the situation is not known or cannot be expressed:4 (1) Gwel-er isod. see-sbjv.prs.imps below ‘see (further) down’ (lit. ‘one (may) see (further) down’) (2) Argraff-wyd y llyfr yng Nghaernarfon. print-prpfv.imps the book in+nm nm.Caernarfon ‘this book was printed in Caernarfon’ (lit. ‘one printed this book in Carnarfon’)

Welsh verbs are usually grouped in three categories, namely regular verbs, irregular verbs and compounds of bod (the auxiliary ‘be’).

.  They compare best with French on or German man.



Mood in Welsh

There are only a few irregular verbs (apart from bod and its compounds). It is interesting to note, that regular and irregular verbs (including the compounds with bod) only have six tenses5 (Future Tense,6 Perfective Preterite Tense, Potential Tense7 and Irrealis Tense8 for the Indicative Mood, and Present Tense and Preterite Tense for the Subjunctive Mood; cf. Table 1), whereas bod has a Present Tense and an Imperfect Preterite Tense in addition to the aforementioned tenses (Tables 2 and 3). Table 1.  Forms of canu ‘sing’ Indicative

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl imps

Subjunctive

fut

prpfv

pot

irr

prs*

pret

canaf ceni cân canwn cenwch canant cenir

cenais cenaist canodd canasom canasoch canasant canwyd

canwn canit canai canem canech canent cenid

canaswn canait canasai canasem canasech canasent canasid, canesid

canwyf cenych cano canom cenoch canont caner

canwn cenit canai canem canech canent cenid

*Jones 1977: 325 prefers the label Subjunctive Future Tense. Similarly does Thomas 1996.

The forms of the (Indicative) Potential Tense (POT) and Subjunctive Past Tense are ­identical for regular verbs in Modern Welsh. This was already more or less the case in Middle Welsh, even though both forms have a different etymology (cf. Evans 1951: 77 and 86). In spite of their name, which implies a modal function, the Potential and Irrealis Tense are formally part of the indicative paradigm. In Classical Welsh they still convey their nonmodal meaning (which is also shown by their traditional labels “Imperfect” and “Pluperfect Tense” (among many others)). For example, the Potential Tense can express an ongoing event in the past, as in (3), or a habitual situation (in the past; as in (4)):

.  In the literature, Welsh Tenses have awkwardly numerous different labels. A table listing all labels is given in Heinecke 1999: 283ff. The labels used here are the same as used in Heinecke 1999. .  Please note that we use uppercase for categories of a given language and lowercase for ­semantic categories, be they verbalised in a given language or not. .  Also called Conditional Tense in the literature. .  Also refered to as Pluperfect Tense.





Johannes Heinecke

(3) Chwip-id y môr gan wynt y gorllewin. whip-pot.imps the sea by+sm sm:wind the west ‘the sea was being whipped by the west wind’ (4) Deu-ai yno bob dydd. come-pot.3sg there sm:every day ‘he used to go there every day’

The Irrealis Tense can be used to express an anterior past time reference: (5) Ni wel-swn ei debyg cyn hyn. not+sm sm:see-irr.1sg his+sm sm:like before this ‘I had not seen the like of it before then’

In Modern Welsh (especially in the spoken language) this non-modal usage has vanished. For this reason we prefer the labels Potential and Irrealis Tense, which exhibit the main temporal and modal semantics of these forms more adequately. Since these forms are historically part of the Indicative (and treated as such in the overwhelming part of the literature) we also list them within the paradigm of the Indicative. Their modal semantics will be discussed in Section 3.3. The auxiliary bod, the irregular verbs (cael ‘get’, gwneud ‘make’, dod ‘come’, mynd ‘go’ and the bod-compounds like gwybod ‘know (a fact)’, adnabod ‘know (a person)’), however, distinguish formally between the (Indicative) Potential Tense (Table 2) and the Subjunctive Past Tense (Table 3). Table 2.  Indicative forms of bod ‘be’ fut

prpfv

pot*

irr

prs

pripfv

1sg 2sg

byddaf byddi

bûm buost

byddwn, bawn byddit, baet

buaswn buasit

(yr) oeddwn (yr) oeddit

3sg

bydd

bu

byddai, Bai

buasai

1pl 2pl 3pl

byddwn byddwch byddant byddir

byddem, baem byddech, baech byddent, baent byddid

buasem buasech buasent

imps

buom buoch buant, buont buwyd

(yr) (yd)wyf (yr) (yd)wyt (yd)yw, (y) mae, oes, sydd** (yr) (yd)ym (yr) (yd)ych (yd)ynt, maent (yd)ys

buasid

(yr) oedd (yr) oeddem (yr) oeddech (y) (yr) oeddent, oeddid

*After the conjunction pe ‘if ’ another set of forms of the Potential Tense is used: petawn, petaet, petai, petaem, petaech, petaent. There is no impersonal form in this paradigm (Williams 1980: 160f and Thomas 1996: 54). Especially in colloquial Welsh, the paradigms bawn, petawn can be replaced by the corresponding forms of the Irrealis Tense baswn, petaswn, ’taswn (King 1993: 175). The paradigm of the Irrealis Tense including the prefixed pe- is petaswn, petasit, petasai, petasem, petasech, petasent. Again this paradigm does not have an impersonal form. Please note that some grammar writers (cf. Williams 1980) only regard the first form (byddwn, byddit, … ) as Indicative Potential Tense (as well as Subjunctive Preterite Tense), the second being Subjunctive only. **Cf. Heinecke (1999: 281) on the differences between the different forms for the 3rd singular and plural of the Present Tense.



Mood in Welsh

Table 3.  Subjunctive forms of bod ‘be’

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl imps

prs

pret

bwyf, byddwyf bych, byddych bo, byddo bôm, byddom boch, byddoch bônt, byddont bydder

byddwn, bawn byddit, baet byddai, bai byddem, baem byddech, baech byddent, baent

It must be noted that the forms listed are the written forms of the formal register of ­written Welsh (Classical Welsh). In the spoken language, these forms vary slightly (although all indicative forms still exist). The colloquial forms are also used in the more informal written language.9 In contrast to the regular verbs, the Potential Tense of bod is not an evolved imperfective past, but a habitual past. Although it can be used in a similar way as the Imperfective Preterite, it implies an ongoing, habitual situation in the past in Classical Welsh: (6) Bydd-ai ’r gwynt yn rhuo drwy ’r coedydd. be-pot.3sg the wind ipfv road. vn through the trees ‘the wind used to be roaring through the trees’

In contrast to the Potential Tense, the Imperfective Preterite does not imply the habituality. In Modern Welsh this form too can be employed to express a modal meaning (King 1993: 158): (7) Fydd-ech chi ’n fodlon i sm:be-pot.2pl you.pl prdm+sm sm:willing to+sm lofnodi ’r deiseb yma? sm:sign.vn the petition here ‘would you be willing to sign this petition?’

The reader may have noticed that the regular verbs (and the compounds of bod) do not have any present tense. The Indo-European Present Tense has shifted to convey a future time (perfective aspect) in a way similar to the morphological “Present Tense” of perfective verbs in Russian. In Welsh (at least in a less formal register of the language) the two

.  The examples in this article are taken from all varieties of Welsh, as long as the semantic value which is discussed in the given example is identical in all varieties. If this is not the case, it is mentioned.





Johannes Heinecke

standard tenses are clearly perfective (with past and future time reference). On the other hand the (imperfective) present is expressed by a periphrasis using the auxiliary bod and an imperfective marker yn. The time is conveyed via the tense of the auxiliary: (8) Mae ’r plant yn chwarae yn y cae be:prs.3sg the children ipfv play.vn in the field ‘the children are playing in the field’ (9) Roedd yr plant yn chwarae yn y cae. be:pripfv.3sg the children ipfv play.vn in the field ‘the children were playing in the field’

Since the Welsh verbal system does not provide participles, Welsh uses the auxiliary bod ‘be’ together with a temporal particle and an imperfective marker yn if needed to express complex temporal relations and aspectual oppositions which are not covered by the inflected verb forms:10 (10) Mae Ioan wedi dod o ’i waith. be:prs.3sg Ioan ante come.vn from his+sm sm:work ‘Ioan has come from his work’ (11) Bydd Ioan wedi bod yn gweithio. be:fut.3sg Ioan ante be.vn ipfv work.vn ‘Ioan will have been working’ (12) Roedd Ioan am fynd i ’w waith. be:prs.3sg Ioan post go.vn to his+sm sm:work Ioan was about to go to his work’

(Anterior Present)

(Anterior Future)

(Posterior Past)

Other frequent temporal markers are am ‘about’, ar ‘on, about’ and ar fin ‘on [the] edge of ’ for anteriority and newydd ‘new’ for posteriority. As is shown in Section 3.2, these temporal markers can also be used with the Subjunctive Mood (and the Imperative Mood).

3.  Mood categories We have already mentioned the three moods of Welsh, namely the Indicative, the Imperative and the Subjunctive. Historically, the Subjunctive Mood has been inherited from IndoEuropean (Evans 1951:  86). In Modern Welsh, however, it occurs far less than in older stages of Welsh (Evans 1951: 75). In this section we only discuss the non-indicative moods, namely the Imperative (Section 3.1) and the Subjunctive (Section 3.2).

.  For a full account on time and aspect in Welsh cf. Heinecke (1999).



Mood in Welsh

3.1  Imperative mood The forms of the Imperative are identical to the Indicative Future Tense with the exception of the 2nd person singular. The function of the Imperative Mood is straight forward for commands or demands: (13) Tyrd yma [os gweli di’n dda]! come:imp.2sg here [please] ‘come here, please!’

For the 1st person plural, the pronoun has to be added; a feature similar to German (gehen wir!) or French (on y va!): (14) Awn ni! go:imp.1pl we ‘let’s go!’

Another unusual fact is the way an Imperative is negated. In this case Welsh does not allow a simple negative particle but imposes the use of a negation-verb peidio â which literally means ‘stop with, cease with’. In the case of a negated Imperative, however, peidio loses its egressive aktionsart, as it can be used not only to order an action to cease, but also to deter it from beginning: (15) Paid ag ysmygu! stop:imp.2sg with smoke.vn ‘don’t smoke!’ (and not (the literally) ‘stop smoking’) (16) Peidi-wch â chyffordd! stop-imp.2pl with+am am:touch.vn ‘don’t touch!’ (e.g. on display in a museum)

Peidio â is not only used for the negated Imperative but also for any negation of the verbal noun: (17) Bydd-ai ’n well i chi beidio ag ysmygu. be-pot.3sg prdm+sm sm:better to you.pl sm:stop.vn with smoke.vn ‘it would be better for you not to smoke’

3.2  Subjunctive mood As already said, in Modern Welsh the spoken and the written languages are quite different, the latter having at least two stylistic variants. As far as the Subjunctive Mood is concerned, it has more or less disappeared from the spoken language (King 1993: 229) and only survives in some petrified expressions like the rather formal da boch chi ‘farewell’, literally ‘good you may be’ or lle bo angen ‘where need be’. This is especially the case in the so-called colloquial register of the written language too: The Welsh corpus (Ellis, O’Dochartaigh,





Johannes Heinecke

Hicks, Morgan, & Laporte 2001) (about 1.1 million word forms) lists only 182 tokens (out of 37 000); searches of Subjunctive forms on the internet retrieved nearly exclusively verses from the Bible, and no evidence in other free texts (even though the amount of written Welsh on the web is difficult to estimate, the virtual absence of Subjunctives from texts other than Bible citations permits the conclusion of the disparating Subjunctive even in written Welsh). This is indirectly confirmed by Thomas (1996: 116) who writes that Subjunctives (except 3rd person singular) are primarily used in prose and poetry. Thus the semantic function which held the Subjunctive Mood has shifted to some tenses of the Indicative Mood.11 One of the most frequent meanings of the Subjunctive Present Tense is a kind of uncertainty, supposition, possibility or wish. It is this meaning which prevails in the few Present Subjunctives of spoken Welsh: (18) Duw a ’n help-o. God rel us help-sbjv.prs.3sg ‘god may help us’ (19) Gwne-wch fel mynn-och. make-imp.2pl as wish-sbjv.prs.2pl ‘do as you may want’

As (18) already shows, the Subjunctive is often employed in relative clauses with a meaning of uncertainty: (20) Beth yn y byd oedd a what in the world be:pripfv.3pl rel+sm wnel-ont hwy â rhwy dwll fel Porth Iestyn? sm:do-sbjv.prs.3sg they with some hole like Porth Iestyn ‘what is it that could they do at a place as boring as Porth Iestyn?’ (21) … tu allan i ’r maes lle caff-o orffwys. outside of the field where get:sbjv.prs.3sg sm:rest.vn ‘outside of the field where he may have taken a rest’

In spoken Welsh, but increasingly in the written language too, however, the Subjunctive in relative clauses (22a) is replaced by an indicative form (22b). This is especially the case when the Subjunctive expresses a possibility: (22) a. Do-ed a ddel-o. come-imp.3sg rel+sm sm:come-sbjv.prs.3sg ‘come what may come’ b. Do-ed a ddaw. come-imp.3sg rel+sm sm:come:fut.3sg

.  For another approach on describing the function of the Welsh Subjunctive cf. Jones 1977.



Mood in Welsh

Frequently the paraphrase expresses the possibility explicitly (23b), without any Subjunctive: (23) a. Y mae a wnel-o. ptl be:prs.3sg rel+sm sm:make:sbjv.prs.3sg ‘this what (s)he may do’ b. Y mae ’n bosib ei bod yn gwneud. ptl be:prs.3sg prdm+sm sm:possible her be.vn ipfv do.vn

A frequent usage of the Subjunctive, expressing a wish or even a command, is in the impersonal form of the verb: (24) gwel-er isod see-sbjv.prs.imps below ‘[please] see below’

As King (1993: 222) points out, the impersonal of the Subjunctive Present Tense is also used to express commands in a more polite way: (25) gwthi-er i agor push-sbjv.prs.imps to open ‘[please] push to open’ (26) Nac ysgrifenn-er o dan y llinell hwn. not write-sbjv.prs.imps under the line this ‘[please] do not write below this line’

Another relatively frequent context in which Subjunctive forms still appear are in some adverbial clauses (after pan ‘when’, tra ‘while’ oni ‘until’, nes ‘until’, etc.): (27) Bydd-wn yn barod i fynd pan be-fut.1pl prdm+sm sm:ready to+sm sm:go.vn when+sm fyddo popeth yn barod. sm:be:sbjv.prs.3sg everything prdm+sm sm-ready ‘we shall be ready to go when everything will be ready (too)’

As indicated at the end of Section 2, temporal and aspectual markers such as wedi, am, yn etc. can be used with Subjunctive forms of the auxiliary bod ‘be’ as well: (28) Rhaid iddynt ddangos tystysgrif feddygol i necessity to_them sm:show.vn certificate medical to ategu unrhyw amgylchiad-au meddygol y supportvn any occasion-pl medical ptl bydd-ont wedi ‘u disgrifio. be-sbjv.prs.3pl ante their describe.vn ‘any medical circumstances described must be supported by medical certificate’





Johannes Heinecke

Jones (1976: 58) shows clearly the difference between the uses of the Subjunctive and the Indicative. Following him, the Subjunctive is used when reference to a definite time is not possible, independently of the presence of a notion of uncertainty. (29) Awn allan ryw ddiwrnod pan go:fut.1pl out sm:some+sm sm:day when+sm fo ’r tywydd yn braf. sm:be:sbjv.prs.3sg the weather prdm fine ‘we shall go out one day when the weather is fine’

If the temporal reference is made (as by yn nawr ‘now’ in (30)), however, the Indicative is employed: (30) Mae ’n rhaid imi fynd allan yn awr pan be:prs.3sg prdm need to_me go.vn out now when yw hi ‘n gyfleus. be:prs.3sg it prdm+sm sm:convenient ‘I must go out now when it is convenient’

For future time reference, the Future Tense is used: (31) Dw i eisiau i ti ffonio pan be:pres.1sg I want to you.sg call.vn when+sm gyrhaedd-i di yna. sm:arrive-fut.2sg you.sg there ‘I want you to phone when you get there’

Finally the Subjunctive is employed in certain conditional phrases expressing unreal situations. This function is more and more expressed by the Potential or Irrealis Tenses (see below in Section 3.3). It has to be noted that due to the formal identity of the Past Subjunctive Tense and the Potential (Indicative) Tense for most verbs, the following example can be interpreted differently. (32) Pe gwel-wn yr athro dywed-wn wrtho. if see-sbjv.pret.1sg the teacher say-sbjv.pret.1sg to him ‘If I were to see the teacher, I’d tell him’

King 1993, however, notes that in spoken or colloquially written Welsh, the Subjunctive has more or less vanished. In conditional phrases (especially those introduced by pe ‘if ’) the forms of the Potential Tense and the Irrealis Tense can be interchanged at will. (33) a.

Pe bydd-ai Freddie ’n dod i ’r parti if be-pot.3sg Freddie ipfv come.vn to the party bydd-wn i ’n deud wrtho. be-pot.1sg I prdm tell.vn to him



Mood in Welsh

b. Tasai12 Freddie ’n dod i ’r parti if be:irr.3sg Freddie ipfv come.vn to the party

(ba)swn i ’n deud wrtho. be:irr.1sg I prdm tell.vn to him



‘if Freddie came to the party, I should tell [it] to him’

Another interesting question is indirect or reported speech. In Welsh this has been the domain of the Indicative for a while. This will be discussed in the following section.

3.3  Th  e Potential and Irrealis tenses in the ‘Typical’ Domain of the subjunctive As some of the examples in the preceding sections imply (notably (33)), the conditional character of the Welsh Subjunctive has been taken over by the Potential and Irrealis ­Tenses.13 In Classic Welsh the Potential Tense can be used to express the imperfective past time or to denote a habitual action in the past. However it has a third function which is also very frequent in the colloquial register of Welsh as well as in the spoken language, namely to express an intention or wish: (34) O na chawn gynnig arall! if not+am am:get.pot.1sg sm:chance other ‘if I could get another chance!’ (35) Ni siarad-ai o gyda fi am oriau. neg speak-pot.3sg hi with me for hours ‘he would not talk with me for hours’

King (1993:  194) cites examples of southern Welsh which still use the Subjunctive Past Tense forms in contexts where the written language (and northern dialects) would use the Potential Tense:14 (36) (W)nel-wn i mo hynny yn dy le di. sm:do-sbjv.1sg I neg this in your.sg+sm sm:place you.sg ‘I would not do that if I were you’

.  Tasai is reduced from petasai, a contracted from of pe ‘if ’ and the Irrealis Tense of bod, buasai (3rd person singular). .  Tenses of Welsh have been labelled in many different ways in the linguistic literature; for a full list of other names for Potential and Irrealis Tenses, cf. Heinecke 1999: 284. .  King, however, interprets these forms as dialectal variants of the Potential Tense and not as etymological Subjunctives. Note that the verbs of the examples which King cites (mynd ‘go’, gwneud ‘do, make’) are of the few verbs which still distinguish Subjunctive Past Tense and (Indicative) ­Irrealis Tense.



 Johannes Heinecke

(37) Pe dilyn-asech fy nghyngor, ni if follow-irr.2pl my+nm nm:counsel, not+sm fydd-id wedi eich carcharu. sm:be-pot.imps ante your.pl imprison.vn ‘if you had followed my counsel, you would not have been imprisoned’

Since the Irrealis Tense and the Subjunctive Past are identical for nearly all verbs it is difficult to make a semantic distinction at all. We will now have a closer look at how Welsh expresses the semantic notions covered by the Subjunctive in other (Indo-European) languages. Notably,  reported speech and conditional clauses are the “traditional domains” of Subjunctives. Of course the fact that the Subjunctive is used for these in languages like German or French, does not imply that Welsh must or should have Subjunctives in these cases too. However, it is interesting how Welsh verbalises the notions of uncertainty without recurring to the Subjunctive. As indicated above (see (10) to (12)), Welsh uses periphrastic constructions to denote aspect and relative time with prepositions (in contrast to languages like English, French etc. which employ composed tenses of auxiliary and participle). Since the temporal relativity (anteriority, posteriority) is marked only by the preposition, while the general time is expressed by the tense of the auxiliary bod ‘be’, it is possible in Welsh to express anteriority and posteriority (as well as simultaneity) without referring to a semantic time.15 Since these forms are used in indirect or reported speech, their construction is straight forward. It is important to know whether the reporting person and the reported person are identical or not. So if the same speaker utters dwi’n mynd ‘I am going’ and reports himself (38) the infinite subordinate is used: (38) dywed-ais wrtho fy mod yn mynd. say-prpfv.1sg to him my+nm nm:be.vn ipfv go.vn ‘I told him that I were leaving’

If the reporting person is different, reported speech is a relative clause (39) dywed-odd a oedd yn mynd. say-prpfv.3sg rel be:pripfv.3sg ipfv go.vn ‘he said that he was leaving’

In general, the temporal construction of the reported speech depends on the original tense and the tense of the main clause introducing the reported speech. For instance a sentence which was in the Potential Tense in direct speech, does not change tense when reported. Since the Potential Tense expresses conditionals without placing them in an unambiguous temporal relation to the time of speech (as Preterite Tense and Future Tense for instance

.  Semantic time (German “Zeitstufe”) is the (temporal) meaning of a Tense (cf. Heger 1967; Heinecke 1999: 95ff).



Mood in Welsh

do) the “vagueness” is not changed by modifying the Tense. Thus Byddai’r teulu i gyd yno ‘The whole family may be there’ becomes (40) Dywed-af y bydd-ai ’r teulu i gyd yno. say-fut.1sg ptl be-pot.3sg the family all there ‘I will say the whole family may be there’ (41) Mae o ’n ofni y bydd-ai ’r teulu i gyd yno. be:prs.3sg he ipfv fear.vn ptl be-pot.3sg the family entire there ‘he’s afraid (he is fearing) that the whole family may be there’ (42) Gobeithi-wn y bydd-ai ’r teulu i gyd yno. hope-pot.1sg ptl be-pot.3sg the family entire there ‘I was hoping that the whole family would be there’

This is in contrast to utterances with the Future Tense, which will be replaced by the Potential Tense when reported as a past event: Bydd Ioan yn ennill! ‘Ioan will be winning!’. (43) Bydd hi ’n sicrhau bydd Ioan yn ennill! be:fut.3sg she ipfv ensure.vn be:fut.3sg Ioan ipfv win.vn ‘she will ensure that Ioan will be winning!’ (44) Dywed-odd hi y byddai Ioan yn ennill. say-prpfv.3sg she ptl be:pot.3sg Ioan ipfv win.vn ‘she said that Ioan would be winning’

In the usual case, reported sentences do not contain time reference, but only the relative time of the situation with respect to the time of the utterance. Thus a sentence like Rydw i’n mynd adref ‘I’m going home’, which puts the event ‘going home’ in a simultaneous relation to the utterance itself, is reported as: (45) Dywed-odd o, ei fod yn mynd adref. say-prpfv.3sg he his+sm sm:be.vn ipfv go.vn home ‘he said that I was going home’

If, for example, the original sentence has not yet been uttered, but we know that it will be in the future, then the reported (or expected) speech only changes the tense of the verb of the main clause: (46) Dywed-ith o, ei fod yn mynd adref. say-fut.3sg he his+sm sm:be.vn ipfv go.vn home ‘he will say that I was going home’

4.  Conclusion As we have shown, in Welsh the distinction between the inherited mood categories Indicative and Subjunctive has disappeared. The forms of the Subjunctive have either fallen out





Johannes Heinecke

of use or become identical with other (historically Indicative) tenses. Their semantics, traditionally expressed in many languages by forms called “Subjunctive”, however, has been taken over by either tenses from the indicative paradigm (Potential and Irrealis Tense) or by syntactic periphrasis recurring to other means.

Abbreviations +am am ante

imps +nm nm post

triggers Aspirate Mutation Aspirate Mutation Anteriority impersonal triggers Nasal Mutation Nasal Mutation Posteriority

prdm Predication Marker prpfv Perfective Preterite Tense pripfv Imperfective Preterite Tense

sim +sm sm vn

Simultaneity triggers Soft Mutation Soft Mutation verbnoun

References Ball, M.J. & Fife, J. 2002. The Celtic Languages. London: Routledge. Ellis, N.C., O’Dochartaigh, C., Hicks, W., Morgan, M. & Laporte, N. 2001. Cronfa Electroneg o ­Gymraeg (CEG). A 1 million word lexical database and frequency count for Welsh. 〈http://www. bangor.ac.uk/ ar/ cb/ceg.php.en〉. Evans, D.S. 1951. Gramadeg Cymraeg Canol. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. Fife, J. 1985. The impersonal verbs in Welsh. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 32: 92–126. Heger, K. 1967. Temporale Deixis und Vorgangsqualität. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 83: 513–582. Heinecke, J. 1999. Temporal Deixis inWelsh and Breton [Anglistische Forschungen 272]. Heidelberg: Winter. Jones, M.D. 1976. A Guide to Correct Welsh. Llandysul: Gomer. Jones, M. & Thomas, A.R. 1977. The Welsh Language. Studies in its Syntax and Semantics. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Jones, R.M. 1977. The Welsh subjunctive. Studia Celtica 12–13: 321–348. King, G. 1993. Modern Welsh. A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Pilch, H. 1975. Typologie der kymrischen Passivkonstruktionen. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 34: 103–118. Thomas, A.R. 1973. Linguistic Geography of Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Thomas, P.W. 1996. Gramadeg y Gymraeg. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. Thorne, D. 1993. A Comprehensive Welsh Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Williams, S.J. 1980. Elements of a Welsh Grammar. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

part iv

Slavic

Mood in Russian Björn Hansen Regensburg

1.  Introduction Russian belongs to the world’s major languages and according to estimates counts ­approximately 150 million native speakers. It is the official language of the Russian ­Federation with 120 million ethnic Russians and the second official language of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. There are Russian minorities in all former Soviet republics: Kazakhstan 36.5%, Latvia 33.5%, Estonia 29%, Ukraine 22.1%, Kyrgyzstan 18.8%, Moldova 13%, Belarus 13.2% and in the remaining republics the percentage is below 10% (Berger 1998). Russian-speaking communities are also found in Western Europe, Israel and Northern America. Due to Russia’s great political importance, Russian is recognized as one of the six official languages of the United Nations. The current language situation in Russia is characterised by the predominance of the standard language which has nearly completely ousted the dialects. Russian is an Indo-European language and belongs to the Slavonic language family. Together with Ukrainian and Belorussian, it forms the Eastern branch of the Slavonic languages. The Eastern Slavonic languages are typical inflectional languages with an elaborated morphological parts of speech system and highly productive word derivation. All three Eastern Slavonic languages use the Cyrillic alphabet.

2.  The verbal categories in Russian The Russian verbal system has a number of characteristics in common with other Slavonic languages. The finite forms of the verb are marked for the following grammatical categories: aspect, tense, mood, voice, number, person and gender. Apart from that, Russian has adjectival participles, converbs (anterior and simultaneous) and an infinitive. One of the typologically prominent features of the Slavonic verb is the category of aspect which is based on the dichotomy ‘perfective’ vs. ‘imperfective’. It is morphologically expressed by the addition of a range of prefixes or suffixes to a verbal stem. In some cases, the imperfective verb is derived by the addition of a suffix to the stem of the perfective equivalent, as in da-t’PFV > da-va-t’IPFV ‘to give’. In other cases, the perfective form is derived by prefixation from the simpler imperfective equivalent, as in čita-t’IPFV > pro-čita-t’PFV ‘to read’. In contrast to e.g. Romance languages, aspect is marked both in finite and non-finite forms. Aspect in a specific way combines with tense which is divided into the three subcategories ‘present’, ‘past’ and ‘future’. Both aspects have morphologically unmarked present tense forms; whereas imperfective

 Björn Hansen

present refers to the time of speech, the perfective present form predominantly has future time reference; thus, pro-čita-juPFV means ‘I will read’. Another peculiarity is found in the analytical future which is formed exclusively from imperfective verbs (bud-u čitat’IPFV, but *bud-u pro-čitat’PFV ‘I will read’). Both aspects regularly express past tense which is formed by the addition of the suffix -l- plus a gender-number agreement marker. (1) Ver-a čita-l-a knig-u. Vera-nom.sg read[ipfv]-pst-fem.sg book-acc.sg ‘Vera read in the book.’ (2) Ver-a pro-čita-l-a knig-u. Vera-nom.sg pfv-read-pst-fem.sg book-acc.sg ‘Vera has read through the book.’

Russian aspect mainly expresses the completion or non-completion of the action, but can assume further non-aspectual functions. In the imperative, for example, it can be used to distinguish different shades of politeness. There is also a specific interaction with modal notions; e.g. the perfective present tense form can render the modal meaning of (in)capability: ne skaž-uPFV ‘I can’t say’. A close interaction with aspect is also found in the voice system. Perfective verbs form their passive with a participle plus auxiliary, whereas imperfective ones make use of a postfix derived from a reflexive marker; cf.: (3) Knig-a by-l-a pro-čita-n-a. Book-nom.sg aux-pst-sg.f pfv-read-ptcp-f.sg ‘The book had been read through.’ (4) Knig-a čita-l-a-s’. Book-nom.sg read[ipfv]-pst-f.sg-refl ‘The book was being read.’

The Russian verb distinguishes first, second and third person; only the second person is marked for social distance. The so called polite form of address is formed by the second person plural like in French vous. Number is divided into singular and plural. Gender is marked only in the past tense, the conditional and the perfective passive constructions.

3.  The mood subcategories Mood is a grammatical category of the Russian verb. It is an obligatory feature of the predicate. Mood is divided into three subcategories: –– –– ––

indicative (Russian iz’’javitel’noe naklonenie) conditional (soslagatel’noe naklonenie) imperative (povelitel’noe naklonenie)

The indicative has no overt morphological marking, it coincides with the tense forms ‘present’, ‘past’ and ‘future’. Mood in Russian has been studied in some detail, there are



Mood in Russian

monographs dedicated to each of the subcategories (excellent works are for example Hacking 1998; Xrakovskij & Volodin 1986, and Xrakovskij 1992).1

3.1  Morphology of non-indicative moods 3.1.1  The Conditional Russian has only one conditional; it is a compound morphological form of the verb and does not inflect for tense. The form is marked for gender and number what sets it apart from the present tense which carries person and number, but no gender marking. The conditional is formed by the suffix -l-, an agreement marker for gender and number plus the uninflected clitic morpheme by; e.g. čita-l-a by depending on context can be translated as ‘I (fem.) would read’ or ‘you (fem.) would read’ or ‘she would read’: čita- -l- -a by

lexical root plus thematic vowel, suffix used to form past tense and conditional, marker for gender and number agreement (here: feminine, singular), conditional marker

The following table contains all morphemes which occur in conditional forms: Table 1.  The morphological structure of the conditional lexical stem incl. thematic vowel

Suffix

gender and ­ umber agreement n

conditional

e.g. čita-

-l-

-a -o -ø -i

by

F Sg N Sg M Sg Pl

As the Russian conditional carries no marking for person agreement with the subject it has much less forms than most other Slavonic languages (cf. Hansen (2010) on Polish, Meyer (2010) on Czech and Slovak, Szucsich (2010) on Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian). The paradigm contains only four forms: Table 2.  The paradigm of the conditional Singular Plural

masculine

feminine

neuter

čita-l-ø by

čita-l-a by čita-l-i by

čita-l-o by

.  Further relevant works are: Jachnow (ed.) (1994), Lander et al. (2004), Lehfeldt (1978), Panzer (1967), Plungjan (2005), Švedova et al. (1980 and 1982).





Björn Hansen

The lack of person agreement with the subject in the past tense and the conditional is a typological peculiarity of the Eastern Slavonic languages setting them apart from the Western and Southern branch. The endings marking number and agreement are not only found with verbs in the conditional and the past tense, but also with the so-called short forms of the adjectival declension. These endings are used with adjectives2 and passive participles in predicative position; cf. pro-čita-n-ø pfv-read-ptcp-m.sg ‘read through’; glux-ø ‘deaf ’. Table 3.  The paradigm of the adjectival short form3 Singular Plural

masculine

feminine

neuter

pročitan-ø/glux-ø pročitan-y/glux-i3

pročitan-a /glux-a

pročitan-o

It is worth pointing out that these forms of the adjective and participle differ from the adjectival declension used in attributive position. Therefore, we can characterise the agreement markers found in the conditional and adjectival short form as dedicated subjectpredicate agreement markers. The suffix -l- is also used to form the past tense. Therefore, the forms of the conditional can also be treated as the combination of the past tense with the free morpheme by: Past tense: Conditional:

čita-l-a read[ipfv]-pst-f.sg ‘I/you/she (Sg. Fem.) read.’ čita-l-a by read[ipfv]-pst-f.sg cond ‘I/you/she (Sg. Fem.) would read.’

The structural analysis of by has traditionally caused many problems, because it exhibits a wide range of usages some of which are clearly grammatical, but others remind of a purely lexical marker of modality. As a matter of fact, by is not restricted to verbs with the suffix -l-, but can also occur with infinitival verbs: (5) Gvozd-i by dela-t’ iz èt-ix ljud-ej. nail-acc.pl cond make[ipfv]-inf from this-gen.pl people-gen.pl ‘One should make nails out of these people.’

There are even rare instances where by combines with verbs in the so called transpositive imperative (see ch. 3.3.2) which according to the analysis of the conditional as a subcategory

.  Due to the lack of space I cannot discuss the complicated usage of the short form with adjectives. For a systematic description see Guiraud-Weber (1993). .  In certain phonological positions {i} alternates with {y}.



Mood in Russian 

of mood alongside the indicative and the imperative is highly unexpected, because the subcategories of a grammatical category per definitionem do not combine with each other, as e.g. the presence of nominative case excludes accusative case. (6) Vy zaščišča-ete ljud-ej, kotor-ye, slučis’ you defend-2pl people-acc.pl which-nom.pl happen[imp.2sg] by inače, vpolne mog-l-i by by-t’ cond differently totally can-pst-pl cond be-inf Vaš-imi tjuremščik-ami. Your-instr.pl jailor-instr.pl ‘You are defending people, who, if things had turned out differently, might have been your jailors.’ (example from Hacking 1998: 27)

Apart from that, we have to distinguish lexicalised usages where by has become part of fused adverbs like vrode by ‘apparently’ or xotja by ‘at least’. These adverbs combine with verbs in the indicative and also with non-finite converbs: (7) Vrode by ne opozda-em. apparently cond not be.late[pfv]-1pl ‘Apparently, we won’t be late.’ (8) Dlja ètogo on podvinul pobliže k sebe telefon i snjal for that he moved closer to self phone and took trubku, kak by prodolža-ja nača-t-yj razgovor. receiver4 like cond continue[ipfv]-cvb start[pfv]-ptcp-acc.sg conversation ‘For doing that, he moved the phone closer to himself and took the receiver, as if he continued the conversation started.’ (9) Poživi-te xotja by nedelj-u, kak live[pfv]-imp.2pl although cond week-acc.sg like nastojašč-ie amerikanc-y […] American-nom.pl real-nom.pl ‘Just try to live at least a week like real Americans […].’

Another case of fusion is čtoby, i.e. the combination of by with the complementizer čto. The element čtoby is sometimes treated as an independent lexeme and sometimes as a syntactic combination of two lexemes which by convention happen to be written together. čtoby is

.  As the first part of the sentence is not relevant for our argumentation I have refrained from a detailed glossing.

 Björn Hansen

used to introduce sentential complements which contain a verb in the past tense or in the infinitive; e.g.: (10) Ja ne pomnj-u, čtoby ty mne govori-l ob èt-om. I not recall[ipfv]-1sg comp you I.dat tell[ipfv]-pst about that-prep.sg ‘I don’t recall you telling me about that.’ (11) Čtoby poluči-t’ nabor kosmetik-i DeBon, comp get[pfv]-inf set cosmetics-gen.sg DeBon otvet’-te na vopros […] answer[pfv]-imp-2pl on question ‘To get the cosmetic set DeBon, answer the question […].’

Another question still awaiting a corpus-based empirical analysis concerns the syntactic position of the conditional marker by. On the basis of a somewhat restricted data ­sample, Hacking (1998: 60) spots two strong syntactic tendencies which compete with each other: In the protasis, by tends to occur in second position immediately after the subordinating conjunction; in the apodosis the preferred position is immediately following the verb. Nicely, deviations from the latter can be accounted for by the former. When by does not follow the verb in the apodosis it is overwhelmingly because it follows a clause initial pronoun or correlative word: it is in second position.

Hacking’s observations can be illustrated by the following examples taken from the Russian National Corpus; e.g. Position: by in the apodosis following the verb, by in the protasis immediately following the conjunction: (12) By-l-o by nespravedlivo, esli by Vladimir be-pst-n.sg cond unfair if cond Vladimir proigra-l ètot matč. lose[pfv]-pst this[acc.sg] match ‘It would be unfair, if Vladimir lost the match.’

Position: by in the apodosis and the protasis following the verb: (13) Esli my veri-l-i by v Bog-a, If we believe[ipfv]-pst-pl cond in God-acc.sg my ne stavi-l-i by pod we not put[ipfv]-pst-pl cond under vopros obstojatel’stv-a naš-ej žizn-i. question condition-acc.pl our-gen.sg life-gen.sg ‘If we believed in God, we wouldn’t question the conditions of our life.’

 osition: by in the protasis following the conjunction and in the apodosis following a clause P initial pronoun (thus preceding the verb):



Mood in Russian

(14) Esli by nedelj-u nazad vam skaza-l-i, If cond week-acc.sg ago you[dat] tell[pfv]-pst-pl čto proigra-ete Olimpiad-u comp lose[pfv]-2pl olympiad-acc.sg odn-im golos-om, vy by poveri-l-i? one-ins.sg vote-ins.sg you cond – believe[pfv]-pst-pl ‘Had someone told you a week ago that you would lose the Olympic games by a single vote, would you have believed it?’

These general syntactic tendencies notwithstanding, it is not difficult to find examples where by in the apodosis neither follows the verb, nor takes the second position: (15) Esli by ne nastojčivost’ Anatolij-a Viktorovič-a, if cond not persistence Anatolij-gen.sg Viktorovič-gen.sg èt-o del-o davno by zakry-l-i. this-nom.sg case- nom.sg long.ago cond close[pfv]-pst-pl ‘Without Anatolij Viktorovič’s persistence, they would have closed the case long ago.’

The competing tendencies to prefer by in the second position after the conjunction and after the verb can explain the occurrence of double marking which is not accepted by the norms of the standard language, but according to a random sample taken from the  National Corpus of Russian (Nacional’nyj korpus russkogo jazyka) seems to occur quite frequently: (16) No evrei ne by-l-i by evrej-ami, But jew-nom.sg not be-pst-pl cond jew-ins.pl esli by u nix by-l-o by vse tak prosto. if cond at them be-pst-n.sg cond everything that easy ‘But the jews wouldn’t be the jews if it were that simple with them.’

On the other hand, by can be omitted in coordinated predicates: (17) Esli by side-l i molča-l, to If cond sit[ipfv]-pst and remain.silent[ipfv]-pst comp vnimani-ja bylo by men’še. attention-gen.sg be-pst-n.sg cond less ‘If he remained seated without saying a word, there would be less attention.’

3.1.2  Some remarks on the diachronic development of the conditional The conditional goes back to a periphrastic construction consisting of an active participle formed with the suffix -l- and the aorist form of the auxiliary byti ‘to be’. The aorist was a synthetic tense-aspect form of the Old Russian verb used to express completed actions in the past. Both elements of the construction inflected and behaved like syntactically independent autonomous elements, e.g. oučini-l-i by-xom do-pst-pl be-aor.1pl ‘we would do’.





Björn Hansen

According to Sičinava (2004), this construction originally had the function of a pluperfect. In Old Russian, the auxiliary tended to lose agreement with the subject which lead to the loss of the inflected forms of the auxiliary with only by surviving, the original aorist form 2nd and 3rd person singular. This form which happens to be the shortest of the paradigm started to be used with the plural and the 1st person. Thus, we are dealing with a simplification of the paradigm where the shortest form replaced the other elements of the paradigm. From the viewpoint of grammaticalization, it is noteworthy that the conditional marker by does not coalesce with the verbal stem, but as a clitic retains a certain degree of autonomy.

3.1.3  The imperative Being aware of the fact that there are different treatments of the Russian imperative paradigm, we shall adopt a typologically oriented functional approach as developed by the St.Petersburg (Leningrad) Typological School (i.e. Xrakovskij & Volodin 1986 and ­Xrakovskij 1992). According to this view, the imperative paradigm can contain both bound and periphrastic expressions and includes forms addressed not only to the addressee, but also to the third or the first person. In his definition of the imperative, Xrakovskij (1992: 7) uses weak morphological criteria and abstracts away the person to which the appeal to fullfil the speaker’s wish is addressed: The speaker wishes/does not wish an activity P to be completed which at time t is either going on or is not going on. The speaker (= prescriptor) tells the hearer (= the receiver of the prescription) about whom is supposed to be the agent of the action P (= the agent of the prescription) and by doing so the speaker tries to cause the completion of the action. (translation BH)

Xrakovskij proposes to treat those elements as imperatives which (a) are regularly formed of verbal lexemes being semantically compatible with directives and which (b) are recognised in the context as forms carrying the grammatical meaning of an imperative. This definition allows the inclusion of periphrastic expressions in the sense of Haspelmath (2000: 660): A periphrastic expression is simply one which expresses a grammatical meaning in a multi-word construction. A periphrasis can be identified if there is a conventional construction in a language which expresses a grammatical meaning, and where there is a particular lexical item (an auxiliary word) that regularly combines with all members of a word class to express this meaning.

Applying the broad understanding of the morphological imperative to Russian, we get a set of synthetic and analytical forms covering all three persons. The imperative forms are marked for the following categories: person, number and social distance. It is interesting to note that the Russian imperative in certain forms distinguishes between the acting person and the addressee. Table 4 contains all imperative forms of the verb pet’ipfv/spet’pfv ‘to sing’:



Mood in Russian

Table 4.  The imperative paradigm5 Imperative forms

Literal Translation

Acting person

Number of addressees5

davaj spo-ju

‘You guy, let me sing!’

1. person singular

davaj-te spo-ju

‘You guys, let me sing!’

1. person singular

davaj pe-t’ davaj-te spo-em davaj-te pe-t’ spoj

‘Let me and yourself sing!’

1. + 2. Person

‘Let me and yourselves sing!’

1. + 2. Person

‘You guy, sing!’

2 person singular

spoj-te

‘You guys, sing!’

2 person plural

pust’ X spo-et

‘Let X sing!’

any

= 1 (familiar) > 1 (familiar) or ≥ 1 (distant) = 1 (familiar) > 1 (familiar) or ≥ 1 (distant) = 1 (familiar) > 1 (familiar) or ≥ 1 (distant) any

Whereas the synthetic imperative is formed by a morpheme firmly attached to the verbal stem, the analytical imperatives consist of two surface units, i.e. the verbal form and the imperative marker. The maximally extended imperative paradigm comprises four different morphological forms: 1. 2. 3. 4.

verbal stem plus (zero) suffix: spoj + Ø; noninflected surface unit plus finite verb coinciding with the indicative pust’ spo-et; inflected surface unit plus infinitival verb davaj(-te) pet’; inflected surface unit plus finite Verb coinciding with the indicative davaj(-te) spo-em.

The bound forms: The imperative 2nd person singular is formed by the addition of a null morpheme to the lexical stem including thematic vowel. The stem is identical to the one of the third person plural present tense. čitaj-u → čitaj-Ø! read[ipfv]-3pl → read[ipfv]-imp[2sg.familiar] ‘they read > read!’

The imperatives of the 2nd person plural are formed by the 2nd person singular plus the agglutinated ending -te. čitaj + -te → čitajte! ‘Read!’

The subject of the bound forms is omitted. Syntactic and semantic peculiarities are found in the so called transpositive use of the second person singular imperative. Here, the imperative form is used with a subject in the Nominative and shows no restriction to person and

.  The number of addressees can be ‘one’ (=1), ‘more than one’ (>1) or ‘one or more than one’ (≥ 1).





Björn Hansen

number; i.e. being a form of the second person it combines with the third and first person, singular and plural alike: (18) Pridi ja/ my čut’ ran’še, ničego by come[pfv][imp.2sg] I/ we a.little.bit earlier nothing cond ne sluči-l-o-s’. not happen[pfv]-pst-n.sg-refl ‘If I/ we had come earlier, nothing would have happened.’  (example from Xrakovskij 1992: 48)

The periphrastic forms: the Russian imperative paradigm contains some compound forms which consist of an autonomous imperative marker and a verbal form. These constructions are grammaticalized imperative expressions and therefore have to be included in the analysis of the mood system. In the following, we will shortly describe their complex internal morphological structure. The analytical imperative constructions of the first person contain an imperative marker which is derived from the bound imperative form of the verb of giving davat’ipfv/dat’pfv. In comparison to its lexical source, the imperative marker shows a considerable degree of grammaticalization: it is semantically bleached and has an argument structure typical for auxiliaries.6 The lexical verb davat’ ‘to give’ opens three argument positions, i.e. for the agent, perceiver and the object (cf. Petr dal mne ključ… ‘Peter gave me the key.’). In comparison to that, imperative elements have only ONE argument position which is filled with the main verb. The transition from a fully fledged verb into an operator opening only one slot is an instance of syntactic condensation and thus a symptom of grammaticalization. In the morpho-syntax of the imperative constructions with davaj(-te) we encounter some similarities with the conditional marker by (s Chapter 3.1.1). Like the latter, davaj(-te) is syntactically not restricted to a specific morphological verbal form, but is used in different surroundings. Perfective verbs are in the indicative and imperfective verbs in the infinitive: davaj + infinitiveipfv:

Togda  davaj rubi-t’     ètot uzel. Then   imp.2sg cut[ipfv]-inf  this knot ‘So let me and yourself cut the knot.’

davaj + indicativepfv:

Davaj otremontiru-em derevensk-ij   dom. imp.2sg repair[pfv]-1pl rural-acc.sg  house ‘Let me and yourself repair the house in the countryside.’

A similar asymmetry in the encoding of perfective and imperfective aspect is found in the passive voice (see Chapter 2). In colloquial speech we find elliptic usages where davaj is used as an appellative particle like English Come on!.

.  On aspects of grammaticalization see Hansen (2004).



Mood in Russian

davaj + imperative: Davaj tri dnj-a ot-dyxaj! imp.2sg three day-gen.sg relax-imp.2sg ‘Come on, take a break for three days!’ davaj + Ellipsis:

Nu, Xrisan Andreevič, davaj o del-e! So Xrisan Andreevič imp.2sg about affair-prep.sg ‘So, Xrisan Andreevič, let’s talk business!’

The second periphrastic form to be discussed here consists of the uninflected grammatical morpheme pust’ and a verb in the present tense indicative mood. It is mainly used for demands and wishes directed to a third person, but can also be used for the first and second person. Pust’ goes back to the lexical verb pustit’ with the meaning ‘to permit’ which is also used as a causative marker. It is derived from the imperative form of the verb, but has undergone phonological erosion which has led to the loss of the final syllable (imperative marker pust’ vs. imperative of the lexical verb pusti). (19) Pust’ ja upad-u i bol’še ne vstan-u! imp I fall.down[pfv]-1sg and any.more not get.up[pfv]-1sg ‘I should fall down and shouldn’ get up any more!’ (20) Pust’ četko skaž-ut – oni est’, ili net. imp exactly say[pfv]-3pl they be.inf or not ‘They should tell, will they be around or not?’

The grammatical character of the two constructions with davaj and pust’ is also reflected in the syntactic fixation of its components. Although Russian is generally characterised by a relatively free word order, we find the fixed order ‘imperative marker precedes main verb’. The imperative marker tends to be placed at the beginning of the clause, but it is also possible to put it in second position after the subject, an adjunct or a particle; cf.: (21) Togda davaj rubi-t’ ètot uzel. then imp.2sg cut[ipfv]-inf this knot ‘So let me and yourself cut the knot.’ (22) A specializacija pust’ bud-et v X–XI klass-ax. and specialisation imp be.fut-3sg in 10–11th class-prep.pl ‘The specialisation will take place only in the 10–11th forms.’

The pust’-construction differs from the other imperative expressions in the realisation of the subject. Whereas the first and second person imperatives do not allow the realisation of the first argument of the lexical verb, the subject of the pust’-construction is realised as in the non-imperative moods.





Björn Hansen

3.2  Restrictions of non-indicative moods to specific tenses/aspects/voices The Russian conditional is formed with perfective and imperfective verbs, but has no tense inflection. It has regular active and passive forms. This contrasts with the imperative which usually can not be used in the passive voice. Only the pust’-construction allows for passivisation. All imperative markers can combine with perfective and imperfective aspect whereas the davaj-construction shows different syntactic patterns for each aspect.

3.3  Meaning and use of non-indicative moods 3.3.1  Conditional The meaning and use of the Russian conditional more or less coincides with its Polish counterpart (cf. Hansen this volume on mood in Polish). As in Polish, the conditional does not distinguish between potentialis and irrealis in itself like English ‘I would read’ vs. ‘I would have read’. The functions of the conditional depend on the syntactic context; i.e. the functions of the conditional differ in main and/or subordinated clauses. 3.3.1.1  Conditional in main and subordinated clause The conditional is used in potential and irreal conditional sentences. The disambiguation of the two readings is based on context factors like temporal adverbs or aspect. (23) Esli by ne nastojčivost’ Anatolij-a Viktorovič-a, if cond not persistence Anatolij-gen.sg Viktorovič-gen.sg èt-o del-o davno by zakry-l-i. this-nom.sg case-nom.sg long.ago cond close[pfv]-pst-pl ‘Without Anatolij Viktorovič’s persistence, they would have closed the case long ago.’

Here, the conditional in the apodosis contains the adverb davno ‘long ago’ and a verb in the perfective aspect (zakryli) which leads to an irrealis reading. In Russian, we find morphologically mixed conditional sentences, i.e. complex sentences combining conditional and non-conditional forms. In some cases, for example, the protasis does not contain a conditional, but an imperative or a modal in the indicative: (24) Pridi ja/my čut’ ran’še, ničego by Come[pfv][imp.2sg] I/we a.little.bit earlier nothing cond ne sluči-l-o-s’. not happen[pfv]-pst-n.sg-refl ‘If I/we had come earlier, nothing would have happened.’ (25) Esli menja nado zabrat’, davno zabra-l-i by. If me necessary pick.up[pfv]-inf long.ago pick.up[pfv]-pst-pl cond ‘If they had to pick me up, they would have done so long ago.’  (example from Hacking 1998: 84)



Mood in Russian

In Russian both the word order protasis-apodosis (cf. Examples 13, 14, 15) and apodosisprotasis are well attested (cf. Examples 12, 16)

3.3.1.2  Conditional in subordinated clauses The conditional can also be used in complex sentences with a regular indicative in the main clause. Here, the use of the fused complementizer čtoby is compulsory. We can distinguish complement clauses filling an argument position of the verb in the main clause, and adjunct clauses which do not fill an argument position. In complement clauses governed by volitional verbs, the conditional is used if the subject of the main clause does not control the subject of the subordinated clause, i.e. if the subjects refer to different entities. (26) Ja xoč-u, čtoby ty menja pocelova-l. I want[ipfv]-1sg comp.cond you i.acc kiss[pfv]-pst ‘I want you to kiss me.’

In the case of referential identity the conditional is not used and is replaced by the infinitive: (27) *Ja xoč-u, čtoby ja tebja pocelova-l. I want[ipfv]-1sg comp.cond I you.acc kiss[pfv]-pst ‘I want me to kiss you.’ (28) Ja xoč-u tebja pocelova-t’. I want[ipfv]-1sg you.acc kiss[pfv]-inf ‘I want to kiss you.’

Another class of elements are modal verbs and predicatives denoting possibility and necessity: (29) Teper’ nado, čtoby podobn-yj dokument Now necessary comp.cond similar-n.sg document pojavi-l-sja v Evrop-e. appear[pfv]- pst-refl in Europe-prep.sg ‘Now it’s necessary that a similar document showed up in Europe.’

In the following are two examples of the use of the conditional in adjunct clauses (purpose and negated existence): (30) Ja by zaplati-l bol’š-ie den’g–i, čtoby I cond pay[pfv]-pst big-acc.pl money-acc.pl comp.cond on do aprelj-a ne vozvrašča-l-sja. he until April-gen.sg not return[ipfv]-pst-sg-refl ‘I would pay a lot of money to make sure he doesn’t come back until April.’ (31) U èt-ogo čelovek-a nik-ogo na svet-e ne At this man-gen.sg nobody-gen.sg on earth-prep.sg not by-l-o, kto by emu pomog. be-pst-n.sg who cond he.dat help.pst ‘This man had nobody on earth who would help him.’





Björn Hansen

As is typical of the Slavonic languages, the Russian conditional is not used as a marker of indirect speech.

3.3.1.3  Main clause usage of the conditional In some cases, the main clause containing the protasis is omitted, thus rendering a main clause usage of the conditional: (32) Ja by èt-ogo ne sdela-l. I cond that-gen.sg not do[pfv]-pst ‘I wouldn’t do that.’ or ‘I wouldn’t have done that. (If I were you)’

Another function of the independent conditional is the optative. The optative can be distinguished from the imperative by the fact that the speaker does not try to cause the completion of the action (cf. the definition of the imperative in Chapter 3.1.2). In this function, by appears with or without the conditional conjunction esli and combines with a verb with the suffix -l or the infinitive: (33) Ax, esli by naš-i fantaz-ii Oh, if cond our-nom.pl phantasy-nom.pl voplošča-l-i-s’ sam-i! become.real[ipfv]-pst-pl-refl self-nom.pl ‘If only our dreams became true on their own!’ (34) Ax, vide-l by menja professor,- govori-t devušk-a. Oh, see[ipfv]-pst cond I.acc professor say[ipfv]-3sg girl-nom.sg ‘If only the professor saw me!’, says the girl.’ (35) Gvozd-i by dela-t’ iz èt-ix ljud-ej. nail-acc.pl cond make[ipfv]-inf from this-gen.pl people-gen.pl ‘One should make nails out of these people.’

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the Russian conditional shows the same behaviour with modals as the conditional in the other Slavonic languages. The conditional of modals of necessity can express a lower degree of compulsion or, in the case of epistemic modals a lower degree of probability of the realisation of the state of affairs. With the volitional verb xotet’ ‘to want’ the conditional adds a polite nuance to the utterance.

3.3.2  Imperative Depending on the combination of different pragmatic factors the imperative can be used in a variety of speech acts. The factors involved are: 1. the source of the stimulus for the action is either the speaker or the addressee, 2. the action is in the speaker’s or in the hearer’s ­interest, 3. the speaker is higher or lower in the social hierarchy than the addressee. All imperative forms can be used in a series of speech acts. The different readings partly depend on the aspect of the verb; some examples illustrating the different pragmatic readings:



–

Mood in Russian

order

(36) Nu-ka, položi bystro! come.on put[imp.2sg] quickly ‘Come on, put it down immediately!’

–

wish

(37) Bud’ zdorov! be[imp.2sg] healthy ‘Bless you!’

–

permission

(38) Zaxodi-te i sadi-te-s‘! come.in[ipfv]-imp[2ps.pl] and sit.down[ipfv]- imp[2ps.pl]-refl ‘Come in and have a seat!’

The imperative can quite regularly be used in complex sentences with conditional semantics. The imperative is used in the apodosis and renders a reading of a real conditional. (39) Xoč-eš’ uvide-t’ v okošk-e bol’še, want[ipfv]-2sg see[pfv]-inf in window-prep.sg more plati $200 i zakazyvaj mašin-u s pay[ipfv][imp.2sg] $200 and order[ipfv][imp] car-acc.sg with mul’tiinformacionn-ym disple-em. multi-information-ins.sg display.ins.sg ‘If you want to see more on the screen, you have to pay 200 dollars and to order a car with a multi-information display.’

Similar functions reaching in neighbouring functional domains are found in the so called transposition of the imperative of the 2nd person singular. This construction can be used in conditional sentences where the imperative is synonymous to the conditional form. (40) Pridi ja/my čut’ ran’še, ničego by Come[pfv][imp.2sg] I/we a.little.bit earlier nothing cond ne sluči-l-o-s’. not happen[pfv]-pst-n.sg-refl ‘If I/we had come earlier, nothing would have happened.’

Apart from that, the transposed imperative can adopt readings of external necessity which in English would have to be rendered by modal verbs. (41) Oni mne pis’m–a piš-ut, a ja plati! They I.dat letter-acc.pl write[ipfv]-3pl and I pay[imp.2sg] ‘They are sending me letters and I am supposed to pay!’



 Björn Hansen

A high degree of polyfunctionality is also found with the pust’-construction which on the one hand oscillates between the expression of imperative and optative. As a matter of fact, we often find sentences where the speaker expresses merely a wish to carry out an action without actually trying to cause its completion. This meaning is traditionally labelled as ‘optative’: (42) Pust’ ètot god bud-et tak-im že strann-ym i imp this year be.fut-3sg same-ins.sg strange-ins.sg and zamečatel’n-ym, pust’ sluča-et-sja tol’ko xoroš-ee, wonderful-ins.sg imp happen[ipfv]-3sg-refl only good-nom.sg a plox-oe zabud-et-sja. and bad-nom.sg forget[pfv]-3sg-refl ‘May this year be as strange and wonderful, may only good things happen and may the bad things be forgotten!’

On the other hand, pust’ has developed a concessive meaning in the sense ‘although’ (compare English may) and a further meaning sometimes called ‘resignative’: (43) Pust’ ja sta-l gorazdo star-še, opytn-ee, imp I become[pfv]-pst much old-comr experienced-comr mnogo uzna-l– no èto ja. a.lot learn[pfv]-pst but that I ‘Even if I became much older, more experienced and learned much–but that’s me.’ (44) Esli tebe tak xoč-et-sja, pust’ budeš’ Ivan. If you.dat so want[ipfv]-3sg-refl imp be.fut-2sg Ivan ‘If you really want it, you may be Ivan, I don’t care.’

4.  Conclusion The mood system of Russian is morphologically heterogeneous; it contains synthetic and analytical elements. A specific feature seems to be the morpho-syntax of the conditional, especially the syntactic independence of the conditional marker by. Being a free clitic morpheme it is not restricted to a specific verbal form, but can co-occur with the forms of the past tense or infinitive and can even be used with nouns. In this respect, by shares some features with lexical elements. The Russian conditional is a modal category that does not distinguish between potentialis and irrealis. The imperative is characterised by the opposition between the synthetic forms of the second person and the secondary analytical constructions containing a grammaticalized marker derived from the verbs ‘to give’ and ‘to let’. These constructions differentiate between the acting person and the addressee. As the typological study van der Auwera, Dobrushina & Goussev (2004) shows, imperative paradigms universally tend to contain heterogeneous forms.



Mood in Russian

References Berger, T. 1998. Das Russische. In Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen, P. Rehder (ed.), 49–93. ­Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Guiraud-Weber, M. 1993. La méthode bisynchronique dans la description de l’adjectif attribut en russe moderne. Revue des Études slaves LXV/1: 81–95. Hacking, J. 1998. Coding the Hypothetical. A Comparative Typology of Russian and Macedonian Conditional [Studies in Language Companion Series 38]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hansen, B. 2004. The grammaticalization of the analytical imperatives in Russian, Polish and Serbian/ Croatian. Welt der Slawen 49: 257–274. Hansen, B. 2010. Mood in Polish. In this volume. 342–357. Haspelmath, M. 2000. Periphrasis. In Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 17(1)], G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (eds), 654–665. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jachnow, H. (ed.). 1994. Modalität und Modus. Allgemeine Fragen und Realisierung im Slavischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lander, Y.A., Plungjan, V.A. & Urmanchieva, A.Yu. (eds). 2004. Irrealis i irreal‘nost. Moskva: Gnozis. Lehfeldt, W. 1978. K opredeleniju množestva slovoform povelitel’nogo na­klonenija v sov­re­men­nom russkom jazyke. Russian Linguistics 5: 267–285. Meyer, R. 2010. Mood in Czech and Slovak. In this volume. 358–375. Panzer, B. 1967. Der slavische Konditional. Form – Gebrauch – Funktion. München: Fink. Plungjan, V.A. 2005. Irrealis and modality in Russian and in typological perspective. In Modality in Slavonic Languages. New perspectives, B. Hansen & P. Karlík (eds), 135–147. München: Sagner. Sičinava, D.V. 2004. K probleme proisxoždenija slavjanskogo uslovnogo naklonenija. In Irrealis i irreal’nost’, Y.A. Lander, V.A. Plungjan & A.Yu. Urmanchieva (eds), 292–313. Moskva: Gnozis. Švedova, N.J. et al. (eds). 1980. Russkaja Grammatika Tom I. Moskva: Nauka. Švedova, N.J. et al. (eds). 1982. Russkaja Grammatika Tom II. Moskva: Nauka. Szucsich, L. 2010. Mood in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. In this volume: 394–408. van der Auwera, J., Dobrushina, N., Goussev, V. 2004. A semantic map for Imperative-Hortative. In Contrastive Analysis in Language. Identifying Linguistic Units of Comparison, D. Willems, B. Defrancq, T. Colleman & D. Noël (eds), 44–66. New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Xrakovskij, V.S. & Volodin, A.P. (eds). 1986. Semantika i tipologija imperativa. Russkij imperativ. ­Leningrad: Nauka. Xrakovskij, V.S. 1992. Tipologija imperativnych konstrukcij. St.-Peterburg: Nauka. (English translation: 2001. Typology of Imperative Constructions. Munich: Lincom).



Mood in Polish Björn Hansen Regensburg

1.  Introduction Polish is a language spoken by approximately 44 million speakers. It is the mother tongue of nearly all of the 38 million inhabitants of the Republic of Poland. There are Polish speaking minorities in Ukraine, Belorussia and Lithuania. Due to emigration Polish communities are also found in the US, Germany, Ireland, the UK, Australia, Canada and some other countries. Polish is a fully-fledged standard language with a high degree of standardization and a weak regional differentiation. Polish belongs to the Slavonic languages which form a branch of the Indo-European language family. With a total of approximately 275 million speakers, this branch consists of 14 standard languages, which can be divided into three sub-groups: –– –– ––

West Slavonic languages: Polish, Czech, Slovak, Kashubian, Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian; East Slavonic languages: Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian and Rusyn; South Slavonic languages: Slovene, Serbian/Croatian, Bulgarian and Macedonian.

Although a considerable differentiation has taken place since the 6th century, there are some typological features shared by all Slavonic languages. They are highly inflectional languages with an elaborated morphological parts of speech system and very productive word derivation.

2.  The verbal categories in Polish The Polish verbal system shares a number of characteristics with other Slavonic languages. One of the most prominent features of the Slavonic verb is the category of aspect which in contrast to e.g. the so called tripartite system in the Romance languages is not restricted to past time reference (Dahl 1985). Polish aspect which is based on the dichotomy ‘perfective’ vs. ‘imperfective’ is morphologically marked by derivational and not by inflectional devices. It is expressed by the addition of a range of prefixes or suffixes to a verbal stem; in some cases we find suppletive forms: robić IPFV – z-robić PFV; ‘to do’

kupić PFV – kup-owa-ć IPFV; ‘to buy’

kłaść IPFV – położyć PFV ‘to put’

As aspect is expressed in the verbal stem it is found in the past and non-past tenses and also in non-finite forms; i.e. aspect is a highly grammatical category of the verb which



Mood in Polish

appears with all verbal forms. Both aspectual subcategories combine with tense which is divided into the three subcategories ‘present’, ‘past’ and ‘future’. These tense forms present the unmarked mood subcategory of the indicative. The Polish voice system is characterized by a close interaction between tense and aspect. The passive constructions consist of an auxiliary plus passive participle; the choice of the auxiliary, its tense-aspect form and the aspect of the participle depend on specific combinations of aspectual and temporal features; e.g. there are dedicated passive constructions denoting processes in the past, accomplished actions in the past, repeated actions in the present etc.1 A further feature of the Polish voice system shared by most Slavonic languages is the presence of an active impersonal form which being restricted to verbs with human first arguments can be formed with transitive or intransitive verbs. The Polish verb distinguishes first, second and third person; only the second person is marked for social distance. Number is divided into singular and plural. Gender is marked only in the past tense, one imperfective future tense, the conditional and the passive constructions. Apart from the mentioned inflectional markers, Polish has a series of transposition categories: adjectival participle (active and passive), converb (anterior and simultaneous), infinitive and deverbal noun.

3.  The mood subcategories Mood is a grammatical category of the Polish verb. It is highly grammaticalized in the sense that it is an obligatory feature of the predicate. Mood is divided into three subcategories: –– –– ––

indicative (Polish tryb oznajmujący) conditional (tryb przypuszczający) imperative (tryb rozkazujący)

The indicative coincides with the tense forms ‘present’, ‘past’ and ‘future’.2

3.1  Morphology of non-indicative moods 3.1.1  The conditional The conditional belongs to the agglutinative morphological forms of the verb. The conditional forms are marked for gender, number and person what sets them apart from the present tense forms which carry no gender marking. The conditional is formed by the agglutination of morphemes: a lexical root, a stem marker, an agreement marker for gender and number, the morpheme by, plus a closing ending; e.g. czyta+ł+a+by+m ‘I (fem.) would read’: .  A detailed description of the aspectual and temporal functions of the passive constructions is found in Bartnicka et al. (2004: 360–404). .  Relevant works on Polish mood are: Czarnecki (1977), Hansen & Marszk (1994), Jachnow (ed.) (1994), Łuczków (1997), Markiewicz (2000), and Topolińska (1966).



 Björn Hansen

czyta- -ł- -a- -by- -m

lexical root plus thematic vowel, suffix used to form an inflectional stem, marker for gender and number agreement (here: feminine, singular), conditional marker, marker for person and number agreement (here: first person, singular).

A peculiarity of the Polish conditional is in the double marking of number agreement with the subject: -a- and -m both indicate singular. The following table contains all morphemes which occur in conditional forms: Table 1.  The morphological structure of the conditional Lexical stem incl. thematic vowel e.g. czyta-

Stem marker

Gender and number agreement

Conditional

Person and number agreement

-ł-/-l-

-a-o-ø-y-i-

-by-

-m -ś -ø

1 Ps Sg 2 Ps Sg 3 Ps Sg

-śmy -ście -ø

1 Ps Pl 2 Ps Pl 3 Ps Pl

-n-

The Polish verbal system has three sets of personal endings marking person and number agreement with the subject. One is used for the present tense, the second for the imperative and the third one for past tense and conditional. As an exception, this third set is also used for five of the six forms of the present tense of the copular verb być (see history of the conditional in Chapter 3.1.2.). This implies that the personal endings of the conditional coincide with the past tense of regular verbs and the present tense of the copula. The morphemes listed in Table 1 appear in the following combinations of gender, number and person forms: Table 2.  The paradigm of the conditional3 Singular

Masculine

Feminine

Neuter

1. person 2. person 3. person

czyta-ł-by-m czyta-ł-by-ś czyta-ł-by

czyta-ł-a-by-m czyta-ł-a-by-ś czyta-ł-a-by

– – czyta-ł-o-by

Plural

Masculine-Personal

Non-Masculine-Personal

1. person 2. person 3. person   impersonal

czyta-l-i-by-śmy czyta-l-i-by-ście czyta-l-i-by czyta-n-o by/czyta-ł-o by się3

czyta-ł-y-by-śmy czyta-ł-y-by-ście czyta-ły-by

.  The two forms are usually held to be synonyms.



Mood in Polish

The suffix -ł- historically goes back to an active participle marker deriving adjectival forms from verbs. Today, the suffix -ł- no longer forms participles, but functions as a stem marker used to form compound tense and mood forms, i.e. conditional, past tense and future tense; in the latter case the stem with -ł- competes with the functionally equivalent infinitive: Past tense:

czyta -ł-a=m read-stem-fem.sg=1sg4 ‘I (fem.) read.’

Future tense:

będ-ę czyta-ł-a   or   będ-ę    czyta-ć fut-1sg read-stem-fem.sg      fut-1sg   read-inf ‘I will read.’

From the fact that the morpheme -ł- appears in all these TM-forms it follows that it does not carry the semantic information ‘past tense’ or ‘conditional’. It is worth noting that the suffix -ł- (or -n-) is not a necessary component of the conditional, it can be replaced by other stem markers. This holds for the construction by plus uninflected impersonal modal and the colloquial construction by plus infinitival verb: (1) Trzeba by to omówi-ć. Necessary cond that talk.over-inf’ ‘One should talk it over.’ (2) Ech, powróci-ć by do dawn-ego czas-u! oh return-inf cond to former-gen.sg time-gen.sg ‘I wish we could return to the old times!’

The conditional shows a certain resemblance to the structure ‘adjectival participle’ plus ‘auxiliary’, because it has an agreement marker for gender and number. However, notwithstanding some overlap, the gender-number markers do not coincide with the corresponding forms of the adjectival declension. The complex by plus ending is a non-autonomous enclitic element which is not firmly attached to the verbal stem; it can move and cliticize to a conjunction or other elements in the sentence. It frequently cliticizes to the first pronounced word in the clause: (3) Jeśli wiedzia-ł=by-m o tym wcześniej, nie if know-stem[m.sg]=cond-1sg about that earlier, not przyszed-ł=by-m. come-stem[m.sg]=cond-1sg ‘If I had known that before, I wouldn’t have come.’

.  Following from here, the glosses will mark the aspect of the verb only in cases where it is relevant.



 Björn Hansen

(4) Jeśli=by-m o tym wcześniej wiedzia-ł, to if =cond-1sg about that earlier know-stem[m.sg], then by-m nie przyszed-ł. cond-1sg not come-stem[m.sg] ‘If I had known that before, I wouldn’t have come.’ (5) Ja by-m t-ego nie zrobi-ł. I cond-1sg that-gen.sg not do-stem[m.sg] ‘I wouldn’t do that.’

The clitical character of the complex by plus personal ending is also reflected in the prosody of the conditional form. In contrast to the usual Polish word stress fixed on the penultimate syllable, conditional forms whose ending contain a vowel show stress on the third or even fourth syllable from the right: cf. czýt2-a1-m ‘I read’, vs. czytá4-l-i3-by2-śmy1 ‘we would read’. In some cases by plus ending and the complementizer form an inseparable morphological unit treated as one orthographic word. We are dealing with subordinating conjunctions or optative markers (s. Chapter 3.3.1.); cf. the fused conjunction żeby ‘in order to’: (6) Chc-ę, żeby-ś przyszed-ł do dom-u. want.prs-1sg comp.cond-2sg come-stem[m.sg] to house-gen.sg ‘I want you to come home.’ (7) *Chc-ę, że przyszed-ł=by-ś do dom-u. want.prs-1Sg comp come-stem[m.sg]=cond-2sg to house-gen.sg ‘I want you to come home.’

or the optative complementizer oby: (8) Oby ży-ł sto lat! comp.cond live-stem[m.sg] hundred years ‘May he live a hundred years!’ (9) *O ży-ł=by sto lat! comp live-stem[m.sg]=cond hundred years ‘May he live a hundred years!’

The fused forms appear with the following elements: aby ‘in order to’, ażeby ‘in order to’, byleby ‘if only’, choćby ‘even if ’, chociażby ‘even if ’, gdyby ‘if ’, jakby ‘as if ’, jakżeby ‘as if ’, oby ‘may’, żeby ‘in order to’, niechby ‘may’

Like typical agglutinative morphemes, by can be omitted in coordinated predicates: (10) Jeśli mia-ł=by-ś dużo pieniędz-y i If have-stem[m.sg]=cond-2sg much money-gen.sg and mieszka-ł-Ø sam, móg-ł=by-ś mi pomó-c. live-stem[m.sg] alone can-stem[m.sg]=cond-2sg me help-inf ‘If you had a lot of money and lived alone, you would be able to help me.’



Mood in Polish

3.1.2  Some remarks on the diachronic development of the conditional The conditional goes back to a periphrastic form consisting of an active participle formed with the suffix -l- and the copular być. According to Sičinava (2004), this construction originally had the function of a pluperfect. In Protoslavonic, the copular was in the inherited synthetic conditional which in Old Polish was replaced by the aorist form. The copula functioned as an autonomous auxiliary whose position in the sentence was relatively free. Starting from the 15th century, the forms of the copula eroded and merged with the likewise shortened forms of the auxiliary być used in the perfect tense. Thus, the modern conditional is the result of a grammaticalization process leading from an analytical morphological structure to an agglutinative one. As it originally goes back to an auxiliary plus participle, the modern conditional shows (a) gender agreement and (b) the same personal endings like the past tense and the copular. Polish used to have a second conditional marked for past tense which got out of use in the 19th-20th century. This form consisted of the auxiliary być, the morpheme by plus personal ending and the l-stem of the verb: (11) by-ł-a by-m czyta-ł-a aux-stem-fem cond.sg-1sg read-stem-fem.sg ‘I would have read.’

3.1.3  The imperative First, we have to discuss the relation between synthetic and analytical forms in the imperative paradigm. In Polish linguistics, there is no consensus on the members of the imperative paradigm.5 Whereas the authors of the grammar of the Academy of Sciences (Grzegorczykowa et al. 1998) reduce the paradigm to the forms of the second person and the inclusive first person plural (kupuj, kupujcie, kupujmy), most scholars (e.g. Linde­Usiekniewicz 1990; Saloni 2000 and Bartnicka et al. 2004) advocate the additional inclusion of compound forms like the third person niech kupuje. The authors mainly disagree in the following two points: (a) can a paradigm contain both bound and periphrastic expressions and thus allow for heterogeneity? (b) does the acting person have to be identical with the addressee? Scholars focussing on formal homogeneity propose a small paradigm with only the synthetic forms of the second person and the first person plural, thus ignoring many highly frequent grammaticalized imperative expressions. Functionally oriented scholars, in contrast, also recognise the analytical imperatives which consist of the uninflected morpheme niech plus the indicative present tense of the verb. In the present article, we shall follow the typologically oriented, broader understanding of the morphological imperative as developed by the St.-Petersburg Typological School. Xrakovskij and Birjulin (1992: 7) use weak morphological criteria and abstract away the person to which the appeal to fullfil the speaker’s wish is addressed: .  The problem is known in other languages too, see Xrakovskij and Birjulin (1992).



 Björn Hansen

The speaker wishes/does not wish an activity P to be completed which at time t is either going on or is not going on. The speaker (= prescriptor) tells the hearer (= the receiver of the prescription) who is supposed to be the agent of the action P (= the agent of the prescription) and by doing so the speaker tries to cause the completion of the action. (translation BH)

Xrakovskij and Birjulin propose to treat those elements as imperatives which (a) are regularly formed of verbal lexemes being semantically compatible with directives and which (b) are recognised in the context as forms carrying the grammatical meaning of an imperative. This definition allows the inclusion of periphrastic expressions in the sense of Haspelmath (2000: 660): A periphrastic expression is simply one which expresses a grammatical meaning in a multi-word construction. A periphrasis can be identified if there is a conventional construction in a language which expresses a grammatical meaning, and where there is a particular lexical item (an auxiliary word) that regularly combines with all members of a word class to express this meaning.

Applying the broad understanding of the morphological imperative to Polish, we get a paradigm covering all three persons. The imperative forms are marked for the following categories: person, number and social distance (illustrated with the verb czytać ‘to read’): –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––

niech czytam: 1. person singular, ‘Let me read!’ czytajmy: 1. person plural including the addressee(s), ‘Let’s read!’ niech czytamy: 1. person plural excluding the addressee(s), ‘Let’s read!’ czytaj: 2. person singular familiar, ‘Read!’ czytajcie: 2. person plural familiar, ‘Read!’ proszę czytać: 2. person distant, ‘Read!’ niech pan/pani czyta: 2. person singular distant, ‘Read!’6 niech państwo/panowie/panie czytają: 2. person plural distant, ‘Read!’ niech X czyta: 3. person singular, ‘Let him read!’ niech Xy czytają: 3. person plural, ‘Let them read!’

The grammatical category of social distance covers the distinction between the ‘familiar’ and the ‘distant’ form of address as found in French tu vs. vous and their corresponding verbal forms.

.  The Polish personal pronoun system differentiates the following equivalents for French polite Vous or German Sie: pan (1 man), pani (1 woman), panowie (group of men), panie (group of women) and państwo (mixed group). These pronouns agree with verbs in the third person.



Mood in Polish 

Table 3.  The paradigm of the imperative Acting person

Singular

Plural

1. 2.  familiar    distant 3.

niech czytam czytaj niech pan/pani czyta niech X czyta

czytajmy/niech czytamy czytajcie niech panowie/panie/państwo czytają proszę czytać niech Xy czytają

The bound forms:  The imperative 2nd person singular is formed by the addition of a null suffix to the lexical stem including thematic vowel. The stem is identical to the one of the third person present tense. A small class of verbs containing a nasal vowel or nasal consonant takes the stem extension -ij-. (12) a.

czytaj-ą → czytaj-Ø!; read.prs-3pl → read.imp[2sg.familiar]; ‘they read → read!’

b. ciągn-ą → ciągn-ij-Ø! pull.prs-3pl → pull-stem.imp[2sg.familiar] ‘they pull → pull!’

The imperatives of the 2nd person plural and the inclusive 1. person plural are formed by the 2nd person singular plus the agglutinated ending -cie or -my respectively: (12) c.

czytaj + -cie → czytajcie! ‘Read!’ czytaj + -my → czytajmy! ‘Let’s read!’

The subject of the bound forms is usually omitted. The addition of the subject creates a specific emphatic effect.7 The periphrastic forms:  The Polish imperative paradigm contains some forms which consist of an uninflected autonomous imperative marker and a verbal form. These constructions have to be included into the paradigm, because they are dedicated imperative expressions, i.e. they have no non-imperative function. Due to this semantic specialisation, they differ from agent-oriented expressions which in specific person-number combinations can also be used in an imperative function like English You must read more books!8 The periphrastic imperatives which have undergone a considerable grammaticalization process (see Hansen 2004) fill the gaps in the person-number paradigm by providing forms for the lacking first person singular, distant second person and the third person.

.  An example from the Bible: Ty chodź za mną! You come.imp[2sg.familiar] behind me. ‘You must follow me.’

(John 21:22)

.  Bybee et al. (1994) distinguish between agent-oriented and speaker-oriented modalities.

 Björn Hansen

Apart from that, they add an exclusive form first person plural (cf. Saloni 2000: 31). The uninflected grammatical morpheme niech goes back to a verb with the meaning ‘let’ having lost its final syllable. Niech combines with verbs in the present tense indicative mood to form imperative expressions directed towards all three persons. In the second person, the niech-construction is marked for social distance. Due to the differentiated gender and number marking in the personal pronoun system we get several forms marked for social distance. (13) niech czyta-m imp read.prs-1sg ‘Let me read!’ (14) niech Pan czyta imp mister read.prs[3sg] ‘Please read!’ (distant address towards a man) (15) niech Paweł czyta imp Paul read.prs[3sg] ‘Let Paul read!’

A further strong argument in favour of treating niech plus verb as a periphrastic imperative can be seen in the syntactic fixation of its components. Although Polish is characterised by free word order, we find the fixed order ‘imperative marker precedes main verb’. The imperative marker is placed at the beginning of the clause or in the second syntactic ­position; cf.: (16) Niech Paweł czyta! imp Paul read.prs[3sg] ‘Let Paul read!’ (17) Paweł niech czyta! Paul imp read.prs[3sg] ‘Let Paul read!’ (18) *Paweł czyta niech! Paul read.prs[3sg] imp ‘Let Paul read!’

The subject of the niech‑construction can be realised in different ways. It is facultative in the case of the third and first person (regular pro-drop), whereas it is obligatory in the distant form of the second person. The second periphrastic form to be mentioned is the highly frequent expression proszę  + VInf. The uninflected form proszę is identical with the first person singular of the verb prosić ‘to ask/to plead’. proszę plus infinitive is used for requests to one or several addressees and is marked for social distance (cf. Huszcza 1996). It is often preferred to niech because it is not marked for gender. proszę + VInf is less grammaticalized than the niech-construction; it is less polyfunctional and shows no traces of erosion.



Mood in Polish

The prohibitive, i.e. the negated form of the imperative, is formed in a regular way by addition of the negation nie, there are no dedicated prohibitive forms. The negator is positioned before the verb: (19) Nie chodź na górę. not go.imp[2sg.familiar] to upstairs ‘Don’t go upstairs!’ (20) Kto tak-i niewierząc-y, niech nie słucha! Who such-nom.sg unbeliever-nom.sg imp not listen.prs[3sg] ‘Who is such an unbeliever, should not listen.’

3.2  Restrictions of non-indicative moods to specific tenses/aspects/voices The Polish conditional and imperative are formed with perfective and imperfective verbs, but have no tense inflection. The conditional has regular active and passive forms, whereas the imperative usually can not be used in passive constructions. Only the niech-construction allows for passivisation.9

3.3  Meaning and use of non-indicative moods 3.3.1  Conditional The Polish conditional marks a sentence as hypothetical; i.e. the form czytałbym ‘I would (have) read’ implies that in the real world, I actually do not read. The conditional does not distinguish between potential and counterfactual like English ‘I would read’ vs. ‘I would have read’. Its usage depends on the syntactic context; i.e. the usage in main and/or subordinated clauses. 3.3.1.1  Conditional in main and subordinated clause The conditional is used in potential and irreal conditional sentences. Both situations are marked as hypothetical. (21) Gdy=by-ś czyta-ł więcej książek, if=cond-2sg read-stem[m.sg] more book.gen.pl otrzyma-ł=by-ś dobr-e ocen-y. get-stem[m.sg]=cond-2sg good-acc.pl mark-acc.pl ‘If you read more books, you would get better marks.’ or ‘If you had read more books, you would have got better marks.’

Here, the conditional in the protasis is used with the fused conjunctions gdyby, jeśliby, jeżeliby mentioned in Section  3.1.1. Polish hypothetical conditional sentences clearly .  An example: Jeżeli Wysoka Izba uważa, że ten wniosek w tym momencie nie może być przyjęty, to niech zostanie przyjęty za dwa tygodnie. ‘If the House thinks that for the time being this conclusion cannot be accepted, it should be accepted in two weeks time.’





Björn Hansen

favour parallel marking in the protasis and the apodosis. Cases of morphologically mixed conditionals, where the verb in the apodosis is not in the conditional, but in the perfective future tense or the imperative, are rare, but not out of order. In these contexts, the construction comes close to the reading of a realis (real or open condition). (22) Jeśli=by-m się pomyli-ł, poprawi-sz mnie. if=cond-1sg self be.wrong-stem[m.sg] correct.pfv.prs-2sg me. ‘If I am wrong, you will correct me.’ (23) Jeśli=by-m się pomyli-ł, popraw mnie. If=cond-1sg self be.wrong-stem[m.sg] correct.pfv.imp[2sg] me. ‘If I am wrong, correct me.’

Usually, the protasis precedes the apodosis, but the reversed order is also found.

3.3.1.2  Dependent conditional in subordinated clauses (subjunctive) The conditional can also be used in complex sentences with a regular indicative in the main clause. In these cases, the use of the fused complementizer żeby is compulsory. We can distinguish complement clauses filling an argument position of the verb in the main clause, and adjunct clauses which do not fill an argument position. The situation expressed in both types of subordinated clauses is marked as non-real. In some cases, the speaker indicates that the situation can develop into a real one. In complement clauses governed by volitional verbs, the conditional is used if the subject of the main clause does not control the subject of the subordinated clause, i.e. if the subjects refer to different entities. (24) Chc-ę, żeby-ś przyszed-ł do dom-u. want.prs-1sg comp.cond=2sg come-stem[m.sg] to house-gen.sg Lit.: ‘I want, that you came home.’

In the case of referential identity the conditional is excluded and we have to use the infinitive: (25) *Chc-ę, żeby=m przyszed-ł do dom-u. want.prs-1sg comp.cond=1sg come-stem[m.sg] to house-gen.sg (26) Chc-ę przyj-ść do dom-u. want.prs-1sg come-inf to house-gen.sg ‘I want to come home.’

The subjunctive is used with verbs whose second argument controls the reference of the subject in the subordinated clause; e.g.: verba postulandi like rozkazać ‘to order’ or żądać ‘to ask sb to do sth’: (27) Rozkaza-ł mi, żeby=m przyszed-ł do dom-u. order-past[m.sg][3sg] me comp.cond=1sg come-stem[m.sg] to house-gen.sg ‘He ordered me to come home.’



Mood in Polish

Here, mi ‘me’ has the same reference as the subject of the subordinated clause; a literal translation would be ‘he ordered me that I came home’. Another class of elements are modal verbs and predicatives denoting possibility and necessity: (28) Nie wypada, żeby gospodarz not behove.prs[3sg] comp.cond[3sg] host[nom.sg] opuszcza-ł gośc-i. leave-stem[m.sg] guest-acc.pl ‘It does not behove to a host to leave his guests alone.’

Among adjunct clauses, one can distinguish purpose and comparative clauses and clauses denoting negated existence. Purpose clauses take a conditional form, if the subject of the subordinated clause does not coincide with the subject in the main clause. (29) Wysła-ł-e-m go, żeby naprawi-ł kran. send-pst-m.sg-1sg him comp.cond fix-stem[m.sg] tap[acc.sg] ‘I sent him to fix the tap.’

But: (30) *Poszed-ł-e-m, żeby-m naprawił kran. go-pst-m.sg-1sg comp.cond-1sg fix-stem[m.sg] tap[acc.sg] ‘I went to fix the tap.’

The subjunctive is also used in clauses expressing comparisons (with the conjunction jakby or jakżeby ‘as if ’): (31) Spojrzał na mnie tak, jak-by-m o Look-stem[3sg] on me.acc.sg so, as.if-cond-1sg about czymś zapomnia-ł. something.prep.sg forget-stem[m.sg] ‘He looked at me, as if I had forgotten something.’

The conditional is facultative in sentences denoting non-existence: (32) Nie ma nikogo, kto by go not haveprs.3sg nobody.gen.sg who cond[3sg] him nie szanowa-ł. not respect-stem[m.sg] ‘There isn’t anybody who wouldn’t respect him.’ (33) Nie ma nikogo, który go nie szanuj-e. not have.prs[3sg] nobody.gen.sg who him not respect.prs-3sg ‘There isn’t anybody who wouldn’t respect him.’

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the Polish conditional is not used in indirect speech:





Björn Hansen

(34) Powiedzia-ł: ‘Przyjd-ę na imprez-ę.’ say-past[m.sg][3sg] come.prs-1sg to party-acc.sg ‘He said: ‘I’ll come to the party.’’ (35) Powiedzia-ł, że przyjdzi-e na imprez-ę. say-pst[m.sg][3sg] comp come.prs-3sg to party-acc.sg ‘He said, that he would come to the party.’

3.3.1.3  Independent conditional in main clauses In some cases the main clause containing the protasis is omitted, thus rendering a main clause usage of the conditional, e.g.: (36) Ja by-m tego nie zrobi-ł. I cond-1sg that\gen.sg not do-stem[m.sg] ‘I wouldn’t do that.’ or ‘I wouldn’t have done that.’

Another function of the independent conditional can be labelled as ‘optative’ or ‘desiderative’. By using the conditional, the speaker expresses a wish. Correlating with the marking of a hypothetical or counter-factual status in conditional sentences, the independent conditional can express possible and impossible wishes.10 The desiderative can be distinguished from the imperative by the fact that the speaker does not try to cause the completion of the action (cf. the definition of the imperative in Chapter 3.1.3.). (37) Posprząta-ł-by pokój! Tidy.up-stem-cond[m.sg][3sg] room-acc.sg ‘Couldn’t he tidy up his room.’

There is a variety of complementizers adding different semantic shades to the desiderative; cf.: aby ‘in order to’, gdyby ‘if ’, oby ‘may’, żeby ‘in order to’, niechby ‘may’ (see also (8)). (38) Niechby się wreszcie pogodzi-l-i! comp.cond self eventually reconcile-stem-pl[3] ‘Would that they eventually made it up with each other!’

3.3.1.4  Specific behaviour with modals Finally, it is worth pointing out that the conditional shows a specific behaviour with modals. The conditional of modals of necessity does not always have a counterfactual reading, but can cause a semantic change of the modal leading to a weakening of the necessity. In deontic modals the degree of compulsion is weaker and in epistemic modals we get a lower degree of probability of the realisation of the state of affairs. Compare: .  Dobrušina (2004) has pointed out, that dependent conditionals which mark either potential or counter-factuals in conditional clauses show the same semantic opposition in independent clauses.



Mood in Polish

(39) Musz-ę czyta-ć tę książk-ę. must.prs-1sg read-inf this\acc.sg book-acc.sg ‘I must read this book.’

with the conditional form: (40) Musia-ł=by-m czyta-ć tę książk-ę. Must-stem=cond-1sg read-inf this\acc.sg book-acc.sg ‘I should read this book.’

With the volitional verb chcieć ‘to want’ the conditional adds a polite nuance to the utterance. (41) Nie chcia-ł-by-m kontynuowa-ć tego temat-u. not want-stem[m.sg]-cond-1sg continue-inf this\gen.sg topic-gen.sg ‘I would rather not continue this topic.’

3.3.2  Imperative For describing the use of the imperative we repeat the functional definition of the imperative from Chapter 3.1.3: The speaker wishes/does not wish an activity P to be completed which at time t is either going on or is not going on. The speaker (= prescriptor) tells the hearer (= the receiver of the prescription) who is supposed to be the agent of the action P (= the agent of the prescription) and by doing so the speaker tries to cause the completion of the action. (Xrakovskij & Birjulin 1992: 7)

Depending on the combination of different pragmatic factors the imperative can be used in a variety of speech acts. The factors involved are: 1. the source of the stimulus for the action is either the speaker or the addressee, 2. the action is in the speaker’s or in the hearer’s interest, 3. the speaker is higher or lower in the social hierarchy than the addressee. All imperative forms except the semantically less bleached proszę-construction can be used in a series of speech acts. The different readings partly depend on the aspect of the verb e.g.: ––

order

(42) Prezentuj broń! Present.imp[2sg.familiar] arm[acc.sg] ‘Present arms!’

––

desire

(43) Niech żyj-e sto lat! imp live.prs-3sg hundred years ‘May he live a hundred years!’





Björn Hansen

––

permission

(44) Proszę usią-ść! imp[2ps.distant] sit.down-inf ‘Sit down, please!’

––

advice

(45)

––

Sprzedaj-cie wasz samochód, Sell.imp-2pl.familiar your[acc.sg] car[acc.sg] …(…) i w ten sposóbędziecie mieli potrzebne pieniądze! ‘Sell your car, then you will have the money you need.’

request

(46) Tatusi-u, pozwól mi pój-ść do kin-a. Dad-voc allow.imp[2sg.familiar] me go-inf to cinema-gen.sg ‘Dad, let me go to cinema!’

Agentive verbs allow for all types of speech acts. Non-agentive verbs have imperative forms too; in this case we are dealing with invited inference leading to a shift in meaning: the addressee is asked to fulfil another action leading to activity expressed by the verbal stem; e.g. the phrase Wygraj samochód! ‘Win a car!’ is understood as a request to buy a lottery ticket.

4.  Conclusion The Polish mood system is characterised by a far reaching replacement of the Indoeuropean synthetic paradigm. The system is morphologically heterogeneous; it contains synthetic, agglutinative and analytical elements. The new conditional goes back to an analytical structure consisting of a verbal participle and an auxiliary. The new form has an agglutinative structure which sets it apart from the old synthetic morphological categories. From a typological point of view, the conditional can be labelled a ‘modal affix’ in the sense of de Haan (2006: 32ff.). It covers different functions depending on its use in main and subordinated clauses. It can express potential and counterfactual conditions and prefers parallel marking in the protasis and the apodosis. In independent use, it can express different shades of possible and impossible wishes. The imperative paradigm consisting of synthetic, agglutinative or analytical elements contains forms for all three persons. This heterogeneity is not random but correlates with the universal semantic map for imperatives. The distribution of forms across the person-number paradigm fully complies with



Mood in Polish

the predictions made by the semantic map of imperatives and hortatives developed by van der Auwera et al. (2004).

References Bartnicka, B., Hansen, B., Klemm, W., Lehmann, V. & Satkiewicz, H. 2004. Grammatik des Polnischen [Slavolinguistica 5]. München: Sagner. Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The Chicago University Press. Czarnecki, T. 1977. Der Konjunktiv im Deutschen und Polnischen. Versuch einer Konfrontation. Warszawa: Wyd. PAN. Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. de Haan, F. 2006. Typological approaches to modality. In The Expression of Modality, W. Frawley (ed.), 27–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dobrušina, N.P. 2004. O nekotoryx korrelacijax meždu zavisimym i nezavisimym upotrebleniem irreal’nyx form. In Irrealis i irreal‘nost’, Y.A. Lander, V.A. Plungjan & A.Yu. Urmanchieva (eds), 124–147. Moskva: Gnozis. Grzegorczykowa, R. et al. 1998. Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia. [Wydanie drugie, zmienione]. Warszawa: PWN. Hansen, B. 2004. The grammaticalization of the analytical imperatives in Russian, Polish and Serbian/Croatian. Welt der Slawen 49: 257–274. Hansen, B. & Marszk, D. 1994. Von der Vielfalt zum Vielzweck: Der Imperativ im Polnischen und im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 39/4: 526–544. Haspelmath, M. 2000. Periphrasis. In Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 17(1)], G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (eds), 654–665. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Huszcza, R. 1996. Honoryfikatywność. Gramatyka. Pragmatyka. Typologia. Warszawa: PWN. Jachnow, H. (ed.). 1994. Modalität und Modus. Allgemeine Fragen und Realisierung im Slavischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Linde-Usiekniewicz, J. 1990. Formy złożone polskiego imperatywu. Poradnik językowy 6: 463–467. Łuczków, I. 1997. Wyrażanie imperatywności w języku rosyjskim i polskim. Wrocław: Wyd. Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Markiewicz, A. 2000. Imperativ im Deutschen und Polnischen. Kraków: Universitas. Saloni, Z. 2000. Wstęp do koniugacji polskiej. Olsztyn: Wyd. Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego. Sičinava, D.V. 2004. K probleme proisxoždenija slavjanskogo uslovnogo naklonenija. In Irrealis i irreal‘nost’, Y.A. Lander, V.A. Plungjan & A.Yu. Urmanchieva (eds), 292–313. Moskva: Gnozis. Topolińska, Z. 1966. O kategoriach gramatycznych polskiego imperatiwu. Język Polski 46: 167–173. van der Auwera, J., Dobrushina, N. & Goussev, V. 2004. A semantic map for Imperative-Hortative. In Contrastive Analysis in Language. Identifying Linguistic Units of Comparison, D. Willems, B. Defrancq, T. Colleman & D. Noël (eds), 44–66. New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Xrakovskij, V.S. & Birjulin, N.A. 1992. Povelitel’nye predloženija: problemy teorii. In Tipologija imperativnych konstrukcij, V.S. Xrakovskij (ed.), 5–50. St.-Peterburg: Nauka. (English translation: 2001. Typology of Imperative Constructions. Munich: Lincom).



Mood in Czech and Slovak Roland Meyer Regensburg

1.  Introduction1 Czech and Slovak are two closely related, neighbouring standard languages from the West Slavonic branch of the Slavonic family. Slovak, the official language of the 5.4 mio. inhabitants of the Slovak Republic (sr), is spoken natively by about 4.6–4.8 mio. people in Slovakia, and about 200,000 residents of the Czech Republic (ČR), as well as by large minorities in Hungary, in the Serbian region of Vojevodina, in the usa and Canada (cf. http://www.uszz.gov.sk). Czech, the official language of the ČR, is the mother tongue of 9.7 mio. of the 10.2 mio. Czech inhabitants, of at least 200,000 Czech citizens living abroad, and of larger “culturally Czech” minorities in the sr, Britain, Germany, the usa and Canada (for estimates cf. http://www.mzv.cz/servis/soubor.asp?=id=25132). The mutual independence of Czech and Slovak as different standard languages has been beyond doubt for well over a century, albeit incidental attempts at linguistic unification (cf. Berger 2003 and Bosák, Buzássyová, Dolník & Furdík 1998: 15ff for historical background). At the same time, mutual intelligibility between Czech and Slovak is so high that both languages could be used in the official sphere of the common state (1918–1939 and 1945–1992) without translation. Their close similarities, also in the realm of mood, justify their being discussed in one article here. The plan of the paper is as follows: Section 2 gives a general overview of the expression of grammatical categories on verbs in the two languages. In Section  3, the main body of the article, we turn to mood categories, discussing first the morphology, then the grammatical restrictions and meanings of the three non-indicative moods, namely, the imperative, the conditional, and the (independent) infinitive. Section 4 contains remarks on further devices of mood marking, specifically, relevant uses of indicatives and particles (which are sometimes discussed under the heading of “periphrastic imperatives”). ­Section 5 concludes.

.  Many thanks are due to Monika Banašová, Björn Hansen, Denisa Lenertová, Marek Nekula, Adam Przepiórkowski and Luka Szucsich for discussion. All errors are mine.



Mood in Czech and Slovak

2.  Verbal categories in Czech and Slovak Czech (Cz.) and Slovak (Slk.) finite verbs realize the following grammatical categories: Person (1, 2, 3; marked only in present and future tense), number (sg, pl),2 gender (m, f, n; marked only in past tense, conditional and passive voice), animacy (only in part of the m forms), tense (fut, prs, pst, plup; the latter somewhat archaic), voice (act, pass; partly middle refl forms),3 and mood (ind, cond,4 imp). The vast majority of verbs also realize either of the two aspects, sometimes purely lexically, sometimes in a morphologically transparent way – thus, prefixation often turns a simplex imperfective into a perfective (with most prefixes adding specific “aktionsart” meanings), while suffixation with -va- and its allomorphs turns perfectives (including prefixed ones) into imperfectives.5 Purely lexical aspect oppositions are found e.g. with Cz. brát ipfv/vzít pfv ‘take’ or Slk. mluviť ipfv/riecť pfv ‘speak, say’; furthermore, some verbs have no counterpart in the other aspect – e.g. Cz. vydržet pfv ‘to stand, endure’ or most modal verbs (only ipfv; on aspect cf. MČ ii 183; sg 229). Person, number, part of the tenses and moods (prs/simple fut.ind;6 on imp see ­Sections 3 and 4), and gender (marked only in forms involving the so-called l-participle, see below) are expressed inflectionally on the full verb. As far as pres.ind forms are concerned, we will not go into the various conjugation classes and stem-forming affixes here. The respective endings are Cz. -m/-u/-i (1.sg), -š (2.sg), -ø (3.sg), -me (1.pl), -te (2.pl), -í/-ou (3.pl), and Slk. -m (1.sg), -š (2.sg), -ø (3.sg), -me (1.pl), -te (2.pl), -ia/-a/-ú/-u (3.pl) (cf. MČ ii 416ff and sg 233ff for details). The active fut.ipfv, pst, plup, and cond are built periphrastically with the help of the auxiliary Cz. být/Slk. byť ‘be’; the latter is combined with the inf of the main verb in the fut.ipfv, and with the l-participle7 in past, plup, and cond. Verbal gender marking only

.  Examples are provided in the alphabetical order of the language names. .  The reflexive marker can sometimes be lexically required and devoid of semantic content (as in Cz. smát se/Slk. smiať sa ‘laugh’), or it may have one of many different functions (e.g. reflexive proper, reciprocal, decausative (= middle), passive). .  For ease of reference, I will stick to the term conditional here, following the term kondicionál of Czech and Slovak standard grammars. Kondicionál refers to a morphological, rather than semantic, unit, as will become clear in Sections 3 and 4. .  In both languages, there is also a homonymous suffix {-va-} used to form frequentatives from imperfectives – cf. Cz. spávat ‘sleep repeatedly’; Slk. mávať ‘have repeatedly’. .  pfv verbs in their prs paradigm mostly refer to future events, but sometimes also to hypothetical ones; this is dubbed “simple fut” here. Only prs.ipfv verbs have a real present tense interpretation; their fut is formed periphrastically. .  The term ‘l-participle’ is motivated historically; nowadays, it merely refers to a certain morphological form which no longer functions as a proper participle.



 Roland Meyer

obtains on lpt and passive participles, including those of the auxiliaries/copulae. Both Czech and Slovak mark m (ending -Ø), f (-a) and n (-o) on the lpt in sg; however, they differ in the pl, where Czech distinguishes m.anim (-i), m.inanim/f (-y), and n (-a), while Slovak uses one ending for all genders (-i). The periphrastic passive involves the auxiliary/ copula Cz. být/Slk. byť ‘be’, which contributes the tense specification, and a passive participle, which contributes aspect; as usual, a true present tense interpretation can only obtain in ipfv aspect, but both aspects are possible in the pst, plup, or fut passive. Czech passive participles exist in a long and a short form.8 The former takes adjectival endings and inflects for case, if used attributively; in the periphrastic passive, its endings are m.sg -ý, f.sg -á, n.sg -é, m.anim.pl -í, m.inanim.pl and f.pl -é, and n.pl -á. The short form realizes the same gender/number endings as the l-participles do (see above). Slovak, on the other hand, uses a simpler system with only adjectival (“long”) endings and fewer distinctions in the pl; thus, m.sg -ý, f.sg -á, n.sg -é, and m.anim.pl -í, m.inanim.pl/f.pl/n.pl -é. Traditional grammars and also many modern studies (e.g. Junghanns 1999) categorize být/byť in passives as an auxiliary, just as the pst, cond, or fut auxiliaries. Toman (1980), however, provides some compelling observations which point to its being a copula: In colloquial Czech, forms like su ‘be.prs.1.sg’ or seš ‘be.prs.2.sg’ can be used as bona fide copulae (i.e. in combination with a predicative) or in passives, but never as a past auxiliary; furthermore, the past auxiliary, but never bona fide copulae or být in passives, can be dropped. – Both in Czech and in Slovak, the pst and cond auxiliaries are set apart from the future auxiliary and all copulae by further specific properties: They cannot host sentential negation,9 which is itself a verbal proclitic, and they are strict 2nd position clitics, i.e. they follow one clause-initial constituent, which may be a (potentially complex) phrase, a complementizer, or the main verb (lpt). Immediately after this constituent, the auxiliary, the reflexive and the personal pronominal clitics form a robust and strictly ordered cluster which can only be split by a small set of clitic modal particles and adverbs (Cz. však ‘however’, už ‘already’; Slk. rád ‘with pleasure’, už ‘already’).10 The plup and the pst.cond are formed analogously to the pst and the cond, merely by adding another pst form of být/byť. Table 1 exemplifies synthetic and analytic indicative verb forms in Czech and Slovak:

.  Grammars sometimes classify the former as adjective, and only the latter as a participle. .  Czech and Slovak auxiliary clitics differ from Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian ones in this respect (cf. Franks & King 2000). .  There are several classes of exceptions to the clitic 2nd rule, which are beyond the scope of this paper (cf. Avgustinova & Oliva 1997; Fried 1994; Lenertová 2001, among others, on Czech; Franks & King 2000 and references therein on both languages).



Mood in Czech and Slovak

Table 1.  Finite verb forms in Czech and Slovak (examples from ČNK/SNK)11 present active ipf. future active past active pluperfect active

passives

Czech

Slovak

od-volá-vá-me off.pfv-call-ipfv-1.pl ‘We are calling off.’ (ipfv) bud-ete psá-t be.fut-2.pl11 write.ipfv-inf ‘You will write.’ js-te na-psa-l-y be.prs-2.pl pfv-write-pst-f.pl ‘You wrote.’ js-me by-l-i be.prs-1.pl be-pst-m.anim.pl jedna-l-i act.ipfv-pst-m.anim.pl ‘We had acted.’ jste/jste byli/budete vychová(vá)ni ‘You (m.anim.pl) are/were/will be educated.’ (pfv/ipfv)

pre-trvá-va-j-ú over.pfv-last-ipfv-Ø-3.pl ‘They last/outlive.’ (ipfv) bud-u pre-dáva-ť be.fut-1.sg over-give.ipfv-inf ‘I will hand over.’ sme sa stret-l-i be.prs.1.pl refl meet-pst-pl ‘We met.’ som bol-Ø be.prs.1.pl be-pst-m.sg na-písa-l-Ø pfv-write-pst-m.sg ‘I had written.’ som/som bol/budu prenasledovaný ‘I am/was/will be prosecuted.’ (pfv)

Non-finite verbal forms encompass the infinitive itself, which does not distinguish tense or mood, the participles (active and passive, see above for the latter), and gerunds of both aspects. Active participles of the type Cz. píšící ‘writing’/Slk. čítajúci ‘reading’ and passive participles (see above) are fully productive in both languages; with the exception of Czech “short form” passive participles, they inflect like adjectives and can be used as such, or as the predicate of a non-finite attributive clause. Gerunds (přechodníky/prechodníky, transgresiv/transgresív) form the predicate of a non-finite adverbial (subordinate) clause; Czech knows ipfv gerunds (nes-a ‘carrying-m.sg’, nes-ouc ‘carrying-f/n.sg’, nes-ouc-e ‘carrying-pl’), which encode simultaneous action, and pfv gerunds (dostav ‘having obtained-m.sg’, dostavši ‘having obtained-f.sg’, dostavše ‘having obtained-pl’), which encode preceding action. Czech gerunds, which carry number and gender distinctions – a quirk among the Slavonic languages –, have become restricted to lexically fixed expressions (chtě-nechtě ‘willingly-unwillingly’, takřka ‘so to speak’ etc.) or to bookish style. In Slovak, there is only one gerundial form, which encodes simultaneous action (zdôrazňujúc ‘stressing’, robiac ‘doing’); judging from the Slovak National Corpus (SNK), it is more productive than in Czech.

.  bud- might be more economically analyzed as pf.pres, cf. Junghanns (1999).



 Roland Meyer

3.  The mood categories in Czech and Slovak 3.1  Morphology of non-indicative moods Taking as a starting point the fully grammaticalized verbal mood system, Czech and Slovak distinguish two non-indicative moods (apart from the infinitive), namely, the imperative and the conditional. The imperative paradigm is given in Table 2: Table 2.  Paradigm of the imperative in Czech and Slovak (after PMČ, 322; SG) Czech carry 2.sg 1.pl 2.pl

cry

Slovak call

nes-Ø / řvi / volej nesme / řvěme / volejme neste / řvěte / volejte

bring

receive

compare

prines-Ø / prinesme / prineste /

prijmi / porovnaj prijmime / porovnajme prijmite / porovnajte

From a functional point of view, there may be more candidates for inclusion into the paradigm of the imperative, notably regular combinations of pres-3.sg or -3.pl with the particle Cz. ať or nechť/nechať (bookish)/Slk. nech – traditionally often called “periphrastic imperative”; however, we provide arguments against such a categorization  in Section 4. Späth (1996) explicitly assumes a 3rd person imperative, systematically homonymous with the respective 2nd person, for reasons of syntactic agreement (cf. Section 3.2). The above minimal paradigm is, e.g., defended in Běličová (1997: 129ff). Czech and Slovak (like Polish), provide evidence of passive imperatives (Späth 1996: 75): (1) a.

Buď posvěceno Tvé jméno. be.imp.2.sg hallowed your name ‘Hallowed be thy name.’

b. Posväť sa meno Tvoje! hallow.imp.2.sg refl name your (same as (1a))

[Cz.]

[Slk.]

Historically, Czech and Slovak imperatives were derived from optatively used present tense forms (Leskien 1919, cited after Späth 1996). Older stages of the languages had a richer imperative paradigm including 1st and 2nd person duals, and, importantly, in older Slovak even distinct forms for 2pl and 3pl (Späth 1996: 40ff). The conditional is a periphrastic form consisting of a conditional auxiliary and an l-participle in the so-called present conditional, plus an l-participle of the auxiliary in the so-called past conditional:12

.  On their actual interpretation cf. Section 3.3.2. Junghanns (1999) provides a detailed syntactic analysis of periphrastic forms. Note that in Slovak, the conditional auxiliary consists of two clitic words, namely, the conditional marker by and the past auxiliary.



Mood in Czech and Slovak

In past conditionals, negation can either cliticize onto the lexical verb (yielding e.g. Cz. byl bych neudělal/Slk. bol by som neurobil ‘we would not have done’) or onto the past tense form of být/byť (Cz. nebyl bych dělal/Slk. neboli by sme robili ‘we would not have done’). The normatively correct past conditional is sometimes enhanced by further instances of the auxiliaries být/byť or its frequentative derivate bývat/bývať, especially in order to overstress the irreality of the described event (pmČ 322): Table 3.  Paradigm of the conditional in standard Czech and Slovak (after PMČ, 314; SG) 1.sg 2.sg 3.sg 1.pl 2.pl 3.pl

Czech

Slovak

bych bys by bychom byste by

by som by si by by sme by ste by

(2) a.

prs: pst: prs: pst:

Ø Cz. Slk. Ø Cz. Slk.

byl/-a/-o bol/-a/-o

Cz. Slk.

(u-)dělal/-a/-o (u-)robil/-a/-o

byli/-y/-a boli

Cz. Slk.

(u-)dělali/-y/-a (u-)robili

Každý národ na světě byl by se byl bránil [Cz.] every people on world aux.pst.sg cond.3 refl aux.pst.sg defend.pst.sg ‘Every people on earth would have defended itself.’

b. pokutu by som nebola bývala dostala fine cond aux.1.sg neg.aux.pst aux.pst receive.pst ‘I wouldn’t have got a fine.’

[Slk.]

In dependent clauses, some complementizers obligatorily attract the clitic conditional auxiliary and fuse with it also orthographically; the whole pronominal clitic cluster gets “dragged along”: Cz. a-bychom se ‘that.cond.1.pl refl’, Slk. že-by ste sa ‘that.cond aux.2.pl refl’, Slovak keby ( u, ó after labial consonants in the Catholic dialects. The loss of personal endings in CUS could partly be caused by the fact that they are redundant in this variety, which obligatorily requires personal subject pronouns, whereas SUS is a pro-drop language. .  The case of byrnjež is irrelevant in CUS, as this conjunction is always replaced by hačruniž ~ hačrunež ‘though, even if ’, requiring a normal conditional. .  Michałk (1994: 139) claims that the construction of “aorist of być + past participle” originally was a pluperfect, which was later replaced in this function by the actual pluperfect of the type “imperfect of być + past participle”, developing in turn the two functions of conditional and iterative past. From a typological point of view, it is important that homonymy between these two functions is rather frequent (Cristofaro 2004), see for example English would go, with the same range of meanings (and additionally that of a future in the past, lacking in Sorbian). As for the Slavic conditional, we have the same homonymy for example in Serbian and Croatian, but not in Russian. Panzer (1967: 161–162, 298) claims a general property of iterative sentences of referring to the field of hypotheses, in the sense that the states of affair in question could possibly happen at any time. In CUS, the iterative past tense is very rarely used (Scholze 2008: 215–216).



 Lenka Scholze

3.2  Meaning and use of non-indicative moods 3.2.1  Infinitive, imperative and jussive The Sorbian infinitive has a wide range of functions. It appears in all va­len­cy positions of other verbs, including modal constructions and the analytical fu­ture. With verbs of motion, it has a final adverbial function, e.g. jědźemy nakupować.inf ‘we go shopping’ and infinitive constructions can be used for embedding a subordinate clause into a main clause: słyšu ptački spěwać.inf ‘I hear the birds sing(ing)’. Moreover, the free infinitive can express or­ders and wishes, e.g. stanyć.inf ‘get up!’, nic so přechwatać.inf ‘don’t rush!’; see Faßke (1981: 328–331) for more details. In the latter case it competes with the imperative over its central func­tion of appealing to somebody by means of demand, order, advise, wish, warning and so on. When used in the 3rd person, it has optative functions: (3) Bóh daj, zo so bórze zaso wustrowiš! God give.3sg.imp that refl soon again get-well.2sg.prs ‘Give God that you recover health soon!’

In this function, it is often replaced by the jussive (njech da Bóh ‘may God give’), which, contrary to the imperative, also appears in subordinate clauses, as in (4) after an ­introducing main clause Dźensa praji wučer před modlitwu ‘to­day, the teacher said before the prayer’: (4) zo njech Bóh tón knjez kraj před njeměrom zwarnuje that ptl.juss god the lord land before trouble.ins.sg warn.3sg.prs ‘that God the Lord may warn the country about disturbances.’

When addressing to an open class of referents, the imperative of the 3rd person singular is still rather frequent, though the jussive is again possible, e.g. spěwaj.imp štóž móže ‘(may) sing who can’ = njech.jus spěwa štóž móže. Among the rather fuzzy range of its functions, the jussive includes op­ta­tivity, but lacks the emotional connotation of the conditional in this func­tion (Faßke (1981:  273, 284). Thus, it cannot substitute for the latter in: (5) Ow, zo by so to bórze stało! oh that cond.3sg refl it fast happen.ptcp.sg.n ‘Oh, may this happen soon!’

On the other hand, the imperative can have hypothetic meaning (Faßke 1981: 290) as in (6), competing in this case with the far more frequent condi­tion­al mood (with by přišoł instead of the imperative přindź): (6) Ale přindź jeno prošer, hnydom so čoła chmurja. but come.imp.3sg only beggar suddenly refl forehead.pl darken.3pl ‘But if only a beggar came, foreheads would suddenly cloud over.’



Mood in Sorbian 

3.2.2  The conditional mood The Sorbian conditional always expresses the unreality of the state of affairs in question, be it still realizable (potential) or not (counterfactual).30 Given the lack of different tense forms, only the context decides in the hypothetical con­struction which meaning is most probable, however leaving in many ca­ses a certain degree of ambiguity or vagueness. The conditional is used in both parts of the hypothetical clause, i.e. for the condition and the consequence.31 A rather clear example of a counterfactual is (7a), while (7b) seems clearly potential: (7) a.

Ja bych će přemłóćił, hdy bych twój nan był! I cond.1sg you beat.up.ptcp if cond.1sg your father be.ptcp ‘I would have beaten you up, if I were your father!’

b. Hdy by so mje nětko něchtó prašał, if cond.3sg refl me now anybody ask.pctp

kak steji, ja bych wotmołwił. how stand.3sg.prs I cond.1sg answer.pctp



‘If anybody would ask me now, how things are looking, I would answer.’

In hypothetical constructions referring to the future as in (7b), the indicative can be used instead of the conditional (Faßke 1981: 277), but in this case the po­tential reading becomes more concrete, i.e. the potentialis turns into a realis. Apart from the full hypothetical construction and its incomplete variants, where one of the two clauses is omitted, the conditional is obligatory in sub­ordi­nate clauses governed by a verbum dicendi (declaratory verb) expres­sing volition as in (8). (8) Čitarjam radźu, zo bychu sej spomjatkowali… readers.dat.pl advise.1sg.prs that cond.3pl refl remember.ptcp ‘I advise the readers to remember…’

While in the Standard only modal verbs can have the indicative as a variant, CUS generally prefers the indicative also with full verbs as in (9):

.  As far as the theoretical approach is concerned, I follow Panzer (1967). For more details on the functions of the conditional see also Faßke (1981: 276–286). As the use of the conditional does not differ substantially in Upper and Lower Sorbian, I restrict my presentation once again mainly to SUS. .  In the older literature and in some dialects, the indicative pluperfect is used as a counterfactual, for example běch dźěłał ‘I had worked’ instead of bych dźěłał. Faßke (1981:  272) claims phonetic similarity as a reason for this use, but one could also consider language contact, as the counterfactual in German is expressed by the subjunctive pluperfect, here hätte gearbeitet, which for a Sorbian, lacking the difference between indicative and subjunctive verb forms, would be replaceable by the indicative pluperfect corresponding to German hatte gearbeitet. On the other hand, there are certain dialects in which the pluperfect, by changing into an optative, completely lost its indicative meaning (Faska 1998a: 149).

 Lenka Scholze

(9) Tón jo jo prosył, zo so wón zamołwi. He be.3sg.prs him ask.ptcp that refl he apologize.3sg.prs ‘He asked him to apologize.’

In modern Sorbian, the conditional is also obligatory in free complement claus­es expressing the objective of a main clause without a volitional element as in (10). The indicative and the infinitive are excluded. According to Panzer (1967: 85) the indicative was possible in this position in older texts. (10) A mać bě stanyła, zo by pohladać šła… and mother be.3sg.imprf get.up.ptcp that cond.3sg look.inf go.ptcp ‘Mother had got up, in order to (go to) have a look…’

The conditional is also obligatory in hypothetic comparisons, introduced by kaž ‘how’ (LS ako) as in (11a). As follows from (11b) CUS uses here the com­plex conjunction kajbórek (or kajburek), going back to kaj by rjekł ‘as if one said’ with the conditional element incorporated, with the indicative: (11) a.

To klinčeše, kaž by jemu wumjetował this sound.3sg.imprf how cond.3sg him reproach.ptcp ‘This sounded, as if he reproached him.’

b. Činće dale kajbórek ničo nejo! Make.2pl.imp further as.if nothing not.be.3sg.prs ‘Continue as if nothing had happened!’

More­over, the conditional cannot be replaced by the indicative in hypothetical subordinate exclamations without a main clause as in (12): (12) Och, hdy bychu tu moji přećeljo byli! Oh if cond.3pl here my friend.pl ptcp.pl ‘Oh, if only my friends would be here!’

As was shown by the above example (5), the conditional can express a wish with a clear emotional connotation of personal interest, going lost when it is re­placed by the more neutral jussive.32 Besides the bound conditional, governed at least by a conjunction, there is also a free conditional, used for unreal consequences, without a direct pro­dosis. It appears in main and subordinate clauses, sometimes accom­pan­ied by adverbs referring to an implicit condition established by the context, like hewak ‘otherwise’ in (13a), or by other special markers like nihdy ‘never’ in (13b) and rady ‘gladly’ in (13c): .  The optative function is so typical for the Sorbian conditional that Ščerba (1973: 135) in his description of a Lower Sorbian dialect calls it želatel’naja forma, lit. “wishing form”, i.e. optative.



(13) a.

Mood in Sorbian

Hewak by so mi zlě zešło. otherwise cond.3sg refl I.dat bad go.ptcp.sg.n ‘Otherwise, I would have had a bad time.’

b. To sej njebych nihdy myslił, zo…. it refl not.cond.1sg. never think.ptcp.sg.m that… ‘I would never have thought that…’ c.

Ja bych rady bratřika měła. I cond.1sg gladly little.brother have.ptcp.sg.f ‘I would like to have a little brother.’

Whereas in the cases cited so far, the conditional always has a hypothetical func­tion and therefore cannot be replaced by the indicative without a change of meaning, even in CUS, there are other uses of the conditional where this is, indeed, possible. We find such synonymous expressions for ex­ample in ob­ject clauses governed by a volitional verb as in (14), where the con­ditional bychmoj byłoj ‘we two would be’ is replaceable by the indicative present smój ‘we two are’: (14) Chceš, zo bychmoj přećelej byłoj? want.2sg.prs that cond.1du friend.du ptcp.du ‘Do you want us (both) to be friends?’

Another case of variation appears in subordinate clauses, introduced by conjunc­tions like zo ‘that’, a relative pronoun, or hač ‘if ’, when the conditional is in the scope of negated verbs. While the Standard, nevertheless, prefers the conditional here, CUS uses both possibilities alike, i.e. the conditional bu moł ‘could’ in (15a) could be replaced by the indicative present móže, and vice versa the indicative present dyrbim ‘I must’ in (15b) by the condition­al buch dyrbjał ‘should’: (15) a.

Jow nichtó nejo, kiž bu moł wot wójne pójedać. Here nobody not.be.3sg who cond.3sg can.ptcp from war tell.inf ‘Here is nobody who could tell about the war.’

b. Ja nejsym wědźał, što dyrbim ja činć I not.be.1sg know.ptcp what must.1sg.prs I do.inf ‘I didn’t know, what I must/should do.’

With modal verbs, the Sorbian conditional can express moderate or polite wishes and orders, e.g. with chcył bych ‘I would like’ from chcyć ‘want’, dyrbjał bych ‘I should’ from dyrbjeć ‘must’. Contrary to the conditional (and the subjunctive) in the German contact lan­guage, the Sorbian conditional is not used in indirect speech. The same is true for the function of a future in the past of the German (and English) conditio­nal of the type bald würde er kommen ‘he would come soon’.



 Lenka Scholze

4.  Conclusion Like most other Slavic languages, Sorbian has a mood system that is relatively little differentiated. The only extensively used non-indicative mood – be­sides the infinitive, the imperative and the less frequent jussive – is the con­ditional, formed by the conditional auxiliary by‑ (fully inlected in Standard Upper Sorbian, only partially so in Colloquial Upper Sorbian and uninflec­ted in Lower Sorbian) and the l-participle. It has a wide range of functions in main and subordinate clauses and is homonymous with the iterative past tense. As the conditional is not inflected for tense, it is ambiguous with re­gard to potential (still realizable) and counterfactual (unreal) meaning. As a consequence, bilingual Sorbians, like native speakers of most other Slavic lan­guages, show typical interference mistakes in German hypothetical claus­es, by mixing up these two notional categories (Scholze 2008: 209–210). On the other side, interferences from German seem to play a more mi­nor role in the Sorbian system of moods than in other fields of grammar. In histo­rical terms, however, German influenced the creation of nowadays obsolete specia­liz­ed forms for the counterfactual reading of the conditional.

References Breu, W. 2000. Der Verbalaspekt in der obersorbischen Umgangssprache im Rahmen des ILA-Modells. In Sla­vistische Linguistik 1999. Referate des XXV. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens, Konstanz 7.-10.9.1999, W. Breu (ed.), 37–76. München: Otto Sagner. Breu, W. 2007. Der Verbalaspekt im Spannungsfeld zwischen Grammatik und Lexik. Sprachwissenschaft 32(2): 123–166. Breu, W. & Scholze, L. 2006. Sprachkontakt und Syntax. Zur Position des Verbs im modernen Obersorbischen. In Slavistische Linguistik 2004/2005, T. Berger, J. Raecke & T. Reuther (eds), 41–88. München: Sagner. Cristofaro, S. 2004. Past habituals and irrealis. In Isledovanija po teorii grammatiki 3. Irrealis i irreal’nost’, Ju.A. Lander et al. (eds), 256–272. Moskva: Rossijskaja akademija nauk. Faska, H. 1998a. Změny w strukturje eksistencnych formow serbšćiny a jich róle w towaršnosći. In Serbšćina, H. Faska (ed.), 134–151. Opole: Universytet Opolski. Faska, H. 1998b. Koncepcija zbliženja a zjednoćenja spisownych formow serbšćiny. In Serbšćina, H. Faska (ed.), 167–177. Opole: Universytet Opolski. Faßke, H. et al. (eds). 1965–1996. Sorbischer Sprachatlas. Bautzen: Domowina. Faßke, H. 1981. Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. Morpho­lo­gie. Bautzen: Domowina. Janaš, P. 1984. Niedersorbische Grammatik. Bautzen: Domowina. Jenč, H. 1993. Die sorbische Sprache in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. In Die Sorben in Deutschland – Serbja w Němskej, D. Scholze (ed.), 95–113. Bautzen: Domowina. Michałk, F. 1994. Konjunktiw typa běšo dóstał w serbšćinje. In Studia o języku łužyskim, F. Michałk (ed.), 131–146. Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy. Panzer, B. 1967. Der slavische Konditional. Form – Gebrauch – Funktion. München: Fink.



Mood in Sorbian

Scholze, L. 2008. Das grammatische System der obersorbischen Umgangssprache im Sprachkontakt. Bautzen: Domowina. Schuster-Šewc, H. 1973. Zur gesellschaftlichen Bedingtheit standardsprachlicher Prozesse im Bereich des Westslawischen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 18: 213–226. Šewc-Schuster, H. 1984. Gramatika hornjoserbskeje rěče. 1. zwjazk – fonologija, fonetika, morfologija. Bautzen: Domowina. Ščerba, L.V. 1973. Vostočno-lužickoe narečie. Bautzen: Domowina (Reprint 11915). Sičinava, D.V. 2004. K problemi proisxoždenija slavjanskogo uslovnogo uklonenija. In Isledovanija po teorii grammatiki 3. Irrealis i irreal’nost’, Ju.A. Lander et al. (eds), 292–312. Moskva: Rossijskaja akademija nauk. Spieß, G. 2002. Niedersorbisch. In Lexikon der Sprachen des europäischen Ostens, M. Okuka (ed.), 323–342. Klagenfurt: Wieser. Starosta, M. 2003. Schrifttum und Schriftsprache. In Wobrazki ze Serbow – Der Niedersorben Wendisch, 15–21. Bautzen: Domowina. Šẃela, B. 1952. Grammatik der niedersorbischen Sprache, 2nd edn, F. Mětšk (ed.), (11906). Bautzen: Domowina.



Mood in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Luka Szucsich Berlin

1.  Introduction Bosnian (also Bosniak), Croatian, Serbian (henceforth BCS) – sometimes still called Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian etc. – belong(s) to the South Sla­vic branch of the Slavic languages (along with Slovenian, Macedonian and Bul­garian). It is still a – sometimes hotly – debated topic among lin­guists and non-linguists whether BCS constitute separate standard languages or va­riants of one standard language. Some also take Montenegrin to be a se­parate standard language and/or variant. This issue is a political one dis­curs­ively charged especially during the break-up of former Yugoslavia and there­after, and I will not take a particular stance on it. Native speakers most­ly consider them separate languages due to sociolinguistic attitude, esp. as a sym­bolic value for the construction of national identities (for a detailed dis­cus­sion cf. Okuka 1998; Lučić 2002; Bugarski & Hawkesworth 2004 among many others). From a linguistic point of view and for the purposes of this article, it is legitimate to treat the BCS languages on a par, i.e. by and large as repre­sen­ting one grammatical system. The basis of all three/four variants are so-cal­led Neo-Štokavian dialects which dialectally represent the vast majority of Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Serbian speakers, and a relative majority of Croa­tian speakers. Other major dialect groups are Old-Štokavian, Kajka­vian, and Čakavian (the names are based on the words što, ča, and kaj ‘what’ in each dialect group). There is considerable dialectal variation in BCS. As far as the standard variants of BCS are concerned, the major dif­ferences are related to the lexicon, although, in most cases, they do not pre­sent obstacles for communication. Minor differences concern (mor­pho‑)phonology, morphology, and syntax, among others, different reflexes of the Proto-Slavic vowel known as ‘jat’ (transliterated as ‘ě’) appearing – with certain exceptions – as ‘e’ in so-called Ekavian (dete (< *děte) ‘child’), ‘(i)je’ in Ijekavian (dijete), and – dialectally – ‘i’ in Ikavian (dite). The first two reflexes constitute the main division into the Eastern Ekavian variant (Serbian) and the Western Ijekavian variant (Croatian, but also Bosnian and Mon­tenegrin). Other differences include the use of the suffixes ‑ira‑ (Wes­tern) and ‑isa‑/‑ova‑ (Eastern) primarily to form loan verbs from Latin (e.g. organiz-ira-ti vs. organiz-ova-ti ‘organize’, interven-ira-ti vs. interven-isa-ti ‘in­ter­vene’). One spreading feature of the Eastern variant is the loss of the in­fi­ni­tive and its replacement by da ‘that’ + present tense bearing agreement mor­phology, esp. in the context of modal verbs (Hoć-u to kupi-ti vs. Hoć-u to da kupi-m ‘I want to buy that’). Esp. in spoken Serbian



Mood in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian

and Bosnian, this phe­nomenon also extends to future tense which is formed by using the (clitic) version of ht(j)eti ‘want’ and the infinitive in the standard variants (cf. below). Some of these differences (and others not mentioned here) do not always correspond to national boundaries, esp. in spoken varieties of BCS and esp. in the central parts of the language area. BCS is written in La­tin and Cyrillic script: Croatian only in Latin, Bosnian almost exclusively in La­tin, and Serbian predominantly in Cyrillic. BCS is spoken by an estimated 20–22 million speakers mainly in for­mer Yugoslavia (esp. in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Ser­bia). Minorities live in neighbouring countries, esp. in Macedonia, Slo­venia, Romania, Hungary, and Austria (including speakers of Čakavian Bur­gen­land-Croatian which considerably differs from standard Neo-Štokavian BCS). Migrant communities of BCS speakers also live in the USA, Canada, Austra­lia, Argentina, Chile, Germany, Sweden and other countries. Standard BCS exhibits rich morphology with both nominal (case mor­phology) and verbal categories. Morphology is mostly fusional, but BCS sometimes also makes use of periphrastic forms (mixing isolating and fu­sional patterns) with verbal categories. BCS is a subject pro-drop lan­guage (subject pronouns appear only under contrastive focus).

2.  The verbal categories in BCS BCS verbs are marked with Slavic type aspect (perfective/pfv. vs. imperfec­tive/ipfv.), where “marked” means that each verbal form (including infini­tival ones) contains an aspectual feature. BCS uses derivational means to en­code aspectual (and aktionsart) meanings, viz. prefixation and suffixation (ra­rely suppletion): pisa-tiIPFV – na-pisa-tiPFV ‘write’; završi-tiPFV – završ-ava-tiIPFV ‘finish’; iz-baci-tiPFV – iz-bac-iva-tiIPFV ‘throw out’; govori-tiIPFV – reć-iPFV (< *rek-ti) ‘say’. A small number of native and some loan verbs are bi­aspectual: večera-tiIPFV/ PFV ‘dine, have dinner’; testira-tiIPFV/PFV ‘test’. Simi­lar to other Slavic languages, most simplex verbs in BCS are ipfv., but there are also some pfv. simplex verbs: da-tiPFV ‘give’, stić-iPFV (< *stig-ti) ‘arrive’ etc. (for more details on aspect in BCS cf. Mønnesland 2003). Standard BCS retained the complex temporal system with several syn­thetic and periphrastic forms basically found also in Old Church Sla­vonic. In spoken BCS – with areal variation –, some of the temporal forms are rarely used, if at all (e.g. the imperfect esp. in Croatian, but also the aorist). BCS finite main verb forms and auxiliaries are inflected for person (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) and number (singular and plural). Participles bear gender mor­ phology: masculine, feminine, neuter in both singular and plural. The ho­norific form is 2pl. In the following, I will give only a short over­view of the temporal system in BCS (for details cf. Gvozdanović 1995). Present tense morphology (1sg: ‑m, 2sg: ‑š, 3sg: ‑Ø, 1pl: ‑mo, 2pl: ‑te, 3pl: ‑u/‑ju/‑e) can be attached to both ipfv. and pfv. verbs, though pre­sent tense pfv. verbs do not appear in main (root) clauses, except in the con­text of “historical present”. Perfect tense is formed



 Luka Szucsich

by combining the pre­sent ipfv. auxiliary biti ‘be’ (glossed as pra) with the so‑called l‑ participle (glos­sed as lpt) of ipfv. and pfv. verbs. The l‑participle is marked for gen­der and number: ‑o (m.sg) ( q [c], and kw > s [s] be­fore a front vowel. The problem becomes still more

 Walter Breu

From an areal point of view, Albanian is a Balkan language and as such, it is a member of the Balkan sprachbund, which determinates to a high de­gree its typological properties (Demiraj 2004: 83–170 and Fiedler 2004a). A­mong the characteristic features of Standard Albanian can be noted: the lack of an infinitive, a completely analytical system of comparison, its future construction with will (want), object redoubling in the dative and accusa­tive, a postpon­ed definite article, a morphological genitive-dative syncretism, and a very complex verb sy­stem. It has to be noted, however, that the Geg varieties, besides their forming the future in the Romance way with the auxiliary have, also have an infinitive. On the phonological level, Al­banian has a schwa (written ë)3 like Romanian and Bulgarian. It shows lexical corres­ponden­ces with Romanian going back to ancient times of neighbourhood in the central Balkans. A typical feature of the Slavic Balkan languages Bul­gar­ian and Macedonian, the lack of a no­minal declension, is absent in Albanian, however, which has four morphological cases including an ablative in the Standard and still more in some dialects (locative, vocative). Even the mor­phological genitive-dative syncretism is dis­am­biguated on the syntactic lev­el by using a link­ing particle in the case of the genitive. Just like Turkish, but contrary to the other Balkan lan­guages, Albanian has a rounded high front vowel y in the standard language and in many dia­lects. Albanian as a written language is relatively young (Breu 1997:  237–248). The oldest  book we know is Gjon Buzuku’s Meshari (a translation of the Catholic missal) from 1555, written in a Geg variety. There are also a few earlier testimonies of ancient Albanian writing, much smal­ler in size, the most important being the baptism formula from 1462.

2.  The verbal categories of Standard Albanian In this chapter, I will concentrate on the synthetically and analytically for­med verb categories of the indicative mood (mënyra dëftore) in Standard Al­banian, referring to the following chap­ters for the non-indicative moods. As there are several conjugation classes and many irre­gu­lar verbs, I have to re­strict the morphological representation in this paper to a relatively small se­lec­tion of examples, re­presentative enough, however, to show the gramma­ti­cal system. Thus, I will give full paradigms only of the most productive “voca­lic”

intricate if only two Indo-European dorsal series are accepted; see Steensland (1973) for such a theory and the general discussion of the problem. .  The relation between letters and sounds in Albanian follows the phonet­ic principle. An IPA transcription of the most important non-Eng­lish correspondences could, however, be helpful in reading the examples in this paper: c [ts], ç [t∫], dh [ş], ë [ә], gj [L], j [j], q [c], x [dz], xh [dŠ], y [y], zh [Š].



Mood in Albanian 

stem class, forming the present with an n-element and the aorist with a v-element, and add here and there some hints about other classes.4

2.1  The category of tense In Albanian, the category of tense is constituted by the following grammemes: present, (simple) future, past in the future (future perfect, futurum exactum), past (aspectually differentiated as imperfect and aorist), future in the past, present perfect and (imperfective and aoristic) past perfect. The pres­ent and the past are expressed synthetically by inflectional endings. There are, however, certain restrictions to this type of formation, as for example the aorist (per­fective past) is expressed analytically in the mediopassive. The other tense grammemes are expressed analytically throughout. The (present) perfect is for­med by the auxiliaries kam5 ‘(I) have’ for the active and jam ‘be’ for the mediopassive voice and the past participle of the full verb, for example kam çuar ‘I have sent’, jam çuar ‘I have been sent; I have got up’. The two past perfects are formed with the imperfect and the ao­rist of the auxiliaries in question plus the past participle, e.g. kisha çuar, pata çuar ‘I had sent’, isha çuar, qeshë çuar ‘I had got up’. All future relations are expressed in the Balkan way by means of the auxi­li­ary particle do, which goes back to the 3rd person singular present of the modal verb dua ‘want’, plus the subjunc­tive, consisting of the subjunctive particle të and the inflected forms of the present subjunc­tive, e.g. do të çosh ‘you will send’. The past in the future has again the future particle do, but combined with the subjunctive of the perfect, e.g. do të kesh çuar ‘you will have sent’. The future in the past, on the other hand, is formed like the sim­ple future but with the forms of the past subjunctive (= subjunctive imper­fect) instead of those of the present, for example do të çonte ‘(then) he would send’, which is formally identical with the conditional mood, see be­low. There is a syncretism in the singular of the indicative present for most verbs, with the 2nd person coinciding with the 3rd, e.g. çon (2=3sg of çoj ‘send’) or flet (2=3sg of flas ‘speak’), and in some cases also with the 1st, e.g. hap ‘open’ (1=2=3sg). The other synthetical­ly expressed tense grammemes have different endings for

.  For reasons of space, monosyllabic çoj ‘send, take (away), lift’, medio­pas­sive çohem ‘be taken away; get up’ will be used as the main sample verb of this class. More typical for the regular n-class, however, are polysyllabic verbs with stressed endings, e.g. kuptoj ‘understand’, me­dio­passive kuptohem ‘be understood; understand each other’, këndoj ‘sing’, punoj ‘work’. The endings themselves are identical with those given in the paradigms. When the thematic vowel is not -o-, the end­ings differ not only in this vowel itself but also in its result in phono­lo­gical processes, e.g. in the case of ‑e- with the participle in -yer, e.g. kthej ‘turn, give back’, perfect kam kthyer. .  As Standard Albanian does not have an infinitive, the 1st person singular present is used here as the citing form, as is done by most grammars and dictionaries. Others, like Buchholz & Fiedler (1987), use the 3rd person.

 Walter Breu

these persons.6 Table 1 gives an over­view of the indicative verb forms in the active voice of the regular n-class:7 Table 1.  Indicative active verb forms (regular n-class): çoj ‘send’ Synthetic

1pers 2pers 3pers Analytic 1

1pers 2pers 3pers Analytic 2 1pers 2pers 3pers

present

imperfect

aorist

singular

plural

singular

plural

singular

plural

çoj çon çon

çojmë çoni çojnë

çoja çoje çonte

çonim çonit çonin

çova çove çoi

çuam çuat çuan

present perfect

past perfect (imperf.)

past perfect (aor.)

singular

plural

singular

plural

singular

plural

kam çuar ke çuar ka çuar

kemi çuar keni çuar kanë çuar

kisha çuar kishe çuar kishte çuar

kishim çuar kishit çuar kishin çuar

pata çuar pate çuar pati çuar

patëm çuar patët çuar patën çuar

future

past in the future

future in the past

singular

plural

singular

singular

plural

do të çoj do të çosh do të çojë

do të çojmë do të çoni do të çojnë

do të kem çuar do të kesh çuar do të ketë çuar plural do të kemi çuar…

do të çoja do të çoje do të çonte

do të çonim do të çonit do të çonin

In other verb classes, we find stem alternations as in the present tense of flas, flet, flet, flasim, flisni, flasin ‘speak’ with an imperfect flisja, flisje, fliste, flisnim, flisnit, flisnin, an aorist fola (1sg), and a perfect kam folur (1sg), and so on. With the exception of the present, and some ir­re­gular aorists,8 the endings are, however, nearly identical (or at least ­governed .  As the present of the auxiliaries kam and jam forming the perfect is dif­ferent in these two persons (ke ≠ ka, je ≠ është), too, and as the future uses the again formally differentiated present subjunctive, this syn­cretism is restricted to the active voice of the indicative present of the verbs in question. .  The past perfect in the future of the type do të kisha çuar has not been list­ed here, as it is rather rare in its indicative use. The same form will, how­ever, be considered as a past conditional below. .  Among these, the class with ‑sh in the 1sg.aor is most interesting for com­parative linguistics, e.g. qeshë ‘I was’, pashë ‘I saw’, thashë ‘I said’, and lashë ‘I let’, with irregular forms also in the rest of the singular, e.g. qe, qe ‘was’ or pe, pa ‘saw’ 2,3sg.aor. They used to be clas­sified as “sigmatic” aorists, on the base of the phonological rule sh<s. However, as was shown in more recent times, the real sigmatic aorists from an Indo-European point of view are those with the v-ex­pans­ion in



Mood in Albanian

only by pho­no­logical rules)9 in most classes. The alternations, comprising conson­ant change, (historical) umlaut, and ablaut, are relatively often accompan­ied by suppletion between the present-im­per­fect stem on the one hand and an aorist and a past-participle stem on the other, as in vij, vjen ‘come’ 1,2sg.prs, vija 1.sg.impf, erdha 1.sg.aor, kam ardhur 1.sg.prf or ha 1=2=3sg.prs, haja 1sg.impf, hëngra 1sg.aor, kam ngrënë 1sg.prf. Not sur­prisingly, the auxi­liary verbs also range among these irregular verbs; see the active forms of the perfects and the past in the future, formed with the auxi­liary kam ‘have’, in Table 1 and the corre­sponding passive forms, for­med with jam ‘be’, in Table 2 below.10

2.2  The category of aspect As already mentioned, there is an aspectual difference in the past between an imperfect and an aorist, roughly corresponding to the same difference in Mod­ern Greek and in the Romance lan­guages, for example in Italian between imperfetto and passato remoto.11 This means that the aorist is used main­ly for single complete or temporally limited situations following one after the other, while the imperfect expresses non-completed states of affair or iter­ation. It should be added, however, that the use of the simple imperfect in order to express a process in the sense of the English progressive, has al­most completely disappeared in the modern language, as it is normally sub­stituted by periphrases in this function. The most important one is that of an imperfect expanded by the aspectual particle po, e.g. po çonte ‘(s)he was send­ing’, but others also occur, e.g. formed by the imperfect of the auxiliary jam ‘be’ and the gerund (par­ticle duke + past participle) as in ishte duke çuar with the same translation. In this way the simple imperfect has been

the vocalic stem classes, as in Table 1, where -v- dele­tes the hiatus resulting from the loss of -h-, which in its turn had developed from the original ‑s- in the Indo-European sigmatic aorist. Forms like qeshë could ultimately have appeared due to the influence of the mediopassive imperfect; see Klingenschmitt (1982: 281). .  For example, the ending of the 3rd person singular of the aorist, which is ‑i in the paradigm of Table 1, regularly shows up as ‑u after a front vowel or a velar consonant, e.g. ktheu ‘turned’, njohu ‘knew’ 3sg.aor zero ending, as in vdiq ‘died’ 3sg.aor, is rare. .  These two auxiliaries and the very irregular verb them ‘say’ are the on­ly remnants of the IndoEuropean mi-verbs in Albanian. .  While the Albanian opposition corresponds also to that of the past in Modern Greek as in έγραφα ‘wrote’ 1sg.impf: έγραψα 1.sg.aor, the Greek aspectual opposition based on an imperfective and an aoristic stem exists also outside the past, e.g. in the subjunctive and the future. ­Al­though all these oppositions are formally very different from the Sla­vic way of expressing verbal aspect, i.e. by means of prefixes and suf­fi xes, their functions are very similar. For a short description of the Al­ba­nian aspectual system based on the interaction of lexical semantics and grammatical aspect, see Breu (2004).





Walter Breu

r­ e­du­ced to expressing states and iteration. The same opposition, which is very si­mi­lar to the English opposition between the simple form and the progressi­ve, is also common in the present, with processes expressed by forms like po çon, është duke çuar ‘s/he is ­sending’ respectively. These are the only cases of a real and constant aspectual differentiation, as the difference be­tween the normal “imperfective” and the rare “aoristic” past perfect is not aspectual any longer,12 and progressives are avoid­ed in the other tenses. The opposition between the aorist and the perfect tends to be weakened for many speakers in colloquial Albanian, replacing the first one by the latter. As far as speakers still restrict the use of the per­fect to resultative and ex­perienced actions connected to the present, follow­ing the norm of the Standard language, we could still speak of an aspectual differentiation of present: present perfect and in the same way, partially, of imperfect: past perfect.

2.3  The category of voice Voice is, in principle, an inflectional category in Albanian, as the present and the imperfect show a clear-cut differentiation between active and medio­pas­sive verb forms, used also in re­flexi­ve function, expressed by endings.13 We thus have çon 3.sg.prs.act ‘sends’: çohet 3.sg.prs.mpass ‘is sent; gets up’ or çonte 3.sg.impf.act ‘sent’: çohej 3.sg.impf.mpass ‘was sent; got up’. The connecting consonant -h- is restricted to vocalic stems, de­let­ing the hia­tus between the stem and the ending proper. With a consonant­al stem, we have for example flitet ‘is spoken’, which compared with the active flet ‘speaks’ additionally shows umlaut. As stated above, the mediopassive perfect tenses are formed with the auxi­liary jam ‘be’ in­stead of kam ‘have’ in the active voice. The mediopassive aorist, on the other hand, is formed ana­lytically by adding the particle u to the active form.14 The future tenses use the correspon­ding mediopassive forms of the subjunctive, morphologically, but not morphosyntactically (s. be­low), coinciding with the indicative. Thus, the mediopassive paradigm is the following:

.  The “aoristic” past perfect, called “aorist II” in Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 132), explicitly referring to the first of two subsequent states of affair in the past, is usually substituted by the “imperfective” past perfect or the aorist. .  Of all the other languages of the Indo-European family in Europe, only Modern Greek has preserved a similar mediopassive inflection, e.g. λέγω ‘call’ 1sg.prs.act: λέγομαι 1sg.prs.mpass, but contrary to Alban­ian also in the past, aorist. .  It goes back to the Indo-European reflexive particle *swe.



Mood in Albanian

Table 2.  Indicative mediopassive verb forms (regular n-class): çoj ‘send’ Synthetic

1pers 2pers 3pers Analytic 1

1pers 2pers 3pers Analytic 2

1pers 2pers 3pers

present

imperfect

aorist

singular

plural

singular

plural

singular

plural

çohem çohesh çohet

çohemi çoheni çohen

çohesha çoheshe çohej

çoheshim çoheshit çoheshin

u çova u çove u çua

u çuam u çuat u çuan

present perfect

past perfect (imperf.)

past perfect (aor.)

singular

plural

singular

plural

singular

plural

jam çuar je çuar është çuar

jemi çuar jeni çuar janë çuar

isha çuar ishe çuar ishte çuar

ishim çuar ishit çuar ishin çuar

qeshë çuar qe çuar qe çuar

qemë çuar qetë çuar qenë çuar

future

past in the future

future in the past

singular

plural

singular

singular

do të çohem do të çohesh do të çohet

do të çohemi do të çoheni do të çohen

do të jem çuar do të jesh çuar do të jetë çuar plural do të jemi çuar…

do të çohesha do të çoheshe do të çohej plural do të çoheshim…

3.  Morphology of non-indicative moods Standard Albanian has a rather complicated mood system with synthetic, joint, and analytical gram­memes, the most important being (besides the indi­ca­tive), the imperative, optative, subjunc­tive, admirative, jussive, and the conditional, exis­ting either in all tense and voice combinations or re­stric­ted to some of them. Moreover, some moods can combine with other moods, especially the ad­mi­rative. The subjunctive has a very wide range of uses, while others, like the imperative, are more restricted. In the hypothetical clause, we find an un­us­ually wide range of variation between single moods and a high degree of ambiguity of the constructions used with regard to the expression of real, po­ten­tial and counterfactual conditions. In the following, combinations of moods are dis­cussed under the heading of the more specific mood. This is especially important for the sub­junctive, the mood with most com­ binations and very little specific functions of its own. It will thus be men­tioned in several chapters below, not just once under its own heading. I will start out with the four synthetic or at least analytic-synthetic moods impe­ra­tive, optative, admi­rative and subjunctive,



 Walter Breu

­ assing over then to the more or less highly ­grammaticalized analytic constructions of the p jussive, condition­al, possibilitative, obligative and volitional mood. The old claim of the infinitive being a mood is irrelevant in Standard Al­ba­nian as it comple­tely lacks this form, substituting it by hypotactic construc­tions with the subjunctive. Neither final constructions of the type për të çuar ‘in order to send’, sometimes called “Tosk infini­tive”, nor other non-finite forms like the gerund or the privative will be dealt with here.

3.1  The imperative mood The Albanian imperative (mënyra urdhërore), which, in principle, has the same basic functions as the imperative in other European languages, usually has specific forms only for the sin­gular, while in the plural it often coincides with the forms of the 2nd plural present indicative. On the other hand, the sin­gular forms generally correspond to the plural without the ending ‑ni. Thus we have ço ‘send!’ corresponding to the plural çoni, and vdis ‘die!’ cor­responding to the plural vdisni. The corresponding indicative forms of the 2nd singular çon, vdes are dif­ferent here, but this is not necessarily the case, as shown by examples like ha ‘eat’ imperative = indicative, plural hani, or hap ‘open’, plural hapni. In some cases, however, the imperative plural can also deviate from the indicative, for example when it is influenc­ed by the aorist stem, as in fol ‘speak!’ 2sg.imp – folni 2pl.imp ≠ flisni 2pl.ind. The most divergent case seems to be here eja ‘come!’ 2.sg.imp – ejani 2pl.imp ≠ vini 2pl.ind., which does not even cor­respond to the aorist stem erdh-. Finally, even the formal correspondence between the singular and the plural stem of the imperative can sometimes be lacking, as in the case of vër 2sg.imp – vini pl ‘put’ (aorist stem vur-). The mediopassive imperative is formed by agglutinating the particle u (see also the medio­passive aorist above) to the imperative stem, e.g. jepu ‘give up!’, çohu ‘get up!’.15 In the plural, u precedes the ending -ni, e.g. jepuni, çohuni. What looks like infixation here is in fact ag­glutination of the end­ing after the full mediopassive singular, i.e. in this case the singular impe­rative is also the basis for the plural and not the 2nd plural indicative. This be­comes obvious con­sidering the parallel case of the active imperative com­bin­ed with pronominal clitics, which nor­mally allow both positions, before and after the imperative stem.16 Actually, the imperative plural with a post­poned pronoun is clearly different from that with a preceding pronoun, e.g. ma (< më ‘me’ + e ‘it’) bini = bjermani ‘bring it to me’, i thoni = thuajini ‘tell him’, where the second forms correspond to the singulars thuaj, bjer with the plural ending ‑ni.

.  Obviously, mediopassive u becomes a suffix here. To vocalic stems as in çohu it is attached by means of an additional connecting vowel ‑h-, thus entering in a clearly morphological paradigm with the indicative-pre­sent forms like çohem, çohesh with the same hiatus-deleting -h-. .  Object markers are highly grammaticalized in Albanian, not only in the imperative, but also in combination with other verb forms, where they always precede the verb, and almost nothing can be inserted between them and the verb. See for example Fiedler (2004a: 391), who counts Albanian object markers as “morphology in the strongest sense”.



Mood in Albanian

In the case of the negative imperative, clitic pronouns obligatorily pre­cede the imperative, for example mos e ço ‘don’t send it’. The same is true for the mediopassive particle u, as in mos u jep ‘don’t give up’, mos u ço ‘don’t get up’.17

3.2  The optative mood The optative (mënyra dëshirore) is limited to the present and the (present) per­fect. It is  for­med synthetically with its own inflection and own stem, which coincides with the aorist stem in the vocalic type presented in Table 3 and also in many verbs with a consonantal stem, but it can also correspond to the present or the participle stem. Two formants are typical for the optative: -f-, restricted to vocalic stems, and -sh-, though neither appears in all forms of the pa­ra­digm. The perfect is formed by the optative of the auxiliary kam ‘have’ for the active and jam ‘be’ for the mediopassive voice plus the past participle:18 Table 3.  Optative verb forms in Standard Albanian: çoj ‘send’ Synthetic

1pers 2pers 3pers Analytic

1pers 2pers 3pers

present active

present mediopassive

singular

plural

singular

plural

çofsha çofsh çoftë

çofshim çofshi çofshin

u çofsha u çofsh u çoftë

u çofshim u çofshi u çofshin

present perfect active

present perfect mediopassive

singular

plural

singular

plural

paça çuar paç çuar pastë çuar

paçim çuar paçi çuar paçin çuar

qofsha çuar qofsh çuar qoftë çuar

qofshim çuar qofshi çuar qofshin çuar

Examples for consonantal optative stems without the stem-forming -f- are vdeksh ‘die’ 2sg.opt, vdektë 3sg.opt or thënç ‘say’ 2sg.opt, thëntë 3sg.opt.

.  For the positioning of mediopassive u and pronominal clitics see Buch­holz & Fiedler (1987:  64–65). The distribution is not uniform in the va­rieties and dialects of Albanian, as the ­infixation of mediopassive u and of the object markers in the plural is restricted to Southern dia­ lects. At least the Northern Geg dialects only have postposition after the imperative, a situation already found in Buzuku’s missal (Fiedler 2004b: 512). .  Many questions regarding these formants are still unanswered; see Demiraj (1986: 890–904) for the century-lasting discussion of the origin of the Albanian optative in general and its endings in particular. Most probably, ‑f- developed from the intervocalic -v- in aorist stems, and -sh- is an analogical stem extension, starting from the 2sg.prs, where it had been taken over from the subjunctive, because of the over­lapping functions of these moods.



 Walter Breu

As to the endings of the optative present, ‑a in the 1st person singular is identical with the en­ding of the indicative aorist, while others are nearer to the present endings, especially those of the 1st and 3rd person plural, or are en­tire­ly idiosyncratic. Albanian is very special in having retained an optative different from the subjunctive, while in all other modern Indo-European languages of Europe these two moods have mer­ged.19 Nevertheless, both moods share some functions, or in other words, there is a certain vari­ation between them. This is true in either direction, as the subjunctive appears with the ty­pi­cal op­ta­tive function of wishes, while the optative, on the other hand, can for ex­ample be us­ed in conditional sentences, which are one of the typical realms of the subjunctive, whereas the typical meanings of an optative seem com­pletely inappropriate here.

3.3  The admirative mood The admirative (mënyra habitore) is formed synthetically, too, but its morphology resembles ag­glutination more than inflection, as its original compon­ents, the past participle and the post­poned auxiliary kam ‘have’, are still clearly recognizable. In fact, it is mainly in its postposition to the past participle that the admirative present differs from the indicative perfect, e.g. çuakam ‘send’ 1sg.adm.prs ≠ kam çuar 1sg.ind.prf.20 However, as results for instance from the lacking ‑r- in this example, special reduced forms of the par­ticiple appear in the admirative. In the forms of the admirative imperfect, there is an additional phonetic reduction of ‑i- to ‑ë- in the endings as com­pared to the imperfect of the auxiliary kam, e.g. çuakësha 1sg.adm.impf, but kisha ‘I had’. The admirative perfect is formed analytically with the admi­rative of the auxiliary kam ‘have’, i.e. paskam 1sg.adm.prs etc.; see Table 4 for the most fre­quent active forms of the admirative. The mediopassive forms of the present and the imperfect are formed by adding the mediopassive particle u to the active forms, e.g. u çuakam, u çuakësha, those of the present and past per­fect by replacing the admirative of the auxiliary kam ‘have’ with that of jam ‘be’, e.g. qenkam çuar 1sg.adm.prf.mpass, qenkësha çuar 1sg.adm.pst.prf.mpass.

.  While a similar difference existed in Ancient Greek, Modern Greek – in spite of its general similarity with Albanian in the verb system – lost it, by mixing up these two moods, which was already true for Latin as well. See van der Auvera & Sxallej (2004: 76–81), also for a discus­sion of the mixing up of forms and functions in the field of these two terms. In Protoslavic, to give another example of the loss of this op­position, the Indo-European optative coincided with the imperative. The same seems originally to be true for Albanian, whereas the Standard Albanian optative is a new formation (Matzinger 2006: 133f). .  Postposition of kam was not obligatory in Old Albanian. Moreover, what is now an admirative present predominantly still had perfect mean­ing; see Matzinger (2006:  133) and Fiedler (2004b: 382–384).



Mood in Albanian

Table 4.  Admirative active verb forms in Standard Albanian: çoj ‘send’ Synthetic

present admirative active

imperfect admirative active

singular

plural

singular

plural

1pers 2pers 3pers

çuakam çuake çuaka

çuakemi çuakeni çuakan

çuakësha çuakëshe çuakësh

çuakëshim çuakëshit çuakëshin

Analytic

present perfect admirative active

past perfect admirative active

singular

plural

singular

plural

paskam çuar paske çuar paska çuar

paskemi çuar paskeni çuar paskan çuar

paskësha çuar paskëshe çuar paskësh çuar

paskëshim çuar paskëshit çuar paskëshin çuar

1pers 2pers 3pers

The classification of the admirative as a mood raises serious questions from a theoretical point of view, as it can combine with other moods. Thus, there is for instance also a subjunc­ tive of the admirative, formally expres­sed by putting the subjunctive particle të in front of the cor­responding base forms, thus giving e.g. të çuakam 1prs.sbjv.adm.act, të çuakësha 1impf. sbjv.adm.act.21 On the other hand, such combinations of grammemes occur in other cate­ gories, too; compare for example such a mixed cate­gory as the “future in the past”. In the same way as we are dealing here with the past in the first place and then within the past we refer to a state of af­fairs that is still going to happen, the subjunctive of the admirative expres­ses admirative functions in the first place, combining them on a higher level with the func­tions of the subjunctive. This means that we are not dealing here with contradictions, but with hier­archic orderings of grammemes.22 The admirative subjunctive appears also as part of the ad­mira­tive future, which is formed with the future particle do in front of the subjunctive, thus gi­ving for example do të çuakam 1fut.adm.act ‘oh, I will send!’.

3.4  The subjunctive mood The subjunctive (mënyra lidhore) is the most frequently used mood after the indi­cative. It is, in principle, an inflectional grammeme, as it has its own end­ings. These special endings are re­stricted, however, to the 2nd and 3rd per­son singular present, while in all other cases,

.  See for example Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 154–160), who treat the admi­ra­tive as a separate subsystem outside the category of mood. .  Another example of hierarchy rather than contradiction is the perfective imperfect in verb chains of Bulgarian, with the perfective aspect, ex­pressing a sequence of completed states of affairs, being applied first. The imperfect then adds its iterative function. The overall result is a repeated sequence of states of affairs; see Breu (1994b: 37–39).



 Walter Breu

its mor­pho­logical forms are ho­mo­nymous with those of the indicative.23 Nevertheless, the sub­junc­tive forms as a whole are never homonymous with their corresponding indicative forms as they are always morphosyntactically marked by the subjunctive particle të in front of the in­flec­ted verb. This construction is completely gram­maticalized, and only few other particles can be inserted between its two components. Thus, the Albanian subjunctive as a whole is a mor­pho­syn­tac­tically or synthetic-analytically expressed grammeme with morpholo­gi­cal and syn­tactic features, although this joint expression is restricted to only two forms of its paradigm.24 As for its morphology, we have the ending ‑sh in the 2nd and ‑ë in the 3rd person singular, with a preceding -n- of the indicative being replaced by ‑j- before ‑ë. For our example çoj ‘bring’ in Table 1 the forms would be të çosh 2.sg.prs.act.sbjv and të çojë 3.sg. prs.act. sbjv, while in all other forms, be they active or mediopassive, të is the only marker of the sub­junc­tive, e.g. të çoj 1sg.prs.act.sbjv, të çohem 1sg.prs.mpass.sbjv etc. In the consonantal classes, a schwa is added to the stem before the en­d­ing of the 2nd singular, while the ending of the 3rd singular is added direct­ly. Moreover, the stem of the subjunctive can differ from the correspon­ding indicative forms by showing umlaut or consonant alter­na­tions. In such cases, it is the basic stem to be used in the subjunctive, which corresponds to that of the 1st singular. We thus have të hapësh ‘open’ 2sg.prs.sbjv, të hapë 3sg.prs.sbjv (cor­responding indicative form hap in both cases), but të flasësh ‘speak’ 2sg. prs.sbjv, të flasë 3sg.prs.sbjv with the same stem as flas 1sg.prs.ind, but differing from flet 2=3sg.prs.ind.

3.5  The jussive mood The jussive is formed analytically by means of the jussive particle le plus the subjunctive, gi­ving thus for example the present active forms le të çoj ‘let me send, may I send’, le të çosh, le të çojë etc., and the corresponding me­dio­passive ones le të çohem ‘let me get up; let me be sent’, le të çohesh and so on. In the imperfect, we get in the same way le të çoja, le të çoje in the active and le të çohesha, le të çoheshe in the passive voice. The present per­fect has active

.  As for the general situation on the Balkans, the subjunctive has inflectional forms of its own apart from Albanian only in Romanian and its South-Balkan relatives Aromanian (Aromunian) and Meglenitic, while in Modern Greek only the perfective (aoristic) subjunctive differs from the indicative present, namely by means of its own stem forms. The Balkan Slavic languages do not have any synthetic marker for the subjunctive. Thus, it is even questionable, whether if we can speak here of a (morphological) “subjunctive” at all. However, all these languages (with the exception of certain varieties like Geg Albanian) have more or less obligatorily substituted the infinitive by a construc­tion with a connector similar to Albanian të: Romanian, Aromanian and Meglenitic să, Greek na, Bulgarian and Macedonian da. .  As an exception, the auxiliary and full verbs kam ‘have’ and jam ‘be’ have special endings also for the 1sg (kem, jem) and the 3pl (kenë, jenë).



Mood in Albanian 

le të kem çuar and passive le të jem çuar, and the past perfect le të kisha çuar and passive le të isha çuar, but these complex forms are used only rarely. Etymologically the particle le probably derives from the imperative of lë ‘let’ (Fiedler 2004b: 533), which in Standard Albanian is now different: lër. Thus, the jussive marker le does not belong to the paradigm of lë any­more, which incidentally speaks very much in favour of the morphologization of this mood.

3.6  The conditional mood The present of the conditional (mënyra kushtore) is homonymous with the fu­ture in the past, as is normally also the case in Romance languages,25 e.g. canterei in Italian or chanterais in French, or English I would sing or Ger­man ich würde singen. As mentioned above, Albanian has a morphosyn­tactic construction in this case with the future particle do plus the imperfect subj­unctive, e.g. do të këndoja ‘I would sing’. There are also more com­plex tense forms of the con­ditional, in particular a past conditional formed by do plus the subjunctive of the past per­fect, i.e. do të kisha kënduar  ‘I would have sung’.

3.7  The possibilitative mood The possibilitative is formed analytically, too, in this case with the possibili­ta­tive modal particle mund. It goes back to the 3rd person singular of the auxi­liary verb mund ‘can’ and

.  This does not hold true for Romanian, however, which has specific con­ditional forms of the type: inflected conditional auxiliary aş + infinitive, e.g. aş vedea ‘I would see’. This is particularly surprising as other languages of the Balkan sprachbund show the same homonymy be­tween the conditional and the future in the past as Albanian, e.g. Greek θα έβλεπα ‘I would see’. The Balkan Slavic languages use this con­struction in addition to the genuine Slavic conditional, formed with the conditional modal bi (particle or inflected) and the l-participle, e.g. Ma­ce­donian kʹe odev ‘I would go’ ( = bi odel), whereas in Bulgarian this construction is restricted to dialects. The standard language has an­other construction of a similar type, i.e. with the auxiliary in the past tense instead of the full verb, which is likewise homonymous with the future in the past. Even in Aromanian, the Balkan Romance lan­guage in Macedonia, Greece and Albania, we find nowadays the same homonymy of the conditional with the future in the past as in Al­ban­ian, Greek and Balkan Slavic (but not Serbo-Croatian), instead of an older formation nearer to the Romanian type. As can easily be seen from these examples, the formation is always parallel to that of Albanian with a future particle derived from the verb ‘want’ followed by the imperfect, possibly in the subjunctive, where it exists. The reason for this Balkan isogloss is, of course, to be sought in contact influence, but it remains unclear in what way. As the future formation with ‘want’ probably goes back to Greek influence, the same could be true for the conditional, too, but it remains a problem that the mentioned ho­mo­nymy is so widespread also outside the Balkans, where Greek in­fluence was minimal or zero. On the other had, the assumption of a Ro­mance donor language would be problematical as just the Romance lang­uage Romanian does not have it, and in Aromanian it is young and clearly due to Greek influence.

 Walter Breu

is combin­ed once again with the subjunctive, thus giving in the active present:26 mund të çoj ‘I can send’, mund të çosh, mund të çojë, mund të çojmë, mund të çoni, mund të çojnë. The imperfect is mund të çoja ‘I could send’ and so on; the present perfect would be mund të kem çuar ‘I can have sent’, and the past perfect mund të kisha çuar ‘I could have sent’. The subjunctive of the possibilitative is formed by adding the sub­junc­tive particle, for example in the 1st person singular present: të mund të çoj. The simple future would be, of course, do të mund të çoj ‘I will be able to send’ and the future in the past do të mund të çoja ‘I would be able to send’, which is again homonymous with the conditional of the possibilitative. As there is no subjunctive for the aorist, this aspect has to be expres­sed by the modal itself, while the full verb remains in the past (imperfect) sub­junc­tive. This means that the aorist of the fully inflected modal verb is us­ed instead of the particle mund, for example munda të çoja ‘I was able (= achiev­ed) to send’, incidentally reducing the degree of grammaticalization of the possibilitative mood in Albanian from a formal point of view.27

3.8  The obligative mood The obligative, as it is understood here, is formed by the partially grammaticaliz­ed modal semi-particle duhet ‘must’ plus the subjunctive. This semi-pa­rticle, derived from the 3rd person of the mediopassive of dua ‘want’, has pre­served some inflectional features, especially for tense and aspect and to a cer­tain extent for number, but not for person, at least outside the ao­rist.28 Given this situation, qualifying the duhet-construction as a mood is .  The classification of the possibilitative as a mood is questionable. Like the obligative and the volitive, to be discussed below, it could just as well be conceived as a member of a separate more or less gram­maticalized subcategory of modality expressed by modals; see Breu (2009). Contrary, however, to other Indo-European languages, where modality systems of this kind are expressed by inflected modal auxi­liaries, the specific way of expressing possibility by means of a part­icle, which is typical for the Albanian grammatical system as a whole, gives the possibilitative a special position. The principal question remains, however, if possibility as a semantic feature can actually enter the field of mood. It could be claimed in favour of it that jussivity is very near to possibility, and in fact, possibilitative and jussive are of­ten mutually exchangeable in deontic readings. In any case, the Albanian possibilitative should not be classified differently than for example the Turkish synthetic construction of the type gelebilirim ‘I can/may come’ with -ebil- expressing possibility (reduced to -e- when ne­gated: gelemem ‘I can’t come’). .  On the other hand, some scholars would like to exclude the aorist of the possibilitative (or corresponding modal verbs) from the field of mo­dality for semantic reasons, as it expresses “the realization of a pos­sibi­lity” rather than the possibility itself. This seems unjustified, as we are dealing here with a typical interaction meaning between perfective (aoristic) aspect and modality, which presupposes the latter component to be still covertly present in the verb complex; see Breu (2005: 65–67 and 2009: 259 fn. 22). .  Like in the possibilitative, the aorist is fully inflected. See Breu (2009: 234–238) for a ­description of the morphological and modal characteristics of the duhet-construction.



Mood in Albanian

still more ques­tionable than in the case of the possibilitative. One could argue that it is still just part of the mo­dal system. On the other hand, its formal char­ac­teristics with respect to grammaticalization dif­fer only gradually from those of the possibilitative, and the general structure of the Al­ba­nian mood sys­tem could allow us to accept the duhet-construction as an obligative mood.29

3.9  The volitive mood The volitive is the most questionable mood (or mode-tense cumulation) bas­ed on modals. It is for­med by the particle do (derived from the modal verb dua ‘want’) + subjunctive. However, this construction only rarely has a clear nuance of volition, which normally is dominated by its general tempor­al function of expressing the future (volitional present). In the case of the voli­tional imperfect, two possible functions dominate the modal one, the tem­poral one of fut­ure in the past and that of the conditional mood. On the other hand, the volitional has modal func­tions outside the realm of volition pro­per, too, playing a role in mood systems, for exam­ple evidential (epistem­ic) functions, which however could also be claimed as being derived from the future and conditional functions of this construction. The normal way for expressing volition is by means of the fully inflec­ted modal verb dua ‘want’ + subjunctive. It has no formal features of gram­maticalization and stands therefore out­side the grammatical category of mood in Standard Albanian, in spite of the particle do being homo­nymous with the inflected form of dua in the 2nd and 3rd person singular, which makes it some­times difficult to decide which of the two constructions is at issue.

3.10  The hypothetical mood In Standard Albanian there are several possibilities for forming the protasis of the hypothetical period, mostly characterized by combinations of conjunc­tions or particles with the indicative, subjunctive or optative. According to Buchholz & Fiedler (1987:  165), a morphological status could be attributed to two of them, i.e. to those characterized by the particles në and po in a mor­pho­syntactically fixed position with respect to the indicative, optative or sub­junc­tive verb forms they combine with.30

.  Just like in the case of the possibilitative, there is a synthetic obligative in the geographically near Turkish language, e.g. gelmeliyim ‘I must come’. The so-called “Nezessitativ” (necessitative) of Standard Al­ba­nian, however, formed with kam ‘have’ plus the finite construction për të + past participle, discussed by Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 151–153), is hardly grammaticalized and will not be treated as a mood in this paper. .  As in the case of the possibilitative and the obligative, Turkish expres­ses the hypothetical synthetically, i.e. by means of the morpheme ‑se‑, for example gelsem ‘if I come’. In spite of the existing Turkish model for a grammaticalization of these moods in Albanian, direct or indirect Tur­kish



 Walter Breu

3.11  Restrictions of non-indicative moods to specific tenses and aspects The imperative is almost completely restricted to the present with very rare cases of an imperative perfect, mentioned in the literature (Fiedler 2004b:  520 fn. 185). As for the other moods, we can summarize the most important re­stric­tions mentioned above. The subjunctive is restricted to the present tense, the imperfect and the perfect tenses for­med with auxiliary verbs in these forms, but there is no sub­junctive, neither for the already ana­lytic future nor for the synthetic aorist. This means, among other things, that the aspectual op­position of the past can­not be expressed in this mood, with serious consequences for the gram­ma­tic­al status of the potential moods expressed by a combination of modals with the sub­junctive. As can be seen from the above paradigms and their description, the con­ditional, the optative, the admirative, and the jussive do not have an aorist either and apart from this, they also lack future tense(s).

4.  Meaning and use of non-indicative moods In the following, we will try to differentiate terminologically between the gram­meme forms and their functions, by using e.g. a term like “optative” only for the form, while the main func­tion of this mood will be called “optati­vity”. Although the functional terms are in some cases a bit clumsy, they al­low for a description of the relations between form and functions with­out the widespread contradictions of the type “the subjunctive is also an optative” or “in La­tin, the subjunctive functions as an optative”.31 For an over­view of the terms used, see Table 5 at the end of the paper.

4.1  Meaning and use of the imperative The Albanian imperative has more or less the same basic function as the im­per­ative in other Euro­pean languages, which we can sum up with the term “im­pera­tivity”, with such specific func­tions as the expression of commands, re­quests, instigation, and advice to the hearer/listen­er in the communications situation. See (1a) for a mediopassive and an active imperative and (1b) for an imperative with the infixed personal pronoun e:32

influence seems, actually, hardly probable in all these cases, as similar constructions can also be found in Italo-Albanian outside the area of historical Turkish dominance. .  On the problem of using different terms for moods with similar functions, and of the same term for moods with different functions in the phi­lo­logical (and linguistic) tradition, especially in the realm of optative, subjunctive and irrealis see van der Auvera & Sxallej (2004). .  If not stated differently, example sentences come from Ismail Kadare’s novels Koncert në fund të dimrit and Lulet e ftohta të marsit, often with omissions.



Mood in Albanian 

(1) a.

Ngreh=u e jep arsye stand up.imp.sg.=ptl.mpass and give.imp.sg.act reason



për atë çka the! for that what say.2sg.aor



‘Stand up and give the reason for what you said!’

b. E thashë një herë lër=e=ni të ikë. it tell.1sg.aor one time let=pron.acc.sg=imp.pl ptl leave.3sg.pres.sbjv ‘I said once, let him go.’

It is thus restricted to 2nd persons, while direct or indirect orders to other per­sons, including the 1st person plural (hortative function) have to be expres­sed by other moods, e.g. by the subjunc­tive, the jussive and the obligative. Imperativity can be shaded away to indifference and other specific realizat­ions of the main function of the jussive (jussivity). However, there are also several minor functions of the imperative, which include virtual orders of the speaker to him­self but also permission to do something,33 as one of the functions of the possibilitative. There is also a strong connection of the negative imperative, expressing prohibition, to negation in the possibilitative mood. Imperatives can be juxtaposed in Albanian without any connector or se­pa­ra­ting comma (pause), thus forming a kind of double verb, especially with verbs of motion.34

4.2  Meaning and use of the optative The main functions of the optative are the expression of good or evil wishes, of­ten in blessings and curses, to be summarized as “optativity”: (2) a.

Mir=u=pafshim në drekë. well=ptl.mpass=see.1pl.prs.opt. in supper ‘May we well see again at lunch!’ (= ‘Good-bye until lunch!’)

b. Mallkuar qoftë çasti që e morëm! damned be.3sg.prs.opt moment.art that it take.1pl.aor ‘Damned be the moment when we took it!’

Optatives normally occur in main sentences, but they can also be found in sub­ordinate claus­es, introduced by the conjunction që ‘that’. When referring to the 1st person, the optative has a volitional meaning. The optative also appears in the protasis of the hypothetical construc­tion, expressing a real or a potential condition, but very rarely on its own. Normally it is at least combined with the ne­gati­ve particle mos (negative hypothesis), or, much more often, it is preceded by the

.  Example from Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 149): Ha këto, pastaj pri bukë. ‘Eat this, then (you may) cut bread’. .  See Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 149): Shko mbloje në arkë ‘Go [and] fill it into the box’.

 Walter Breu

hypo­the­tical particle në. In these cases, it enters the realm of the hypothetical functions of the in­dica­tive present and imperfect. It can also turn up in the apodosis, of course, but in this case, it pre­serves its main functions. Moreover, the optative is used in concessive sentences. The perfect of the optative is used much more rarely in Standard Alban­ian than its present. How­ever, it has in principle the same modality functions, apart from its characteristics as a per­fect (present state provoked by a past action).

4.3  Meaning and use of the admirative The central feature of the functions of the admirative, which could be sum­med up as “admirativity”, is the surprise of the speaker, be it positive or ne­ga­tive (annoyance), not coinciding obli­gatorily with an exclamation. It is in some way always present, even in citing other people or in commenting their opinions, by adding an element of personal dissociation (Demiraj 1986: 905–906).35 Therefore, the admirative cannot be equated with a quo­ta­tive like the Bul­garian “renarrative”,36 which actually can also sometimes express admirativity. However, while in Bulgarian (and Macedonian) ad­mira­tivity is secondary to quotation, the contrary is true for Albanian. The element of surprise is not always overt, but may be embedded in a wider line of argument, too, where it nevertheless characterizes non-com­mit­ment or dissociation of the speaker from the facts s/he is describing. This is often the case in subordinate clauses, but also in ques­tions and even in the hy­po­thetic construction (realis). The admirative is used most often in the present (3a), but also in the per­fect (3b), which adds the typical reference to past events or actions. The other tense forms of the admirative, ha­ving the same temporal characteristics as the corresponding indicative forms combined with the additional ele­ment of admirativity, appear more rarely, e.g. the imperfect in (3c):

.  See Buchholz & Fiedler (1987:  154–160) for a detailed overview of the func­tions of the ­Albanian Admirative. It has been claimed that the ad­mira­tive could be used neutrally in reported speech (more or less like the German subjunctive); see Friedman (1999: 524). However, for most speakers of Albanian reported speech is expressed by the context, irrespective of the presence of an admirative. .  Both constructions, equally derived from the indicative perfect, but with­out a metathesis of its components in Bulgarian and Macedonian, could ultimately go back to language contact, i.e. to an imitation of the po­ly­semy of the Turkish miş-construction, meaning both an indicative per­ fect and an evidential/quotative. For a comparison of such construc­tions all over the Balkans, see Friedman (1982, 1999). It is worth no­ting that neither Buchholz & Fiedler (1987) nor Friedman rank the ad­mi­ra­tive and its relatives as moods, but discuss them as grammemes of a separate category, called “status” by the latter. In a way, Nicolova (1998: 129) does exactly the opposite, by differentiating between “naklonenija (modi actionis)” for the indicative, subjunctive etc. and “modusy (modi loquendi)” for the evidential/reported group. The Albanian linguistic tradition, however, treats the admirative (mënyra habitore) quite normally as a mood, see Demiraj (1986: 905–931).



Mood in Albanian 

(3) a. Sqoll i thënkan shqip lavamanit. sink it-dat say.3pl.prs.adm Albanian sink ‘Oh they call the sink “sqoll” in Albanian!’ (in a dictionary) b. Edhe vizitën e Niksonit also visit-acc.sg.def ptl-poss.acc.sg.def Nixon-gen.sg.def ashtu e paskan përgatitur.37 so it-acc have.3pl.prs.adm prepare.ptcp ‘Oh, they have prepared Nixon’s visit in this way, too!’ c. Po ju s’e njohkëshit fare njëra-tjetrën? but you-pl not him.acc know.2pl.impf.adm at all one another ‘But didn’t you, indeed, know each other at all?!’

As for the admirative subjunctive, it is frequent in the imperfect and the past per­fect, rare in the present and absent in the present perfect; on the other hand, it appears also as a constituent of the admirative future and the admirative possibilitative (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 157–159). In all these cases, ad­mira­tivity combines with the functions of the subjunctive, the purely for­mal hypotactic as well as the modal ones. Especially frequent is the admirative subjunctive in the hypothetic comparison, introduced by conjunctions like sikur ‘as if ’.

4.4  Meaning and use of the subjunctive The subjunctive has a very important role in Albanian syntax, as it replaces the lacking infinitive in all verb complexes, e.g. after modal, phasal and func­tional verbs, thus giving rise to the hypo­tactic analytical constructions which are so typical for the entire Balkan sprachbund.38 The Albanian term for the subjunctive, mënyra lidhore ‘binding/linking mood’, refers clear­ly to this main function. As mentioned above, the subjunctive is also part of the analytical verb forms of the future, the conditional, and the jussive. In all these cases, the Albanian subjunctive is obligatory and thus can­not express any op­positions of modality, nor can verbs (or other predications) be classified according to their go­ver­ning the indicative or the subjunc­tive, contrary to the Romance languages. Used

.  In this sentence, we find a genitive expressed by the genitive particle (here in the definite ­accusative singular form e because of the gramma­tical properties of vizitën by which it is governed) and the definite gen/dat-form Niksonit. Given their very complicated agreement, which is irrelevant for the discussion of modality, I will refrain from fully tagging Albanian possessive (=genitive) particles or linkers in the examples below. The subjunctive particle të will also be glossed sim­ply by ptl, and glossing of non-verb forms will be restricted to a mini­mum. The second e in (3b), referring to vizitën is a case of a redoubled object in the accusative singular. .  See the examples for the possibilitative, obligative and volitive in 4.7.

 Walter Breu

in­de­pen­dently, i.e. be­yond its hypotactic functions, the subjunctive often replaces other moods, es­pecially the imperative for orders, in particular outside the second person as in (4a), the op­ta­tive for wishes and curses as in (4b) the jussive for admis­sion or prohibition as in (4c), all ex­pres­sing types of commands or demands.39 The subjunctive may also have concessive func­tion (either by it­self or combined with the conjunction që ‘in order to’), see the second sub­junc­tive in (4c): (4) a.

Të bëj një shëtitje. ptl 1sg.prs.sbjv indef walk ‘I (should, will) go for a walk now!’

b. Të na trashëgohen!40 ptl us.dat inherit.3.pl.prs.mpass.sbjv ‘May they live together for a long time!’ c.

Të bëjë ç’ të dojë. ptl do.3sg.prs.sbjv what ptl want.3sg.prs.sbjv ‘Let him do what he may want to!’ = ‘He may do what he wants!’

The (bare) subjunctive can form the protasis of the hypothetic period, though rarely so in the pre­sent and the perfect, where it expresses real or po­ten­tial conditions, but more frequently in the imperfect, expressing potential and unreal (counterfactual) conditions, and in the past perfect, as in (5), main­ly for unreal conditions: (5) Të kishte qenë Zefi, do të gjente ptl 3sg.impf.sbjv be.ptcp Zefi, will ptl find.3sg.impf.sbjv ndonjë lidhje simbolike. some link symbolic ‘If he were Zefi, he would find some symbolic link.’

The subjunctive is, however, less frequent in the protasis of the hypothetic pe­riod than the in­dica­tive with the conjunction nëse ‘if ’. Another competitor in these functions is the hypothetic mood. Finally, the subjunctive is widely us­ed in questions, often giving them a dubitative, ob­liga­tive, polemic or epis­te­mic reading. In all, the syntactically independent subjunctive has a very wide range of functions it normally shares with other more specific moods, ex­pres­sing, how­ever, special connotations of unreality or uncertainty with re­spect to them.

.  That these moods – together with the subjunctive – form a common sub­class can also be concluded from their using the negative particle mos instead of nuk or s’ in the other moods. For a parallel mood-de­pen­dent use of negative adverbs compare also Modern Greek μη for the imperative and the subjunctive, but δεν for the indicative; see Fied­ler (1993) for more details. .  Typical congratulations for bride and groom on their wedding day. When addressed directly, the optative is more common: u trashëgofshi 2.pl.mpass.prs.opt ‘may you live together for a long time!’.



Mood in Albanian 

4.5  Meaning and use of the jussive The main function of the Albanian jussive is the expression of indifference, ir­res­ponsibility, con­cession or resignation of the speaker with regard to the pro­po­sition expressed, to be sum­mari­zed as “jussivity”: (6) Me Prometeun le të shkojë kush të dojë. With Prometheus ptl.juss go.3sg.prs.sbjv who want.3sg.prs.sbjv ‘With Prometheus may go who wants.’

Besides, it clearly also expresses imperativity, in competition with the impera­tive, but not re­strict­ed to 2nd persons, thus including commands, requests, advice to third persons and to the speak­er himself, as well as the adhor­ta­tive function in the 1st person plural, as in: (7) Le të dëgjojmë tani Prometeun. ptl.juss listen.1pl.prs.sbjv now Prometheus ‘Let’s listen now to Prometheus.’

The jussive competes with the subjunctive and, in fact, mutual replacement of both is general­ly possible. Moreover, jussivity includes permission, so the jussive can partly be replaced by the possibilitative, too. Finally, the jussive may also express wishes and curses, thus entering the realm of the optative. Obviously, all these possibilities of substitutions by other moods are a re­sult of the fuzziness of the central feature of jussivity itself, not of a polysemy of the jus­sive as a grammeme. The jussive is used mostly in the present, but the same functions occur in the imperfect as well, here often additionally with a nuance of unreal­ity, as it normally remains unclear if the pro­positions conceded have or have not already been realized, but also in the purely temporal trans­position of an interior monologue.

4.6  Meaning and use of the conditional The conditional present appears most typically in the apodosis of the hypothe­tical period, where it expresses the conclusion or consequence resulting from the condition given in the pro­tasis. When referring to the present or the fu­ture this consequence can normally still be real­ized (potentialis): (8) Po të ndodhte kështu do të kishin të drejtë. if happen.3sg.impf.sbjv so will.ptl have.3pl.impf.sbjv right ‘If it happened this way, they would be right.’

The same is true for a transposition of the present to the past in the case of an interior monologue. When referring to past events that have not been realiz­ed, the consequence is, however, un­real, giving rise to a counterfactual read­ing of the whole period. Although the latter reading can be expressed di­rectly by the conditional past, i.e. do të kishin pasur ‘they would have had’ in­stead of kishin in (8), it has to be emphasized that the conditional pre­sent is, indeed, ambi­guous in this respect.

 Walter Breu

A rare use of the conditional in Standard Albanian is that of habitual iter­ation, e.g. do të thirrej ‘used to be invited’.41 Other uses can be found when the protasis is lacking, e.g. epi­stemic modality, unreal comparison or po­le­mic questions (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 144–146). How­ever, as the condi­tional present is homonymous with the future in the past (including the trans­position by an interior monologue), it is not clear if we are dealing with mi­nor uses of the condi­tional or with modal use of the future in the past or the use of the possibly existing volitive mood. Thus, a wider context may of­ten be necessary to determine which of the meanings is at issue.

4.7  Meaning and use of the possibilitative, obligative and volitive42 The main function of the possibilitative is to express the different kinds of pos­sibility with re­spect to internal (capability), external, deontic (permission) modality. With respect to epistemic modality, it expresses low probabi­lity: (9) Kjo mund të jetë fryt i fantazisë. This can.ptl be.3sg.prs.sbjv fruit ptl.poss fantasy.gen.sg.fem.def ‘This may be a product of fantasy.’

In a similar way, the obligative expresses all kinds of obligation or necessity, including epistemic modality due to an assumption of the speaker with a high degree of probability as in the fol­lowing example: (10) Njëra nga të dy palët duhet të jetë me faj. one.def of art two side.pl must.3sg be.3sg.prs.sbjv with guilt ‘One of the two sides must be guilty.’

.  See Buchholz & Fiedler (1987:  144). In the Balkans, this function is very com­mon for the Macedonian, less so for the Bulgarian conditional, but nor­mally only for the genuine Slavic lconditional, not for the Balkan type, homonymous with the future in the past in Albanian. As the habi­tual function of the l-conditional also can be found elsewhere in Slavic, for instance in SerboCroatian, but also in Upper Sorbian (see Scholze, this volume: 387), there is a certain probability that we are dealing here with Slavic influence on Albanian, passing from one type of condition­al to the other. On the other hand, it has to be kept in mind that the corresponding English construction would be invited is also homo­ny­mous with respect to conditional present (future in the past) and habi­tual past. The same is true for many other languages, see Cristofaro (2004: 260) for some of them and an argumentation deriving this poly­func­tio­nali­ty from a general typological feature of “unactualized situations”. .  For a “semantic map” of modality see van der Auwera & Plungian (1998). I will refrain from details in this section, as I have discussed the Albanian constructions in question in Breu (2009). Epistem­ic examples may suffice for some insight into the functioning of these grammaticalized constructions, which eventually could be label­led as moods.



Mood in Albanian 

As for the grammaticalized volitive construction, it sometimes expresses vo­li­tional modality with the future component only on a secondary level, especial­ly in questions.43 An example for its epistemic readings is (11): (11) Kam bindjen se do të jetë ndonjë keqkuptim. have.1sg.prs conviction that will.ptl be.3sg.sbjv some misunderstanding ‘I am convinced that there will be (= is) a misunderstanding.’

4.8  Meaning and use of the hypothetical In combination with the indicative forms, including the periphrastic future, the imperfect and the perfect, the në-hypothetical expresses real conditions. Con­trary to the bare indicative, and just like in the case of the imperative, op­ta­tive and other unreal moods, however, the negation par­ticle for the hypo­thetical is mos, not nuk or s’, a decisive factor for its grammatical status: (12) Në mos gabonte, Ana ishte njohur me Besnik Strugën. hyp not mistake.3sg.impf Ana was known with Besnik Struga.acc.def ‘If he was not wrong, Ana was acquainted with Besnik Struga.’

When the në-hypothetical combines with the optative (present or perfect), it has an extended range of meanings, including potential and unreal condition: (13) Dhe në kafshoftë s’ka rrezik. also hyp bite.3sg.prs.opt not.has danger ‘Even if it bit, there is no danger.’

The po-hypothetical combines with all forms of the subjunctive, in which case the present and per­fect refer to real and potential conditions, the past per­fect to unreal conditions, and the imper­fect to the whole range of conditions (real, potential and counterfactual); see example (8) above.44 On the ot­her hand, it combines – though much more rarely – with the indicative ao­rist, too, expressing in this case real and potential conditions of all tenses.45 The po-hypo­the­ tical seems less grammaticalized than the në-construction, as the form of the negation particle de­pends on the mood after po, i.e. nuk or s’ for the indicative and mos for the subjunctive. The expression of conditions in the hypothetical period is not restric­ted to the ­hypothetical mood. As follows from the discussion above, indicative, optative and subjunctive can have this function also on their own or in com­bination with subordinating

.  See Buchholz & Fiedler (1987:  143–144), who incorporate the temporal and conditional functions in their “Volitiv”. .  Even the combination with the subjunctive of the admirative imperfect and past perfect is possible, practically synonymously with the correspond­ing non-admirative forms of the subjunctive (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987: 159). .  See Buchholz & Fiedler (1987: 166) and their example … po s’u dorëzuam do të na bëjë pluhur e hi ‘if we do not surrender-1pl.aor.mpass to them, he will make us dust and ashes’.

 Walter Breu

c­ onjunctions like nëse, në qoftë se ‘if ’, which, however, are much freer in their syntactic relation to the verb than the gram­maticalized hypothetical in its two formal variants.

5.  Conclusion Albanian as a whole has a rich mood system, though the grammatical status of some of the mood grammemes assumed in this paper is questionable, espe­cially of the possibilitative, the obli­gative, the volitive and the hypothetical mood. From the formal point of view, this is due to the fact that they are for­med analytically with particles (or particle-like modals), i.e. in the Bal­kan way, whereas from a semantic point of view the problem lies in their func­ tions, normally expressed by modal verbs or conjunctions in Indo-Euro­pean languages. Nevertheless, with­in the system of Albanian, the constructions in question can very well be ranked as gram­maticalized moods. Table 5.  The functions of non-indicative moods in Standard Albanian type and restrictions

main modal functions

a. synthetic

in general

in detail

imperative   present

imperativity

orders

optative   present   perfect admirative

optativity

b. joint subjunctive   present   perfect   imperfect   pluperfect   no aorist c. analytic jussiv conditional   present   past possibilitative   aorist obligative volitional hypothetical

some secondary functions typical mood

wishes, curses

optativity necessity possibility condition

optative obligative possibilitative hypothetical

admirativity

surprise

quotation

indicative

hypotaxis

verb complexes condition (pot., irr.) condition (irr.)

hypothetical hypothetical

imperativity, optativity habituality

imperative optative

jussivity conclusion

possibility necessity volition condition

indifference, apathy, resign in apodosis potential, counter­factual counterfactual realized possibility in protasis, all types of conditions

weak assumption strong assumption



Mood in Albanian

Table 5 gives a short overview of the functions and restrictions of mood in Standard Albanian. Where no specific combinations with tense or as­pect are mentioned, all combinations are, in principle, possible. Minor func­tions are omitted. The moods are grouped according to their formal struc­ture under the headings of synthetic, joint (synthetic­analytic) and analytic. In the Geg variety, not discussed in any detail in this paper, the degree of gram­ maticalization of the problematical moods is lower, while in Italo-Al­ban­ian it is normally still higher than in the Standard, due to a general tendency to the formation of verbal particles (Breu 1994a). As the admirative mood is missing in Italo-Albanian (and Arvanitika), its grammaticalization was probably promoted by language contact with Turkish in the Standard and in Geg, while it adap­ted to the use of the Bulgarian re-narrative in the Bul­garian variety of Albanian (Sokolova 1983: 141–145). On the other hand, the presumptive mood of Italo-Albanian (Breu 1991) seems to go back to the specific interaction of ­Albanian and Romance in language contact.

References Breu, W. 1991. Das italoalbanische ‘Perfekt’ in sprachvergleichender Sicht. In Atti del Congresso Interna­zionale di Studi sulla Lingua, la Storia e la Cultura degli Albanesi d’Italia, F. Altimari et al. (eds), 51–66. Rende: Centro Editoriale e Librario dell’Università della Calabria. Breu, W. 1994a. Forme verbali perifrastiche arbërisht. In I Dialetti italo-albanesi. Studi linguistici e storico-culturali sulle comunità ar­bëreshe, F. Altimari & L.M. Savoia (eds), 365–385. Roma: Bulzoni. Breu, W. 1994b. Interactions between lexical, temporal and aspectual meanings. Studies in Language 18: 23–44. Breu, W. 1997. Variantenstreit und Normierung im Albanischen. In Standardisierung und Destandardisierung europäischer Natio­nal­sprachen, K.J. Mattheier & E. Radtke (eds), 217–257. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Breu, W. 2004. L’applicazione della teoria dell’interazione lessico – aspetto (ILA) all’albanese. In Giornate di studi offerte a Antonino Guzzetta, M. Mandalà (ed.), 151–160. Palermo: A.C. Mirror. Breu, W. 2005. Verbalaspekt und Sprachkontakt: Ein Vergleich der Systeme zweier slavischer Minderheitensprachen (SWR/MSL). In Slavistische Linguistik 2003, S. Kempgen (ed.), 37–95. München: Otto Sagner. Breu, W. 2009. Modals in Albanian. In Modals in the Languages of Europe, B. Hansen & F. de Haan (eds). 229–266. Berlin: de Gruyter. Buchholz, O. and Fiedler, W. 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Cristofaro, S. 2004. Past habituals and irrealis. In Isledovanija po teorii grammatiki 3. Irrealis i irreal’nost’, Ju.A. Lander et al. (eds), 256–272. Moskva: Rossijskaja akademija nauk. Demiraj, Sh. 1986. Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language]. Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. Demiraj, Sh. 2004. Gjuhësi Ballkanike [Balkan Linguistics]. Tiranë: Shkenca. Fiedler, W. 1993. Ist der Ausdruck der Negation ein balkanlinguistisch interessantes Phänomen? In Sprache in der Slavia und auf dem Balkan, U. Hinrichs et al. (eds), 67–78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.



 Walter Breu Fiedler, W. 2004a. Der südosteuropäische Typus des grammatischen Analytismus – Die “Balkanische Partikelkonstruktion” im Verbalsystem. In Die europäischen Sprachen auf dem Weg zum analytischen Sprachtyp, U. Hinrichs (ed.), 363–398. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fiedler, W. 2004b. Das albanische Verbalsystem in der Sprache des Gjon Buzuku (1555). Prishtinë: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve të Kosovës. Friedman, V. 1982. Admirativity in Bulgarian. In Bulgarian Past and Present, Vol. 2, 63–67. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Friedman, V. 1999. Evidentiality in the Balkans. In Handbuch der Südost­europa-Linguistik, U. Hinrichs (ed.), 520–544. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jokl, N. 1963. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse des Albanischen zu den übrigen indogermanischen Sprachen. Die Sprache 9: 113–156. Klingenschmitt, G. 1982. Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Matzinger, J. 2006. Der Altalbanische Text Mbsuame e Krështerë (Dottrina cristiana) des Lekë Matrënga von 1592. Dettelbach: Röll. Nicolova, R. 1998. Uslovnye konstrukcii v bolgarskom jazyke. In Tipologija uslovnyx konstrukcij, V.S. Xrakovskij (ed.), 29–160. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Scholze, L. This volume. Mood in Sorbian, 376–379. Sokolova, B. 1983. Die albanische Mundart von Mandrica. Berlin: Harrassowitz. Steensland, L. 1973. Die Distribution der urindogermanischen sogenannten Gutturale. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis. van der Auvera, J. & Sxallej, Ė. 2004. Ot optativa i konjunktiva k irrealisu. In Isledovanija po teorii grammatiki 3. Irrealis i irreal’nost’, Ju.A. Lander et al. (eds), 75–87. Moskva: Rossijskaja akademija nauk. van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V.A. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.

Mood in Greek* Hartmut Haberland Roskilde

1.  Introduction 1.1  The Greek language Greek is an Indo-European language spoken by some 12 million people in Greece (9.9 million) and Cyprus (0.6 million), and by significant linguistic mi­no­rities in Albania, Egypt and Italy as well as smaller ones in the U­kra­ine, Romania, and Turkey. It is also used by a signi­ficant number of diaspo­ra speakers, e.g. in the USA (400,000), Germany (300,000), Ca­na­da (140,000), Australia (100,000) and Sweden (50,000), although for most of those speak­ers it is a second language. It is an official and working language of the European Union. Greek has of all European languages the longest recorded history. The old­est written re­cords date from the 2nd millennium BC, and the oldest literary products go back to the be­gin­ning of the 1st millenium BC, although they were written down later. Institutionalized di­glos­sia which was establish­ed in the written medium in the 19th century has more or less ceased to ex­ist since 1976, which makes it possible to talk about ‘Standard Modern Greek’ (Mackridge 1985) or simply Greek.

1.2  Words vs. stress units Although written Greek divides clauses into words, clauses in spoken Greek are better con­ si­der­ed as consisting of stress units. As a rule, a stress unit can on­ly contain one stressed syl­lable, but this stressed syllable does not necessari­ly have to be in the head of the unit, but can fall on what traditional ana­lysis calls a clitic, like in (1). (1) ke tú-pern-e éna zevγári papútsia and to.him-buy.ipfv-pst.3sg a pair shoes ‘and he bought him a pair of shoes.’

(VA 113)1

*Thanks to Rolf Hesse for extensive comments and to Evi Petropoulou, Lina Konstantinou, and Evangelos Afendras for advice. The usual disclaimers apply. .  Practically all examples are either taken from the linguistic literature, – and where no source is given, from Mackridge (1985) –, or from literary works (marked with an abbreviated reference to the source).

 Hartmut Haberland

Here the verb perne ‘got, bought’ does not bear stress, while the IO clitic tu is stressed. In the French tradition of Greek descriptive grammar, it has been ack­nowledged since Roussel (who con­siders the stress group a “mot métrique” 1922:44) that traditional orthography blurs the mor­pho­logical structure of Greek (see also Joseph 2002).2 Verbal expressions in Greek show extensive head-marking. Apart from verbal endings mar­king the person and number of the subject, there are pre-verbal elements for indirect and di­rect objects, negation, Future tense and several modalities as well as subordinators which all be­long to the same stress unit as the verb.

1.3  Verbal categories in Greek Greek verbs are inflected by Person and Number. They also have two voic­es, Active and Pas­sive. Greek verbs have two synthetic tenses, Non-past and Past. There are two aspects of the syn­thetic tenses, Imperfective and Perfective. There is an analytic Perfect tense formed with the auxiliary éxo ‘I have’ (exo γrápsi ‘I have written’), and either an uninflected form derived from the Perfective with the ending -(s)i or a participle in -menos (the latter uses the auxialiary íme ‘am’ in the Passive); with the Past of the auxiliary, a Plu­perfect is formed (ixa γrápsi ‘I had written’); neither of these tenses dis­tin­guishes aspects (the auxiliaries are always Imperfective). Imperfective and Perfective verb forms which contain the particle θa are often con­ sidered a Future tense, but since other forms with θa are best des­cribed as Conditionals, these are best treated as subdivisions of the Imper­fective and Perfective Non-past Indicative. There are basically two ‘conjugations’ in Greek, that of verbs whose end­ing is not stres­sed (‘first’ conjugation like líno ‘solve’ or érxome ‘come’) and those whose ending is stressed (‘second’ conjugation like aγapó ‘love’ and kimúme ‘sleep’). The difference is of a purely mor­phological kind and does not have to concern us here (Householder, Kazazis & ­Koutsoudas 1964: 114).

2.  Mood in Greek 2.1  The Greek mood system While the Imperative (see Section 2.2 below) clearly is a formally distinct mood in Greek, it is not only less clear, but actually disputed whether there are other mood distinctions in con­tem­po­rary Greek. .  «Un certain nombre des mots, dépourvus de syllabe intense, s’appuient sur le mot voisin dont il font alors par­tie intégrante. … Il va sans dire que l’orthographie ne donne sur eux que des renseignements erronés.» (1922, 47). Similarly Mirambel (1977, 18f.) and Mirambel (1959, 25) «mots … (beaucoup … monosyllabiques), … dans lesquels un accent est le plus souvent noté par tradition, sans qu’à cette graphie réponde une réalité de prononciation.» (Cf. also Mirambel 1959, 33 and 67.)



Mood in Greek

The mood system of Classical Greek – Indicative, Subjunctive, Optative and Imperative – has been simplified drastically; the Optative has disap­pear­ed, while Indicative and Sub­junc­tive merged into one form through a con­spi­racy of independent phonological changes. If we re­strict ourselves to the Active voice and the synthetic tenses, we get the following table: Table 1.  Tense and mood system of Active Voice of líno ‘loosen’ Imperfective

Perfective

1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL 1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL

Non-past

Past

Imperative

líno línis líni línume/línome línete línun(e) líso lísis lísi lísume/lísome lísete lísun(e)

elina elines eline liname linate lísane élisa élisas élise elísame elísate élisan

– líne – – línete – – líse – – líste –

As Thieroff (1995: 16–17) points out, there is no morphological category of Sub­junc­tive in Modern Greek. But since there are still some differences in usage that can be re­lat­ed to the mood distinction of old, most descriptive gram­mars of Greek re­tain the terms Indicative and Subjunctive in some way. Hedin (1995) admits the problematic status of the Imperfective Subjunc­tive (due to its merg­er with the Indicative), but considers the Perfective Nonpast a Perfective Sub­junc­tive. Others talk about Subjunctive either in order “to facilitate the dis­cus­sion” (Householder et al. 1964: 103) or after some redefinition. Tzartzanos (1928), Triandafyllidis (1978 [1941]), Mirambel (1977 [1939]) and Mackridge (1985:274f.) base this redefinition on semantic crite­ria together with syntactic criteria like co-occurrence with certain conjunctions. Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton note a “formal difference between indicative and sub­junc­tive moods in­di­cated by the choice of verbal particles and negative mor­phem­es that precede the verb” (1987: 180). Since I consider these elements part of the verbs stress unit and part of the head-mar­king system of the verb, I consider them not as independent words but rather bound mor­phemes. I depart therefore from Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton in consi­der­ing Subjunctive as a category neither based on inflectional morphology (as in Classical Greek), nor on se­man­tics (as in the recent Greek grammatical tradition and Mackridge), nor on syntax (Joseph and Philippaki-War­bur­ton), but rather on the agglutinative morphology of the clitic system of the verb. 3

.  This is in keeping with Ruge’s suggestion that Greek shows agglutinative tendencies (Ruge 1984b). Charitonidis (2007) goes probably too far in calling Greek polysynthetic. It is ironic that



 Hartmut Haberland

My definition therefore comes close to Joseph and Philippaki-War­bur­ton’s view that Sub­junctive is indicated by “the choice of verbal particles and negative morphemes that pre­cede the verb”, but I doubt their claim that Sub­junctive as defined in this way correlates strong­ly with semantic properties of the verb form. As Pavlidou (1991:13f.) points out, there is a difference between a main clause with the sub­ordinator na in the Imperfective Non-past and a cor­res­pon­ding one in the Perfective Non-past: (2)

Imperfective na-milá-s panda eliniká sub-speak.ipfv-pst.2sg always Greek ‘You should always speak Greek.’

(3)

Perfective na-milís-is eliniká sti María sub-speak.pfv-npst.2sg Greek to.the Maria ‘You should speak Greek to Maria.’

Omitting the particle na in (2) would turn the sentence into a plain statement with­out modal con­tent: (4)

Imperfective milá-s panda eliniká speak.ipfv-npst.2sg always Greek ‘You always speak Greek.’

But omitting na in (3) would render the sentence ungrammatical: (5) *milís-is eliniká sti María4 speak.pfv-npst.2sg Greek to.the Maria

Mackridge (1985:104) says therefore that the Indicative (which is no longer mor­pho­lo­gi­ cally dis­tinguishable from the Subjunctive) is only distinguish­ed from the Subjunctive on one point: it “excludes the use of the perfective non-past” (as in (5)); the Subjunctive is “almost al­ways a bound form.” Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton call it therefore “dependent” (1997: 109). Joseph & Philippaki-War­bur­ton say that the Perfective Nonpast (like milíso or γrápso) as oppos­ed to the Imperfective Non-past (miló or γráfo) “cannot occur on its own” (1987:178). That the Per­fec­tive Non-past only occurs under ­certain

Ruge (1984a) distinguishes between a morphological Subjunctive (which rather is established by syntactic criteria, viz. the impossibility of sentences like (5) below) and a syntactic Subjunctive which is any verb form after na, as and min – which all are agglutinative morphemes according to his 1984b paper, hence should be recognized as morphological elements. .  ‘you talked Greek to Maria’ would be mílisas elinika sti María with a Perfective Past.



Mood in Greek 

c­ onditions is probably the source of Chantraine’s over simplification, “En grec mo­d­erne le subjonctif est précédé de la particule νά (de ἵνα) ‘que’.” (Chan­traine 1973: 262). Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton (1987) define the Subjunctive as fol­lowing pattern (7) be­low; that is, it occurs with the subordinator na and the negation mi(n). Since na can be o­mit­ted in some cases (or replaced by the hortative-permissive particle as), cooccurrence with mi(n) (actually occur­ring or possible) is the decisive criterion. Now, according to them, the Per­fective Non-past and the negation δen occasionally cooccur, hence the Per­ fective Non-past does occasionally occur in the Indicative. “Not occurring on its own” covers the following uses of the Perfective Non-past (in ad­dition to occurrences with na): 1. with θa, in main or subordinate clauses. Here the aspect is either Perfec­tive or Imperfective, the negation always δen, 2. in subordinate clauses introduced by (e)án ‘if ’. Also here the aspect is ei­ther Perfective or Im­perfective, the negation always δen, 3. in subordinate clauses introduced by áma which means ‘always when’ with Imperfective and ‘as soon as’ with Perfective aspect. The negation is δen, 4. in main clauses with adverbs like in (15) below. The negation is δen, 5. in certain formulaic expressions like érθi δen érθi ‘come he or come not’. Both verbs are Per­fective, and the second is negated by δen, 6. in subordinate clauses introduced by prin ‘before’. The negation is min, and na is optional after prin, 7. in certain prohibitive main clauses where the aspect can be (Imperfective or) Perfective. The negation is min (Joseph & Philippaki-War­bur­ton 1987: 180). Since the Perfective Non-past occurs with the negation δen in cases 1 through 4 (thus belongs to pattern (6) below), it would have to be consider­ed Indicative according to Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton (1987), only cas­es 6 and 7 will be considered a Subjunctive, since they fol­low pattern (7). Case 5 does not really belong to either pattern (6) or (7), but the second érθi is negated by δen. While Mackridge would consider all these cases as Subjunctives, Joseph & PhilippakiWarburton consider only occurrences with actual or po­tent­ial min as Subjunctives. I follow them but depart from them on two counts: 1. Since min and na are preverbal clitics, I consider verb forms occurring with them as mor­phologically marked Subjunctives of a different kind, i.e. not by inflection but by head-mar­king morphology within the verbal stress unit. 2. I agree that many cases of the Subjunctive thus narrowly defined (often but not always ac­companied by na and always negatable by min) can also be characterized semantically. But I main­tain that many cases of the Subjunctive are not characterized by any

 Hartmut Haberland

special modality, nei­ther Irrealis as Amman & van der Auwera (2004) suggest (na may be a volitional com­plemen­tizer in some cases, but is not always), nor that the subjunctive always expresses “the at­titude of the speaker (in main clauses) or of the higher subject (in subordinate clauses) to an event or state which is not presented as a fact (either of the present, past or future), but which could become a fact”, as opposed to the indi­cative which presents “an action or state as fac­tual und thus locate it in time – present, past, or future” (Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987: 180). As it appears, the only leftover of the Classical Greek mood system would thus be that the Perfective Non-past does not canonically ever occur without any subordinators or par­ ticles, hence is inherently Subjunctive. Rather than con­tin­uing a morphological distinction of In­dica­tive and Subjunctive, two dis­tinct patterns of the verbal stress unit have evolved. From the point of view of traditional word-oriented orthography, these patterns look like syntac­tic pat­terns. But all elements of the pattern actually belong to the phonolo­gi­cal word or stress unit whose core is the verb, i.e. except for the verb itself they are all preverbal clitics. If we call these pat­terns the ‘Indicative’ and ‘Sub­junctive’ patterns, their difference is still morphological, but is not a dif­ference between mood-marking endings following the verb stem, but a dif­ference be­tween patterns of subordinators, negators and DO and IO mar­kers within the stress unit be­fore the verb stem. One could say that fusion has been limited to person, voice, tense and as­pect categories. The mood sys­tem has joined the head-marking system for object marking and ne­gation in the initial part of the verbal stress unit. Thus Greek is inching its way from an in­flec­ting language to an agglutinating language, at least as far as the verbal system is con­cerned. The most important difference between the two patterns is choice and or­der of the ne­ga­tion. There are two negative clitics that attach to verbs, δen and mi(n). Since δen precedes the Fu­ture marker θa, whereas mi(n) follows or replaces the general subordinator na, one can dis­tin­guish two basic patterns (6) and (7). All elements in these patterns are strictly ordered,5 but op­tional with the exception of the verb stem V itself.

(6) (δen) (θa) (IOclit) (DOclit) V (7) (na) (min) (IOclit) (DOclit) V

As discussed before, na is sometimes considered to be non-optional, the main argument being that sentences like (5) do not occur, but pattern (7) can oc­cur without na. It is possible to be re­placed by the hortative-permissive as. Note that as can replace na (cf. Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987: 179f.), but only in main clauses (Mirambel 1977: 173).

.  I only discuss 3rd person object markers here; with 1st and 2nd person indirect or direct object markers, further restrictions apply which are irrelevant for the discussion of mood, though. For details, cf. Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton (1987:187f.)



Mood in Greek 

The first position in (6), but not in (7),6 can be preceded by other sub­ordinators. Pattern (6) can be preceded by a subordinator, but these sub­ordi­nators – like the relative marker pu, the complementizer pu after emotive verbs, the ‘realis’ complementizer pos (óti in more for­mal styles) and a few others – have to be considered as separate words in most cases and are ra­rely incorporated into the stress group of the verb. Only if they receive stress their status of a member of the verb’s stress unit is beyond doubt.7 Thus we get an overall pattern for the ver­bal stress unit:

(8) (SUB) (NEG) (θa) (IO) (DO) V

where the elements na (as SUB) and θa cannot cooccur. Since θa follows the negation, selects δen and cooccurs with other (clitic or non-clitic) sub­ordi­nators like pu, it is – in spite of its co-occurrence with the Perfective Non-past – best not treated as a Subjunctive particle. (Here I follow Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton (1987:180) rather than Mack­ridge (1985:274ff.).) Hence the first pattern (6) has taken over the function of the old Indicative and the se­cond pattern (7) that of the old Subjunctive, but with a slight dif­ference: verbs combining with θa were originally Subjunctive and spelled like Subjunctives even after the phonological dis­tinc­tion was abandoned. Since θa combines with the Indicative negation δen and not with the Sub­junc­tive negation mi(n), the combination θa + V must be considered belonging to the first, not the second pattern, and does therefore not belong to a Sub­junc­ tive pattern any more. Considering the patterns (6) and (7) as mood patterns, I call pattern (6) Indicative and pat­tern (7) Subjunctive, following Joseph and Philippaki-War­burton: “There is a formal dif­ference between indicative and subjunctive moods indicated by the choice of verbal particles and negative morphemes that precede the verb” (1987:179). But I am more hesitant than they to at­tribute a general semantic content to the Subjunctive pattern. They say: The formal dif­ference between indicative and subjunctive correlates with a fun­da­mental semantic distinction be­tween sentences which present an action or state as factual and thus locate it in time – pre­sent, past, or future – and sen­ten­ces which express the attitude of the speaker (in main claus­es) or of the higher subject (in subordinate clauses) to an event or state which is not pre­sent­ed as a fact (either of the present, past or future), but which could be­come a fact. (Joseph & Philippaki-War­burton 1987: 180)

This correlation turns in some cases out to be extremely feeble.

.  With the exception of prin ‘before’ which also can coocur with na as prin na ‘before’. .  The only apparently paradoxical issue of stress as a sign of incipient cliticality is discussed in Haberland & van der Auwera (1990: 152 and fn. 23).

 Hartmut Haberland

Both mood patterns occur in independent (main) as well as in subordi­nate clauses. The verb of the pattern can both be Non-past and Past (tense), and the verb can be Imperfective or Per­fective (Aspect). These possibilities will be discussed in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, in turn. The semantic content of the four patterns is not completely consistent. A distinction be­tween Realis and Irrealis moods (in the sense of Elliott 2000) does never closely follow any of these patterns, although in the absence of θa, there is an association of Indicative with Realis. On the other hand, while the Subjunctive pattern includes volitional and related expressions in main clauses (that could be called Irrealis), in subordinate clauses it often has a Realis con­tent, in spite of Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton’s claim to some­thing different: The formal dis­tinction of verb groups based on co-oc­cur­rence with verbal particles and negation pos­sibili­ties, […] correlates with the mood difference of indicative versus subjunctive, whose fun­da­men­tal cha­rac­teristics are that the indicative describes facts, present, past and fu­ture, while the subjunctive focuses on the attitude of speakers towards an ac­tion or a state which is not presented as a fact.  (Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987: 182)

2.1.1  The Indicative pattern The Indicative pattern (6) occurs both in main and subordinate clauses, with Non-past and Past tense, and Imperfective and Perfective aspect. It occurs in po­si­tive and negated clauses. Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton (1987:179) pre­sent it with the example:

(9) (δen) (θa) γráfis [INDICATIVE]

which they gloss as ‘You (will) (not) write.’ The clearest indicator of the In­di­cative pattern is the occurrence of the negation δen, hence (10) and (11) are excluded: (10) *mi-θa-γráfis neg-ptl-write.npst-ipfv.2sg8 (11) *θa-mi-γráfis ptl-neg-write.npst-ipfv.2sg

The negation mi(n) is not compatible with the pattern, neither before or after θa. This pattern is the default pattern and as such it appears in main clauses and in subordinate claus­es, with verbs in the Non-past and Past and with verbs in the Imperfective and the Per­fec­tive.

.  I gloss θa as ptl since it has several functions: with the Non-past Imperfective and Perfective, it marks future time reference, with the Past Imperfective in main clauses it marks a Habitual, and with Past in general it enters into a counterfactual conditional construction.



Mood in Greek

2.1.1.1  Indicative without θa With a verb in the Non-past, the pattern is employed for factual statements about the present or future, positive as well as negated ones. With a verb in the Past, it covers factual statements a­bout the past, positive as well as negat­ed ones. The use for future time reference is most common with the Imperfective (like in (12) or (13)), but it also occurs with the Perfective Non-past, al­though mostly in subordinate clauses like in (14) (this is why the Perfective is called ‘Dependent’). (12) févγ-o leave.ipfv-npst.1sg ‘I’m leaving.’ (13) δe-s-to-δín-o neg-to.you-it-give.ipfv-npst.1sg ‘I won’t give it to you.’ (14) an-to-máθ-i ο-ándras-mu, θa-me-skotós-i if-it-learn.pfv-npst.3sg the-man-my ptl-me-kill.pfv-npst.3sg ‘If my husband gets to know this, he’ll kill me.’

The Perfective Non-past can occur in main clauses after adverbs like ísos ‘may­be’: (15) ísos xás-o maybe lose.pfv-npst.1sg ‘Maybe I will lose.’

The negation would be δen both in (14) and (15): an δen to máθi ‘If he doesn’t get to know it …’ and ísos δen xáso ‘Maybe I won’t lose.’ While Non-past forms usually are Imperfective if they have present time reference (Per­fec­tive Indicative Non-pasts being rare and apparently re­stric­ted to future time reference), Past forms can have either Imperfective or Perfective aspect. Subordinate complement clauses with this pattern use the complementizers pos (in more for­mal style, óti) or, after emotional predicates, pu.

2.1.1.2  Indicative with θa If the verbal stress group contains the particle θa, its meaning depends on the tense of  the verb. Roughly speaking Indicative forms with θa and Imperfec­tive or Perfective Non-past forms have future or inferential present time re­fe­rence, and are often referred to as a Future tense, while with Past forms, the meaning is that of a Conditional or Habitual. We consider these forms as Indicative since they are, or can be, negat­ed with δen. Mackridge, on the other hand, does in his meaning-based ap­proach not only consider the coun­ter­factual conditional Subjunctive, but also the Future tense since it “is non-verifiable, at least not at the time of speak­ing” (1985: 274).



 Hartmut Haberland

If the verb is Non-past, it has either future time reference (Imperfective as in (16) or Per­fec­tive as in (17)) or present time reference with an infer­ential reading (in a different read­ing of (16), only Imperfective). (16)

θa-tis-milá-i ptl-to.her-speak.ipfv-npst.3sg ‘He will talk to her.’ (Iterative Future) ‘He will be talking to her.’ (Progressive Future) ‘He must talk/be talking to her.’ (Inferential Present, Iterative or Progressive)

(17) θa-tis-milís-i ptl-to.her-speak.pfv-npst.3sg ‘He will talk to her.’ (plain Future)

If θa combines with a verb in the Past, the resulting meaning is often describ­ed as Con­ dition­al. Here the Perfective Past is not possible; the Imperfec­tive Past expresses any reference and any aspect (so both tense and aspect are neutralized), as in (18) which can refer to present, fu­ture or past: (18)

an-píjen-es θa-ton-évlep-ses if-go.ipfv-npst.2sg ptl-him-see.ipfv-pst.2sg ‘If you went, you would see him.’ (now or later) ‘If you had gone, you would have seen him.’

Note that tense and aspect also are neutralized in the subordinate clause (an-píjen-es ‘if you went’) which in itself does not contain θa. If one wants to choose an unambiguous past reference, one has to use the Perfect tense (Mackridge 1985: 281): (19) θa-íx-a skoto-θí ptl-pfaux-pst.1sg kill-pass.pform ‘I would have been killed’.

The meaning of the Conditional can be counterfactual like in (19), but also a habitual like in (20), inferential like in (21) or express a prediction like in (22). (20) káθe méra θa-kaθ-ótan s-to íδjo kafenío every day ptl-sit.ipfv-pass.past.3sg in-the same café ‘He would sit every day in the same café.’ (21) láθos θa-katálav-a wrong ptl-understand.ipfv-pst.1sg ‘I probably misunderstood it.’ (22) mántep-se ti θá-leγ-a guess.pfv-pst.3sg what ptl-say.ipfv-pst.1sg ‘He guessed what I was going to say.’

(KN 155)

(AZ 33)



Mood in Greek 

Finally, θa with the Imperfective Past (often of θélo ‘I wish’ or the impersonal modal verb prépi ‘ought to’) can be used to express tentativeness. (23) θa-éleγ-a óti … ptl-say.ipfv-pst.sg1 that … ‘I would say that …’

(TS 76)

2.1.2  The Subjunctive pattern The Indicative pattern is statistically far more frequent than the Subjunctive pattern, but distinguishes relatively few sub-types relevant for a discussion of mood. The Subjunctive pattern, on the other hand, is used for a much wider range of functions. The best way to deal with these functions is to distin­guish between use in main and subordinate clauses. 2.1.2.1  The Subjunctive pattern in main clauses There is a quite large number of types of Subjunctive sub-patterns in main clauses. A number of them could be classified as Irrealis, since they do not refer to states or events that are hap­ pen­ing or have been happening, hence are not verifiable. Ammann & van der Auwera (2004) point out that na (like its counterparts in other Balkan languages) is a volitional (as op­posed to factual) complementizer both in main and subordinate clauses. But in quite a number of cases, the Subjunctive pattern refers to verifiable states or events and ought to be con­sider­ed Realis. 2.1.2.1.1  Commands and exhortations Commands are usually expressed by the Imperative (2.3). But in some cases the Imperative can­not be applied and has to be replaced by the Subjunctive. The Imperative – to take one ex­ample – cannot be negated. Hence, a negative command has to be expressed by the min Sub­junc­tive: (24) min-tus-lipá-se neg-them-pity.ipfv-npst.2sg ‘Don’t pity them!’

Also, the verb íme ‘be’ has no Imperative (neither has éxo ‘have’ when used as an auxiliary), so a similar paraphrase with a Subjunctive pattern with na or as has to be used even if not ne­gat­ed (Householder et al. 1964:132) (25) na-íse pánta tímios sub-be.npst.2sg always honest ‘Be always honest!’

Finally, the third person Imperatives that Classical Greek had do not exist any more; third per­son exhortations have to use the Subjunctive: (26) i María na-érθ-i s-to-tiléfono the Maria sub-come.pfv-npst.3sg to-the-phone ‘Let Maria come to the phone.’

 Hartmut Haberland

In first and third person exhortations, na is often replaced by as. According to Mackridge (1985:298), expressions with na tend to contain more of a sense of obligation, where as-clauses rather express wishes or desires.

2.1.2.1.2  Wishes and curses Wishes are often introduced by exclamations like makári, pu, (e) moré or vre. Fulfillable wishes are expressed with Non-past verb forms, unfulfillable wishes with the (usually Im­per­fec­tive) Past (even if the time reference is pre­sent or future), or the Perfect. Since also coun­ter­factive conditionals use the Imperfective Past verb (although with an Indicative pattern), it seems that the Realis vs. Irrealis distinction is rather associated with Non-Past vs. Past tense (as in (27) vs. (28)) than with Indicative vs. Subjunctive mood. (27) makári na-jín-i kalá excl sub-become.ipfv-npst.3sg well ‘May she get well!’ (28) e morí Katarína ke ná-mun-a s-to kreváti-su excl excl Katarina and sub-be-pst.1sg in-the bed-your ‘Oh my dear Katerina, if only I were in your bed!’

(AZ 28)

Similarly, unfulfilled (rather than unfulfillable) wishes tend to be expressed by as with the Im­per­fective Past: (29) as-mu-tó-lej-es! sub-to.me-it-say.ipfv-pst.2sg ‘If only you had told me!’

The categories ‘fulfillable’ and ‘unfulfillable’ have to be considered with a certain caution though. In curses like (30), they do not really make sense. It is perhaps best just to state that cur­ses are treated by the language as if they were unfulfillable wishes. (30) kakjá ná-tan i-óra pu ton-áfin-a na-pá-i bad sub-be-pst.3sg the-hour rel him-let.ipfv-pst.1sg sub-go.pfv-npst.3sg ‘Cursed be the hour when I let him go away!’

2.1.2.1.3  Permissions or indifference Another function of Subjunctive main clauses with as is the expression of per­mis­sions. Ac­tual­ly, what is expressed is the indifference of the speaker, ‘I don’t care’. (31) as-mas-akú-i sub-us-hear.impf-npast.3sg ‘Let him hear us.’

Related to this use are probable the rare clauses in the Imperfective or Perfective Past that  ex­press what Householder et al. (1964:107) call ‘probable in­fer­ence’, since they



Mood in Greek

express a vague­ness of expression or lack of commitment to the precision of the statement like in (32). (32) as-í-muna δéka xronjá mikróteros-tis sub-be-pst.1sg ten years younger-her ‘I was probably ten years her junior.’

2.1.2.1.4  Exclamations All examples so far can be attributed to an Irrealis category due to the unveri­fiablity of their pro­position­al content, although the cases of speaker’s indif­ference are borderline cases. This is obviously not the case for exclamations that express astonishment as in (33) or surprise like in (34): (33) Tóses méres ke na-min-to-skéfti-ka! so.many days and sub-neg-it-think.pfv-pst.1sg ‘So many days [have gone by] and I haven’t thought about it!’

(Hesse 2003: 77)

(34) na-érxe-te o Míkis na-me-δ-í? sub-come.ipfv-npst.3sg the Mikis sub-me-see.pfv-npst.3sg ‘Mikis is coming to see me?’

Although these examples are in the Subjunctive, the statement is still verifiable. This again under­lines that a morphologically defined Subjunctive in Greek does not necessarily square ni­ce­ly with semantic categories.

2.1.2.1.5  Tentative questions Pavlidou (1991) has pointed out that one use of the Subjunctive in main clauses has been dis­cus­sed rarely, viz. the use in tentative questions like (38). (35) na-rotís-o káti sub-ask.pfv-npst.1sg something ‘May I ask something?’

Pavlidou comments on attempts to argue that the Greek Subjunctive is related to po­li­te­ ness. Her re­search rather points in the direction that the use of Subjunc­tives (especially in questions and sug­gestions) is rather indicative of co­oper­ative situations. Again, the concept of verifiability is of limited use outside statements; as with expressions of permissions, indifference and vague­ness (2.1.2.1.3), the difference to Indicative patterns (cf. (23)) seems to lie in a different degree of commitment of the speaker.

2.1.2.2  The Subjunctive pattern in subordinate clauses The use of the Subjunctive in subordinate clauses is all pervasive since the use of the sub­ ordina­tor na (and others) is so common. The presentation of the different Subjunctive clauses takes up a considerable part of Mackridge’s (1985) analysis and I do not want to



 Hartmut Haberland

repeat it here, since the facts can easily be looked up in his systematic treatment. What I want to dis­cuss is the question if there is any clear correlation between the Subjunctive pattern and se­man­tic notions. Ammann & van der Auwera (2004) suggest that na is a volitional com­ple­men­tizer comparable to Albanian të and other com­plemen­tizers in other Balkan lan­guages and suggest that the se­mantics of what we call the Subjunctive pattern is that of Elliott’s (2000) Ir­realis. Philippaki-Warburton & Veloudis (1984) and Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton (1987) suggest that the Subjunctive presents not facts but things that can become a fact. This is often clearly the case, like in (36), where the complement refers to a future event that has not happened yet (hence is non-verifiable). (36) íx-e fóvo na-pés-i have.ipfv-pst.3sg fear sub-fall.pfv-npst.3sg ‘She was afraid she might fall.’

(TS57)

In (37), the non-verifiability of the complement seems mostly to be due to the negation of the main verb (if the main verb were not negated, the content of the complement would be veri­fia­ble): (37) δen-katáfern-e na-teljós-i ta-noimatá-tis neg-succeed.ipfv-pst.3sg sub-finish.pfv-3sg the-thoughts-her ‘She didn’t manage to finish her thoughts.’

(KN 15)

But in frequent cases like (38) the complement refers to a present fact which is perfectly veri­fia­ble: (38) ke to-kreváti tis Aθinás tó-x-e móno and the.bed of.the Athiná it-have.ipfv-pst.3sg only ja na-roxalíz-i for sub-snore.ipfv-npst.3sg

(KN 93)

‘And he had Athena’s bed only in order to snore in.’

On the other hand, there are contrasts that suggest that there is some connection between Sub­junc­tive and non-verifiability. Mackridge (1985: 287) discusses the difference between (39) and (40): (39) δen-ton-íδ-ame na-perná-i to-δrómo. neg-him-see.pfv-pst.1pl sub-cross.ipfv-npst.3sg the-road ‘We didn’t see him cross the road.’ (40) δen-ton-íδ-ame pu péra-se to-δrómo. neg-him-see.pfv-pst.1pl comp cross.pfv-pst.3sg the-road ‘We didn’t see him crossing the road.’

In (39), with the Irrealis complemetizer na and Subjunctive (the negation, if present, would be min), we do not know if he crossed the road, but in (40) with the Realis complementizer pu and the Indicative, he did cross the road, we just didn’t see it.



Mood in Greek 

Similarly, Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton discuss the difference between (41) (with na and Subjunctive) and (42) (with another Realis comple­men­tizer oti and Indicative): (41) δen-ton-íδa na-kolimb-á. neg-him-see.pfv-pst.1sg sub-swim.ipfv-npst.3sg ‘I didn’t see him swim.’ (42) δen-ton-íδa óti kolimb-úse. neg-him-see.pfv-pst.1pl comp swim.ipfv-pst.3sg ‘I didn’t see him swimming.’

In (38a) [= (41)], the implication is that he may have swum but he may have not, while in (38b) [= (42)] the implication is that he did swim but the act was not witnessed by the speaker. (Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987: 182). This is of course in keeping with the above claim that the Subjunctive like in (41) ex­pres­ses “the attitude of the speaker (in main clauses) or of the hig­her subject (in subordinate claus­es) to an event or state which is not presen­ted as a fact (either of the present, past or fu­ture), but which could become a fact”, while the Indicative in (42) presents “an action or state as factual und thus locate it in time – present, past, or future” (1987:180). What is pre­sented in the Subjunctive may well have been a fact, though. The question is if the difference between (41) and (42) is not rather a consequence of the fact that negated vlépo (suppletive Perfective Past íδa) + na + Subjunctive is non-factive, while negated vlépo + óti/pos + indicative is fac­tive. Thus I prefer the analysis that na in Subjunctive clauses often simply is a sub­ordinator, like in both (43) and (44): (43) ta-íp-a ta-peδjá ná-rθ-un. them say.pfv-pst.1sg the-children sub-come.pfv-npst.3pl ‘I said the children were coming.’ (44) ta-íδ-a ta-peδjá na-érx-onde. them-see.pfv-pst.1sg the-children sub-come.pfv-npst.3pl ‘I saw the children coming.’

It is the semantics of the matrix verb that gives the construction an appearance of a modal con­tent, since the construction is common after boró ‘I can’: (45) bor-úne ta peδjá na-rθ-ún may.ipfv-npst.3pl the children sub-come.pfv-npst.3pl ‘The children may come (now).’

Neither there is any doubt in (46) that Stella Potaki (‘she’) did her nails in spite of the use of the Subjunctive: (46) íx-e fá-i sxedón mja olókliri óra pfaux.pst.3sg eat-pform almost one whole hour me-mja-líma sto-xéri na-peripj-íte ta-níxja-tis. with-a-file in.the-hand sub-do.ipfv-npst.3sg the-nails-her ‘She had spent a whole hour with a nail file in her hand doing her nails.’

(KN 15)

 Hartmut Haberland

Mackridge (1985:241f.) has a long list of sentences where paratactic Indicative + ke ‘and’ + In­dica­tive can replace hypotactic Indicative + na + Subjunc­tive without change in modality (oc­casionally the Present participle is a third possibility, 291). This points to another weak link between mood and mo­da­lity in Greek. Finally we have the cases of ‘narrative’ na. There are two roughly equi­valent con­struc­ tions with different moods but apparently same modality, as expressed in (47)–(48), which both mean ‘He sat for a long time and wept’.9 (47) káθi-se polí óra ki éklej-e sit.ipfv-pst.3sg much time and weep.ipfv-pst.3sg (parataxis: Indicative + Indicative) (48) káθi-se polí óra na-klé-i sit.ipfv-pst.3sg much time sub-weep.ipfv-npst.3sg (Indicative + na + Subjunctive)

A special use of the subjunctive pattern is the Concessive introduced by ki as ‘although’, re­la­ted to the main clause Permissive with as discussed in 2.1.2.1.3. (There are also Concessive sub­ordi­nate clauses in the Indicative intro­duced by ki an, án ke, mólo pu, molonóti.)

2.2  The Imperative Greek has only Second Person Imperatives. There is an aspect distinction, though. Thus from γráfo ‘write’ we get: Table 2.  Summary of Modern Greek Imperative Imperfective Perfective

2nd Singular 2nd Plural 2nd Singular 2nd Plural

Active

Passive

γráfe γráfete γrápse γrápste

γráfu γráfeste γrápsu γraftíte

There are quite a number of irregular and suppletive forms of the Imperative; thus léγo ‘say, tell’ has Perfective pés/péste alongside Imperfective léje/léjete (lists can be found in Mackridge 1985: 188 and Householder et al. 1964: 128). There are also a number of verbs that lack an Imperative alto­gether (Mackridge 1985: 123f.), for not always obvious semantic rea­sons; some lack either Perfective or Imperfective Imperatives.

.  There is a third option with the Gerund: (56)

káθi-se polí óra kléγ-ondas (Indicative + Gerund) sit.ipfv-pst.3sg much time weep.ipfv-ger

This is interesting because some Greek grammarians consider the Gerund as a (non-finite) mood.



Mood in Greek 

In general, the use of the Imperative in the Passive voice is highly restric­ted; many forms are either hardly ever used or do not exist at all. This con­cerns mostly the singular Per­fec­ tive Passive Imperative and in general the Imperfective Passive Imperative (Householder et al. 1964, 126 and Mac­kridge 1985, 188).10 This makes sense in connection with general ob­serva­tions on aspectual differences in the Imperative. Generally speaking, the aspec­tual dis­tinc­tions for the Imperative follow those that apply elsewhere. But, as Mackridge (1985, 122f.) explains in detail, there are also differences in specificity and politeness. The Perfective Im­pera­tive is more often accom­panied by a direct or indirect object (γráps’ to ‘write it!’ or γrápse mu ‘write to me!’), while the Imperfective Imperative often is not (γráfe ‘(go a­head and) write!’). This could explain the lack of a Passive Imperfective Im­per­ative for active verbs which presupposes an Active construction with a Di­rect Object, which is less likely with Imperfective verbs. There is also a dif­ference in politeness: the Imperfective Imperative is considered to express more of an imposition than the Perfective Imperative and is hardly used in the polite plural. The Imperative is not used in negative commands, where a construction with the ne­ga­tive subordinator mi(n) is used instead (see above, 2.1.2.1.1). In her pragmatic study of the use of the Greek Imperative, Economidou-Kogetsidis (2002) observes the surprising frequency of Imperative requests in the context (airline call cen­ter) that she observed. Like Pavlidou (1991) for the Subjunctive, she also hints at the pos­sibility that cooperation and not politeness is a decisive factor that guides choice between al­ter­native moods (2002:26).

3.  Other expressions of modality 3.1  Negative questions as polite impositions Questions in the Imperfective Non-past, both positive (Mackridge 1985: 126f.) and negative (Mirambel 1977: 196) can be used to express a po­lite request. (49) δe-mu-lé-s? neg-me-say.ipfv-npst.3sg ‘Tell me!’ ()

3.2  Modal verbs In Greek, there is not much of a system of modal verbs to talk of. At any rate, there is no mor­pho­logical class of modal verbs, although there is a num­ber of verbs which express modality. θélo is a transitive verb which either can mean ‘I want’ or ‘I need, I lack’; with a

.  Householder et. al (1964:126) even claim that there is no imperfective passive imperative, i.e. according to them, the forms γráfu and γráfeste above can not be formed.

 Hartmut Haberland

na-com­ple­ment it means ‘I want to’. boró expresses ability (‘I can’) or permission (‘I may’) – although the latter is more common in the 2nd or 3rd Person –, while the impersonal (hence only 3rd Person sin­gular) borí ‘it is possible’ expresses possibility: (50) bor-í na-vréks-i ávrio may.ipfv-npst.3sg sub-rain.pfv-npst.3sg tomorrow ‘Maybe it will rain tomorrow.’

The verb prépi ‘must’ is always used impersonally and occurs only in the 3rd Sin­gu­lar. It can either mean ‘it is necessary’ like in (51), or ‘it is likely’ (may­be rather: ‘it can be inferred’) like in (52). (51) prép-i na-mil-ás kaθará must.ipfv-npst.3sg sub-speak.ipfv-npst.2sg clearly ‘You have to speak clearly.’ (52) prép-i na-xjóni-se exθés must.ipfv-npst.3sg sub-snow.pfv-pst.3sg yesterday ‘It must have snowed yesterday.’

Although both impersonal borí and prépi have a Past, it is always Imperfective. – The com­ ple­ment of all the verbs discussed here is in the Subjunctive. In some cases this fits with Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton’s suggestion that the Subjunctive presents something that may not be a fact, but can become a fact. But this does not fit all cases – certainly not the evi­den­tial reading of prépi. What seems to be more decisive here is the semantics of the modal verb rather than the mood of the complement.

3.3  The Passive Al­though the Greek Passive also has the usual functions of agent deletion and topicalization of the active object (Holton et al. 1997:214), the Passive can also have a modal function (Warburton 1975: 570f., Holton et al. 1997:215), like in (53) to faí aftó δen-tróγ-ete. the food this neg-eat.ipfv-pass.npast.3sg ‘This food is not edible.’ (54) Afto to spíti pul-jéte this the house sell.ipfv-pass.npst.3sg ‘This house is on sale.’

References Ammann, A. & van der Auwera, J. 2004. Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods in the languages of South-Eastern Europe. A balkanism? In Balkan Syntax and Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 67], O. Tomić (ed.), 293–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



Mood in Greek

Chantraine, P. 1973. Morphologie historique du grec. Paris: Klincksieck. Charitonidis, C. 2007. Towards a typological classification of Modern Greek. Μελέτες για την ελληνική γλώσσα/Studies in Greek Linguistics 27: 52–64. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. 2002. Requesting strategies in English and Greek: Observations from an airline’s call center. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 17: 17–32. Elliott, J.R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4: 55–90. Haberland, H. & van der Auwera, J. 1990. Topics and clitics in Greek relatives. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 22: 127–157. Hedin, E. 1995. The tense-aspect system of Modern Greek. In Tense Systems in European Languages II, R. Thieroff (ed.), 233–251. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Hesse, R. 2003. Syntax of the Modern Greek Verbal System: The Use of the Forms, Particularly in Combination with tha and na, 2nd edn. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Holton, D., Mackridge, P. & Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1997. Greek. A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge. Householder, F.W., Kazazis, K. & Koutsoudas, A. 1964. Reference Grammar of Literary Dhimotiki. The Hague: Mouton. (IJAL 30(2), Part II). Joseph, B.D. 2002. Defining “Word” in Modern Greek. In Yearbook of Morphology 2001, G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds). 87–114. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Joseph, B.D. & Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm. Mackridge, P. 1985. The Modern Greek Language. A Descriptive Analysis of Standard Modern Greek. Oxford: OUP. Mirambel, A. [1939].1977. Grammaire du grec moderne. Paris: Klincksieck. Mirambel, A. 1959. La langue grecque moderne. Déscription et analyse. Paris: Klincksieck. Pavlidou, Th. 1991. Cooperation and the choice of linguistic means: Some evidence from the use of the subjunctive in Modern Greek. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 11–42. Philippaki-Warburton, I. & Veloudis, I. 1984. Η υποτακτική στίς συμπληρωματικές προτάσεις. Μελέτες για την ελληνική γλώσσα/Studies in Greek Linguistics 5: 149–167. Roussel, L. 1922. Grammaire déscriptive du roméique littéraire. Paris: Ancienne Librairie Fontemoing. Ruge, H. 1984a. Nygrekisk språklära. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Ruge, H. 1984b. Was ist neu am Neugriechischen? Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology N.S. 7: 188–198. Thieroff, R. 1995. More on inherent verb categories in European languages. In Tense Systems in European Languages II, R. Thieroff (ed.), 1–36. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Triandafyllidis, M. [1941]. 1978. Νεοελληνική γραμματική (της δημοτικής). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University. Tzartzanos, A. 1928. Νεοελληνικὴ σύνταξις ἤτοι συντακτικὸν τῆς νέας ἑλληνικῆς γλώσσης. Athens: Kollaros. Warburton, I. 1975. The passive in English and Greek. Foundations of Language 13: 563–578.

Sources Karapanou, R. 1995. Ta kókkina níxja. Athens: Kedros (KN). Kazantzakis, N. 1973. Víos ke politía tou Aléksi Zorbá. Athens: Eleni Kazantzaki (AZ). Takhtsis, K. 1986. To tríto stefáni. Athens: Ermis (TS). Vamvakaris, M. 1978. Aftoviografía. Athens: Papazisi (VA).



Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian Jasmine Dum-Tragut Salzburg

1.  Introduction – a sketch of Modern Eastern Armenian Modern Eastern Armenian is spoken in the Republic of Armenia and its neighbouring ­countries. It belongs to the Indo-European family, in which it constitutes a single branch. Armenian has been standardized in the beginning of the 5th century A.D. and has undergone several typological-structural changes from a typical flectional Indo-European language as written in the 5th century A.D. to a rather analytic and in some features even agglutinative language. Since the 18th–19th centuries there exist two written standards of Modern Armenian, Western and Eastern Armenian, which are distinguishable from each other by various linguistic features in phonology, morphology, particularly syntax and orthography. Modern Eastern Armenian represents a nominative-accusative, pro-drop language. In its nominal system it distinguishes the categories number (singular/plural), definiteness (suffixed definite article, indefinite article), humanness (+human/–human) and five morphological cases (nominative=accusative, genitive=dative, ablative, instrumental and locative). The verbal system of Modern Eastern Armenian distinguishes several categories, such as person and number, voice (Active, Passive, Anticausative),1 aspect (perfective vs. imperfective; habitual vs. processual), tenses (in general Present, Future and Past) and moods (Indicative, Subjunctive, Conditional, Debitive, Imperative). There is an interrelation between aspect and tense, between tense and mood (with the exception of the Imperative, all moods have a distinction between present and past tense forms) and even between mood and aspect. The verbal system of Eastern Armenian has not thoroughly been studied yet, particularly regarding the aspect and tense system. Most tense forms of Modern Eastern Armenian are analytic, except for the Indicative Aorist. Most mood forms, however, are basically synthetic, except the Debitive. There is a more or less persistent distinction in both tenses and moods between primary “actional” forms of verbs (verbs denoting a dynamic action or process) and secondary forms of verbs, such as stative (i.e. resultative; i.e. a state as result of an action, resultative participle in -ac), processual (i.e. an action in process at the moment of speech or at a certain reference point as well as an action simultaneous to

.  In most Western grammars of Modern Eastern Armenian only two voices are given, active and passive, whereas in all Armenian grammars of Eastern Armenian the third voice is labelled “neutral voice”, i.e. medial voice.



Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian 

another action; processual participle in -is) and prospective (i.e. an action being about to be done at the moment of speech or at a reference point; participle future II in -u). This distinction depends on verb semantics and context. Despite the fact that such “secondary” forms are analytic and rather complex in their structure, secondary forms are comparably wide-spread, particularly in colloquial Eastern Armenian. Secondary forms are usually formed with the corresponding participle and the tense/mood forms of the secondary auxiliary linel ‘to be’.2 In syntax, Modern Eastern Armenian is characterized by a non rigid SOV word-order (interaction of definiteness and word order) and by a functional focus perspective. The order of the constituents of a noun phrase and the order of several adverbials in the sentence is however rigid. There is absolutely no congruency between the noun and its modifiers, but number/person congruency between the sentences’ grammatical subject and the finite verb. In addition to Indicative Modern Eastern Armenian distinguishes four moods: Subjunctive (in Armenian grammars and traditional grammars often called Optative), Conditional, Debitive and Imperative (Petrosyan 1987:  197f.). The Subjunctive, Conditional and Debitive moods have two tense forms, one referring to the future but expressed with present tense morphology, and one to the past,3 which like the indicative tenses may also show the aspectual distinction between actional, stative, processual and prospective forms. (Abrahamyan 1975: 160f.; Abrahamyan 1981: 208). Stative mood forms are rather common in spoken Armenian, particularly in Conditional and Debitive moods, whereas processual and prospective forms can only be found with a less frequent use in the Subjunctive, Conditional and Debitive. In this paper, primarily the function of actional forms will be described; only in case of specific functions other than the corresponding aspectual meanings the secondary forms will be explained and exemplified. The Imperative only shows one tense form, the present tense. The proper Imperative occurs usually in two forms: 2nd person SG. and 2nd person PL. 1st person PL. in the Subjunctive Present additionally conveys the hortative meaning. The prohibitive is formed by means of the stressed negative particle mí and the Imperative forms.

.  The primary auxiliary in indicative tenses is expressed by the irregular present and imperfect forms of em, es, ē. The regular forms of the auxiliary linel in present and imperfect tense have aspectual meaning: as part of an analytic tense they denote a habitual or iterative state or an action that is regularly/habitually in process. .  One has to note, that in the relevant literature on Armenian moods, independent from the language used for the description, the terms Future and Past are used to express the difference between the two morphologically marked tenses of the moods Subjunctive, Conditional and Debitive. In this paper, this armenological tradition is broken for a better general understanding and comparison with other languages.

 Jasmine Dum-Tragut

Prohibitive meaning can also be expressed with the negated Subjunctive, which is rather common in spoken Armenian.

2.  Subjunctive In Modern Eastern Armenian, Subjunctive is used both in simple sentences and subordinate clauses. In conditional, final clauses and in comparative constructions it denotes a hypothetical action/state. The Subjunctive may also be used in the function of a hortative (1st person PL.) and prohibitive (negated forms of Subjunctive Present). To express a real “optative” meaning, modal conditional verbs are used rather than the Subjunctive.

2.1  Morphology The Subjunctive is expressed with synthetic verbal forms in two tenses, the Present and the Past. It is formed from the present stem of all verbs plus the verb’s conjugation vowel (-e-/-a-) and the personal endings of present or past tense (Abrahamyan 1975: 166f.; Abrahamyan 1981: 215f.; Bardakjian & Vaux 1999: 157f.; Asatryan 2004: 297f.). Table 1.  Subjunctive paradigm of verbs kardal ‘read’ and grel ‘write’4 Person 1 Sg. 2 Sg. 3 Sg. 1 Pl. 2 Pl. 3 Pl.

Subjunctive Present

Subjunctive Past

Subjunctive Present

Subjunctive Past

kard-a-m kard-a-s kard-a kard-a-nk’ kard-a-k’ kard-a-n

kard-a-y-i4

gr-e-m gr-e-s gr-i gr-e-nk’ gr-e-k’ gr-e-n

gr-e-i gr-e-ir gr-e-r gr-e-ink’ gr-e-ik’ gr-e-in

kard-a-y-ir kard-a-r kard-a-y-ink’ kard-a-y-ik’ kard-a-y-in

Subjunctive verbal forms are negated by prefixing the negative prefix č’- to the verbal form, e.g. č’-kardam, č’-grem.

2.2  Meaning and functions The Subjunctive generally denotes an action/state that is desired by the speaker or an action/state that takes place under a certain condition. Thus, it conveys optative, intentional, ­hypothetical, imperative and experiential meaning. One has to distinguish the use and functions of the Subjunctive Present and Subjunctive Past (Asatryan 2004:  298f.; Minassian 1996: 190f.).

.  The -y- has to appear between the vowels -a- and -o- and personal endings with initial i-.



Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian 

2.2.1  Subjunctive Present 2.2.1.1  Simple sentences5 Primarily, Subjunctive Present denotes (a) an action that shall be performed immediately after the point of speech or (b) an action that is desired by the speaker. Secondarily, it denotes (a) an action that can be performed in the future from the speaker’s point of view or (b) an indirect request; i.e. if the speaker wants to have the action performed. The subjunctive Present may also be used with an imperative meaning: (a) with a hortative meaning in 1st person PL. (1), (b) for polite requests (2), (c) as negative Subjunctive denoting prevention – a polite form of a prohibitive (3). In addition, the Subjunctive Present is obligatorily used in the function of an “analytic Imperative”: it is formed with the 2nd SG. Imperative of the verb t’ołnel ‘let’ and the Subjunctive future (4). (1) Gnank’! go.sbjv.prs.1pl ‘Let us go!’ (2) Xndrem aysōr gak’ mez mot! please today come.sbjv.prs.1sg we.dat post ‘Please come to us today!’ (3) Her° u č’-gnas! far neg-go.sbjv.prs.2sg. ‘Do not go far away (please)!’ (4) T’oł Armen-ě gna tun! let.imp.2.sg Armen.nom-the go.sbjv.prs.3sg house.nom ‘Let Armen go home!’

The Subjunctive can be used for slogans, appeals and in proverbs, if the verb in the Subjunctive has a general subject. (5) Ov karda, na mard ē. who.nom read.sbjv.prs.3sg he.nom human.nom be-3sg ‘(He) who reads is a person.’

2.2.1.2  In subordinated clauses in complex sentences6 Subjunctive Present is obligatorily used in subordinate clauses of condition, concession and purpose. Typical subjunctive-triggers are (a) volitional verbs,7 (b) non-factive mental verbs, .  See Kozintsvea (1995: 36f.) .  See Abrahamyan (1981: 286f.) and Kozintsvea (1995: 38f.) .  It is common in spoken Armenian to use volitional and modal verbs in simple clauses with the second verb in Subjunctive Present. In written Armenian, in this case the infinitive of the second verb is normative.

 Jasmine Dum-Tragut

phrases such as aveli lav ē ‘it is better’, kareli ē ‘it is possible, is it possible?’ with or without the conjunction or ‘that’ and (c) the final conjunction or(pesz)i ‘in order to, that’. If the subordinate clause is governed by a verb or expression mentioned above AND is introduced with the conjunction or ‘that’, the Subjunctive Present is obligatorily used referring to an action that is wished/requested by the agent.8 (6) Armen-n uzum ē or k’ez ōgnem. Armen.nom-the wish.ptcp.prs be.3sg comp you.dat help.sbjv.prs.1sg ‘Armen wants that I help you.’ (7) Aveli lav ē Anuš-i-n harc’nes. cmpr good be.3sg Anuš.dat-the ask.sbjv.prs.2sg ‘It is better (that) you ask Anuš.’

If the clause is governed by a speech act verb, Subjunctive Present renders a future action; the speech act verb conveys causative meaning: (8) Asac’i k’roJ¦-s or ink’ě say.aor.1sg sister.dat-my comp she.nom zangahari inj aveli uš. phone.sbjv.prs.3sg I.dat cmpr late ‘I told my sister that she should phone me later.’

The Subjunctive Present is also used in subordinate clauses of purpose, expressing the dependence from the intention of the agent of the main action. In conditional clauses, the Subjunctive Present expresses a hypothetical action that is possible from the speaker’s point of view: (9) Et’e anjrew-ě dardari, menk’ kgnank’ k’ałak’. comp rain.nom-the stop.sbjv.prs.3sg we.nom go.cond.prs.1pl town.nom ‘If the rain stops, we will go to town.’

The Subjunctive Present is used in reported speech to render the Imperative forms of the corresponding direct speech. The negated Subjunctive Present also renders a prohibitive of direct speech in reported speech: (10) a.

Mi zarmanak’ asac’ cer covayin-ě. neg be surprised.imp.2pl say.aor.3sg old sailor.nom-the ‘ “Do not be surprised!” said the old sailor.’

b. Cer covayin-ě asac or č’-zarmanan. old sailor.nom-the say.aor.3sg comp neg-be surprised.sbjv.prs.3pl ‘The old sailor said that they should not be surprised.’ .  Please note that there is no sequence of time: independent from the tense of the verb triggering Subjunctive, Subjunctive Present has to be used.



Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian 

The Stative Subjunctive Present is used (Kozintseva 1995: 41), if the induced action has to be performed before the reference point in the future. (11) xndir-ner-ě kluc-v-en et’e Problem-pl.nom-the solve-pass-cond.prs.3pl comp petut’y-an xndir-ě luc-v-ac lini. state-dat problem.nom-the solve-pass-ptcp.res be.sbjv.prs.3sg ‘The problems will be solved, if the state’s problem is solved. (will have been solved)’

The Stative Subjunctive Present is also used to express a hypothetical experiential state. Here, the Subjunctive Present refers to hypothetical experiential actions in the future or in the past in non-assertive contexts, particularly emphasized with adverbs of hesitation, such as guce ‘perhaps, maybe’, hnaravor ē ‘probably, it is possible’.9 (12) hnaravor ē or paharan mak’rel-is possible be.3sg comp cupboard.nom clean-ptcp.proc vaza-n ¦Jard-ac lines. vase.nom-the break-ptcp.prs be.sbjv.prs.2sg ‘It is possible that you broke the vase when you were cleaning the cupboard.’

The Prospective Subjunctive Present emphasizes the beginning of an action under a certain condition. It may also express that an action has already started. There is a very strong pragmatic relation between the future action and the condition. (13) Et’e gal-u linem, k’ez anpayman kzangaharem. comp go-ptcp.fut be.sbjv.prs.1sg you.dat certainly phone.cond.prs.1sg ‘If I am about to come, I will certainly phone you.’

2.2.2  Subjunctive Past10 In simple sentences in which the reference point coincides with the moment of speech, the Subjunctive Past expresses an unreal action. (14) Lav kliner or Aram-ě č’-gnar Moskva. good be.cond.pst.3sg comp Aram.nom-the neg-go.sbjv.pst.3sg Moscow.nom ‘It would have been good if Aram had not gone to Moscow.’

In simple sentences addressed to the hearer, the Subjunctive Past expresses a suggestion or a request.

.  The same meaning can also be expressed with Simple perfect tense, and then it sounds more neutral. .  See (Kozintseva 1995: 40f.; Asatryan 2004: 300f.)

 Jasmine Dum-Tragut

In subordinate clauses, particularly in conditional or concessive clauses, the reference point can also belong to the present or past. If it refers to the present, the Subjunctive Past denotes an unlikely action in the past, present or future. (15) Et’e mi k’ič’ šut gayir khandipeir nran. comp a bit early come.sbjv.pst.2sg meet.cond.pst.2sg he.dat ‘If you had come a bit earlier, you would have met him.’

If speech act verbs are used with a causative meaning, the Subjunctive Past usually expresses a desired action belonging to the past, especially in narrations. (16) asac’i, or Lilit’-ě gar č’ors-i-n. say.aor.1sg comp Lilit’-nom-the come.sbjv.pst.3sg 4-dat-the ‘I said that Lilit’ should come at four (o’ clock).’

The Stative Subjunctive Past is used in conditional clauses, if referring to an unlikely state, and if the reference point is not shifted to the past (17) and in complement clauses, if governed by a negative mental non-factive verb, such as ‘not believe, not think, not remember’ etc. In such a context, stative Subjunctive (present or past) conveys experiential meaning. (18) (17) Et’e ayn storagr-v-ac liner, apa aysōr comp that sign.pass.ptcp.res be.sbjv.pst.3sg then today Ler°nayin Łarabał-i hakamartut’yun-ě Mountainous Karabakh.dat conflict.nom-the kargavor-v-ac kliner. settle.pass.ptcp.res. be.cond.pst.3sg. ‘If that had been signed, then today the Mountainous Karabakh-conflict would have been settled.’ (Armenpress 22.03.2006) (18) Es č’-em karcum, or Aram-ě I.nom neg-I am think.ptcp.prs comp Aram.nom-the erbewē hamoz-v-ac lini ir knoJ¦-ic’. ever convince-pass.ptcp.res. be-sbjv.prs.3sg his wife-abl ‘I do not believe that Aram has ever been convinced by his wife.’

3.  Conditional The Conditional mood has two tense forms, Present and Past, and also two aspects: actional and stative. The Conditional of Modern Eastern Armenian is used in many functions, particularly in indicative function, denoting future actions or states. It can be used in simple sentences, in main clauses of complex sentences of condition or concession and in ­asyndetic complex sentences. In past tense it usually conveys counterfactual meaning (Kozintseva 2005: 182).



Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian 

3.1  Morphology of Conditional Conditional is formed from the present stem of all verbs plus the prefix k- and the endings of present or past tense (Abrahamyan 1981: 217–219; Minassian 1996: 192; Asatryan 2004: 302f.). Table 2.  Conditional paradigm of verbs kardal ‘to read’ and grel ‘to write’ Person

Conditional Present

Conditional Past

Conditional Present

Conditional Past

1.Sg. 2.Sg. 3.Sg. 1.Pl. 2.Pl. 3.Pl.

k-kard-a-m k-kard-a-s k-kard-a k-kard-a-nk’ k-kard-a-k’ k-kard-a-n

k-kard-a-y-i k-kard-a-y-ir k-kard-a-r k-kard-a-y-ink’ k-kard-a-y-ik’ k-kard-a-y-in

k-gr-e-m k-gr-e-s k-gr-i k-gr-e-nk’ k-gr-e-k’ k-gr-e-n

k-gr-e-i k-gr-e-ir k-gr-e-r k-gr-e-ink’ k-gr-e-ik’ k-gr-e-in

The Conditional is negated by means of the negative participle11 of the verb and the negated auxiliary, e.g. č’-em kard-a, č’-em gr-i.

3.2  Meaning and functions of Conditional One has to distinguish the functions of Conditional future and Conditional Past as well as the functions of these moods in simple and complex sentences.

3.2.1  Conditional Present 3.2.1.1  Simple sentences Conditional Present originally denotes an action that shall be performed under certain conditions in future. Conditional Present is, however, primarily used to express simple actions in future, and thus renders the meaning of indicative future (Abrahamyan 1981:  215f.; Minassian M. 1996: 192; Bardakjian & Vaux 1999: 180). There is no major semantic difference to Indicative Future tense; Conditional Present is even more frequently used in this function than Future tense. Conditional Present rather expresses the objective relation of the speaker to the action: the speaker is quite certain that the action will really be performed in future. Conditional future also refers to a “nearer” future than indicative Future tense (Asatryan 2004: 302f.). Moreover, Conditional Future also denotes that the action is in process at the point of speech.

.  The negative Participle is formed from the present stem of all verbs and the ending -i for verbs in -el, and -a for verbs in -al, e.g.grel – gri, kardal – karda.

 Jasmine Dum-Tragut

(19) a.

Hima kgrem hodvac-s. now read.cond.prs.1sg paper.nom-my ‘I will write my paper now.’ (i.e. I have already started to write.)

b. Hima grelu em hodvac-s. now read.ptcp.fut I-am paper.nom-my ‘I will write my paper now.’ (i.e. I will write my paper, but I have not started yet.)

Conditional Present also conveys potential meaning, if the context does not refer to future. Then, it denotes iterative actions being (a) a typical property of the agent or (b) generalized. Such a reading is usually triggered by iterative adverbs. This function of the Conditional can be found in written Armenian, is however considered an antiquated or even obsolete type of a narrative tense.12 (20) K’ami-n kp’č’i, anjrew-ě wind.nom-the blow.cond.prs.3sg rain.nom-the kteła, bayc’ ler°-ě kmna kangun. fall.cond.prs.3sg comp mountain.nom-the stay.cond.prs.3sg standing. ‘The wind blows, the rain falls down, but (only) the mountain stands still.’

Generalized constructions with 2nd person SG. in Conditional Present denote an objective potentiality of the action (Kozintzeva 1995: 43). (21) Ays patmut’yun-ě der° klses gyuł-i tarec mardkanc’-ic’. this story.nom-the still hear.cond.prs.2sg village.dat aged man.pl.abl ‘This story you may still hear from aged village people.’

Conditional Present also expresses the objective meaning of the speaker about an action (or state) in present tense: It has an assumptive meaning.13 (22) Vardan-ě bžišk ē ełel, Vardan.nom-the doctor.nom be-3sg be.ptcp.prf. lav t’ošak kstana. good pension.nom receive.cond.prs.3sg ‘Vardan was a doctor; he shall receive a high pension.’

Conditional Present can also express an assumption of the speaker referring to an action or a state in future:

.  Conditional Present in this function is restricted to “literary” Armenian. Usually it is substituted by indicative Present tense. .  Or past tense for Conditional Past.



Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian

(23) Aysōr gišer-ě c’urt klini. today night.nom-the cold be.cond.prs.3sg ‘It will/shall be cold tonight.’

In direct speech, Conditional Present may also express a strict order or demand. The hearer has no right to refuse the action: (24) Du kverJ¦anas k’o gorc-ě. you.nom finish.cond.prs.2sg your work.nom-the ‘You will finish your work.’

Conditional present can also be used to express a binding promise to the hearer to perform the action in the nearest future: (25) Lav, vałē kgam k’ez mot. okay tomorrow come.cond.prs.1sg you.dat post ‘Okay, tomorrow I will seek you out.’

Conditional present is also used to formulate a polite request or a polite order: (26) Inj grič’-d ktas? I.dat pen.nom-your give.cond.prs.2sg ‘Would you give me your pen?’

3.2.1.2  In subordinate clauses In conditional clauses, Conditional present is used in the main clause to denote a hypothetical potential action that will be performed in future under a certain condition, as expressed by the subordinate clause (Kozintseva 2005: 175f.). By contrast, in concessives clauses, Conditional present denotes the future action, that will be fulfilled despite of the state of affairs as expressed in the subordinated clause: Conditional present is also used in asyndetic complex clauses, in which the prepositive clause expresses the conditional meaning. Stative Conditional present may function in the following contexts if a future perfective action precedes a reference point in future; in this case it fulfils the function of the Indicative Future Past. (27) Vałn ar° avotyan tomorrow morning

Vardan-ě namak-ě Vardan.nom-the letter.NOM-the

gr-ac klini. write-ptcp.res. be.cond.prs.3sg ‘Tomorrow morning Vardan will have written the letter.’ (i.e. tomorrow morning the letter will be written.)



 Jasmine Dum-Tragut

The stative ConditionalPpresent may express a highly probable hypothetical action: the result of which is important at the moment of speech. It may also denote a manifold hypothetical action, the result of which is summarized at the moment of speech:14 (28) Kyank’-um-d k’ani angam tes-ac life.loc-your how many time see-ptcp.res klines ays kino-n? be.cond.prs.2sg this movie.nom-the ‘How many times have you (approximately) seen this film in your life?’

It is used if the speaker supposes that an action has been performed in the past. Processual Conditional Present is preferably used with indicative future meaning: it refers to an action that will be in progress (at a certain point) in future. (29) Vałn ays žam-i-n meknel-is klinenk’. tomorrow this hour.dat-the depart-ptcp.proc be.cond.prs.1pl ‘Tomorrow at this time we will be departing…’

3.2.2  Conditional Past Conditional Past is generally used to express an action that should have been performed in past, but that was not performed due to certain conditions and circumstances. If the reference point coincides with the moment of speech, Conditional Past usually denotes (a) an unlikely possibility (counterfactual meaning) (b) polite questions, requests or advices. If the reference point, however, refers to a moment in the past, Conditional Past denotes (a) a possible prospective action in the Past (30a) and (b) habitual and iterative actions in the Past (and thus conveys indicative meaning of a type of narrative tense) (30b). (30) a.

Nran zangei, et’e he.dat phone.cond.pst.1sg comp



imanayi nra hamar-ě. know.sbjv.pst.1sg his number.nom-the



‘I would have phoned him, if I had known his number.’

b. Mer harewan-ě žam-er-ov our neighbour.nom-the hour.pl.ins

kašxater ir ayg-um. work.cond.pst.3sg his garden.loc



‘Our neighbour used to work in his garden for hours.’

.  If the manifold action is not hypothetical, and if the result of the manifold actions is exactly countable, the Simple Present Perfect is used.



Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian

4.  Debitive The Debitive is a specific mood of Modern Eastern Armenian 15 that primarily expresses an “obligatory action”. It has also epistemic meaning. Debitive mood also signals the speaker’s estimation of the necessity to perform an action.

4.1  Morphology of Debitive The Debitive mood is formed with the particles piti or petk’ ē and the verb in Subjunctive. The Debitive has two general tense forms, present and past and does also distinguish aspectual meanings. The Debitive is regarded as analytic mood, the particle piti cannot be used separately, and it is strictly related to the Debitive mood. The order of this analytic form is always particle + Verb in Subjunctive; other sentence constituents, such as adverbs or adverbials, may however be nestled between particle and verb form (Abrahamyan 1981: 219–220; Minassian 1996: 346–347; Kozintseva 1995: 46). Table 3.  Debitive paradigm of verbs kardal ‘to read’ and grel ‘to write’ Person

Debitive Present

Debitive Past

Debitive Present

Debitive Past

1.Sg. 2.Sg. 3.Sg. 1.Pl. 2.Pl. 3.Pl.

piti kard-a-m piti kard-a-s piti kard-a piti kard-a-nk’ piti kard-a-k’ piti kard-a-n

piti kard-a-y-i piti kard-a-y-ir piti kard-a-r piti kard-a-y-ink’ piti kard-a-y-ik’ piti kard-a-y-in

piti gr-e-m piti gr-e-s piti gr-i piti gr-e-nk’ piti gr-e-k’ piti gr-e-n

piti gr-e-i piti gr-e-ir piti gr-e-r piti gr-e-ink’ piti gr-e-ik’ piti gr-e-in

The negation of all Debitive forms is simple: the negative particle č’- is prefixed to the particles, i.e. č’-piti or č’-petk’ ē.

4.2  Meanings and functions of Debitive One has to distinguish the functions of Debitive Present and Debitive Past both in simple and complex sentences.

4.2.1  Debitive Present In general, Debitive Present denotes the intention to perform an action in near future. If the near future is separated from the present, there is a special marker (adverb e.g.) that stresses that the action has to be performed in future (Kozintseva 1995: 46f).

.  This mood does not exist in Standard Western Armenian. In Western Armenian, the same morphological form is used to denote simple Indicative Future.



 Jasmine Dum-Tragut

(31) Vałě piti gnam hamalsaran. tomorrow go.deb.prs.1sg university.nom ‘Tomorrow I will have to go to the university.’

Debitive Present conveys objective or subjective necessity, epistemic necessity and expectedness, depending on context and on verb meaning. Objective necessity is typically conveyed in (a) in utterances in the 1st person SG. (b) in narration, when the position of the speaker is eliminated and the subject of the verb is also the agent (Kozintseva 1995: 47). Subjective necessity is, by contrast, characterized by occurring in dialogues, in which the obligation to perform an action is imposed on the addressee by the speaker. The 2nd person often expresses the explicit wish or order of the speaker to the addressee to perform an action. The action and situation is regarded as highly probable by the speaker, predetermined and inescapable – and as such expected. The certitude of the speaker about the action/state is usually additionally expressed by epistemic adverbs, such as anšušt ‘doubtless, without doubt’, anpayman ‘absolutely’, etc. (32) Šan tarerk’-ě krak-n ē dog.dat element.nom-the fire.nom-the be.ptcp.prs. ew ayd patčar°-ov comp that reason.ins

tonakan sełan-i-n festive table-dat-the

petk’ ē anpayman mom var°-v-i. part absolutely candle.nom burn.antic.deb.prs.3sg ‘The dog’s element is the fire and for that reason a candle must absolutely burn on

the festive table.’ Debitive Present may but also denote general actions that must be performed.

4.2.2  Debitive Past Debitive Past denotes an action that had to be performed in the past, if the reference point coincides with the moment of speech (Kozintseva 1995: 48). (33) Dur°-ě piti bac’er ays banali-ov. door.nom-the open.deb.pst.3sg this key.ins ‘He should have opened the door with this key.’

Debitive Past also denotes an obligatory action in the future seen from a point in the past, if the reference point is in the past.



Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian

Debitive Past can also describe a not-performed action, which would have been unavoidable if the situation had not changed. Such meaning is often emphasized by conditional adjuncts such as e.g. mi rope ews ‘one more minute and…’.16 (34) Mek rope ews, ew r°umb-ě one minute.nom more comp bomb.nom-the piti payter ar°ewtr-i kentron-um. explode.deb.pst.3sg commerce.dat centre.loc ‘One more minute and the bomb would have exploded in the Shopping centre.’

5.  Imperative 5.1  Morphology of Imperative The Imperative 2nd person SG. is formed from the present stem of verbs in -el and -al as well of -v-suffixed verbs, from the perfect stem of verbs suffixed with -n-, -č’-, anal, -enal as well as of causativized verbs in -c’n-el. The personal endings for 2nd person SG. differ from each other depending on the stem used: verbs in -al have -a, verbs in -el and suffixed verbs with -n-, -č’-, -anal, -enal and -v-have -ir; causativized verbs show -c’ru (Asatryan 2004: 310–312; Minassian 1996: 194f.). The Imperative 2nd person PL. of all verbs is usually formed from the perfect stem and the personal ending for 2nd person PL. -ek’.17 Table 4.  Imperative paradigm of Eastern Armenian verbs Person

Verbs in -el

Verbs in -al

Suffixed verbs

Causativized verbs

mt-ir! (< mt-n-el) t’r-ir! (< t’r°-č‘-el) uraxac‘-ir! ( desire/wish (hence Saami Potential) > desire/wish distanced (hence Finnish Conditional)

The morphosemantic process having led, for example, from the Proto-Finnic-Saami otta-ŋ ′ će-j to the Finnish form ottaisi must be quite old; it took place well before the Finnic protolanguage had begun to break up, and may have been as follows: ‘used to take’ > ‘took/ was taking’ (imperfective.) > ‘wanted/intended to take’ > ‘would take’. Principally similar processes must be conjectured in some other Finnic (Estonian, Livonian, Votian) and Saami languages, although the conditional suffix is different and goes back to the Proto-Finnic-Saami suffix combination *-kśe-j- where *-kśe- is an old continuative/frequentative suffix and -j- the past tense marker. For example, Norwegian Saami has mânâšik ‘you would go’, and Estonian võtaksin ‘I would take’. In the Volgaic Mokša Mordvin the Second (imperfective) Preterite is used as conditional, then called Conjunctive. A treatment of the morphosemantic and pragmatic development of the Finnic and Saami conditional types and their typological connections is Lehtinen (1983) (cf. also ­Bartens 1980 on the Conditional and Potential in Saami). The relative ages of the different types and some renewal processes are studied in Lehtinen (2006). In addition, conditionals are motivated by imperfective aspect meaning in some Romance languages, for instance,

.  Fleischman (1989:  31–33, 37–38) has pointed out that the grammatical form denoting distance from the deictic centre in one dimension (e.g. temporal) may obtain functions of indicating distance in some other (e.g. modal) respect as well. Secondary narration is in many languages rendered by the pluperfect forms, on one hand, and future in the past by conditionals, on the other; these are examples of distance both in modal and in temporal respect (see Tommola 1992: 17).



Mood in Finnish

in Italian, where the Imperfect forms are used as conditionals (Bazzanella 1990; see also de Mulder this volume). The Finnish Conditional mood is used to refer to situations that are considered counterfactual, hypothetical, unreal or desirable by the speaker. In point of fact, counterfactual is only what can be verified as such retrospectively, something that perhaps was possible in the past, but was not realized, as in (6), expressed with the Past Conditional.

(6) Counterfactual; in protasis of a conditional clause

(Juhani Syrjä, Juho 18)

Tuskin ol-isi-n kumminkaan piiloutu-nut hardly be-cond-1sg still hide-ptcp.pst joukko-on, jos kutsu ol-isi käy-nyt. crowd-ill if call be-cond go-ptcp-pst ‘Nevertheless, I don’t think I would have hidden in the crowd, if there had been a call.’

A common feature for all uses is ‘unreal’; besides counterfactual, situations referred to can be (in order of increasing possibility): imagined (7), futural (8), optative (9) or denoted in directive utterances (10). Then, like the binary opposition between indicative “reality” and conditional “unreality”, a similar binary relationship can be established for the conditional meanings: between counterfactual (6) and all the different types of hypothetical functions (7)–(10). Of the hypothetical unreal meanings most “unlikely” are the conscious illusions in pretending uses (7a) and extravagant rhetorical utterances (7b).

(7) Imagined

a.

Childrens’ pretend play Se ol-is(i) isä ja tää ol-is(i) äiti. pron be-cond father and this be-cond mother ‘You (lit. it) would be father and I (lit. this) would be mother.’

b.

Hyperbolic (coll. proverb) Jos jos- sana-a ei ol-is[i], lehmä-t-kin lentä-is[i-vät]. if if- word-prtv neg cop-cond cow-pl=and fly-cond(-3pl) ‘If the “if ” did not exist, the cows would fly.’

(coll.)

Expected, planned and predicted situations are just as probable as future events can be; (8a) and (8b) are examples of indirect and free indirect discourse in narrative.

(8) Futural

a.

Indirect discourse (Marjaana Aumasto, Ilvesnainen) Hän tie-si, että joutu-isi asu-ma-an pron know-pst that must-cond dwell-3inf-ill



loppu+ikä-nsä metsä-ssä, mutta pennu-sta hän ei luopu-isi. end+age-poss3 forest-iness but cub-el pron neg forsake-cond

‘She knew that she would have to live the rest of her life in the forest, but she

wouldn’t forsake the cub.’



 Hannu Tommola

b. Free indirect discourse (Seppo Jokinen, Koskinen ja taikashow) Huomenna ol-isi taas tärkeä päivä ja tomorrow be-cond again important day and

harjoitel-ta-va aamu-sta lähti-en. exercise-pass-ptcp morning-el leave-1inf.instr

‘Tomorrow would be an important day again and one would have

to exercise from the morning up.’ Typical optatives are expressed in Finnish by simple sentences introduced by the conditional (jos ‘if ’) or the temporal (kun ‘when’) conjunction, usually with but also without the pragmatic enclitic particle -pa, but also by the mere verb in the conditional mood with the same enclitic (9).5

(9) Optative

a.

Desire/ wishful thinking: jos + cond(Annikki Marjala, Korvatunturin salaisuus) Ajattele, jos minä sa-isi-n se-n oma-kse-ni! think.imp if I get-cond-1sg it-gen own-trns-poss1sg ‘Think, if I got it for my own.’

b.

Desire: kunpa + cond (Mikko Sinisalo, Tiilet tietävät kuolemaa) Voi, kun-pa sa-isi-n puhu-a Roope-n kanssa ensin. oh when-ptl get-cond-1sg talk-inf Roope-gen with first ‘Oh, if only I could talk to Roope first.’

c.

Wishful thinking: cond-pa (Annikki Marjala, Korvatunturin salaisuus) Oi, se huokais-i, vo-isi-n-pa lentä-ä linnu-n selä-ssä! oh it sigh-pst can-cond-1sg-ptl fly-inf bird-gen back-iness ‘Oh, I wish I could fly on the back of a bird!’

Directive utterances in the Conditional often replace the Imperative in the hortative ­function, and are quite conventionalized in this use (inquiries and the like; Yli-Vakkuri 1986:  122–123; Kauppinen 1998:  190–193; Hakulinen et al. 2004:  1569–1570). In (10) there are different degrees of directness from fairly direct demands (10c) and polite requests (10b) to subtle suggestions (10e), in which, in fact, the situation referred to by the verb in the Conditional, is not unreal at all (cf. Kauppinen 1998: 183–186). Subjectless verb-first utterances can also replace the third-person Imperative (Jussive) in a directive speech act (10d).

.  In the Fennist tradition the term optative has been used for the obsolete or archaic 2nd person Imperative forms as ollos! ‘be!’, kuullos! ‘hark!’ or nukkuos! ‘sleep!’ (Hakulinen et al. 2004: 1570).



Mood in Finnish

(10) Directive a.

Polite inquiry/request: cond neg (Hakulinen et al. 2004: 1570) E-t ve-isi tä-tä posti-in men-ne-ssä-si? neg-2sg bring-cond this-prtv post-ill go-2inf-iness-poss2sg ‘Would you please post this letter for me when you go to the post office?’

b.

Request: cond (Hakulinen et al. 2004: 1571) Otta-isi-n yhde-n ässä-arva-n. take-cond-1sg one-gen ace-lottery_ticket-gen ‘Can I have an Ace-ticket, please.’

c.

Demand: Interrogative cond (Annikki Marjala, Kaamosyön sankarit) Vo-isi-tte-ko kerran-kin ol-la riitele-mä-ttä? can-cond-2pl-q once=and be-inf quarrel-3inf-abess ‘Don’t quarrel, would you mind, for once.’

d.

Jussive: Recommendation (also reproachful) (Hakulinen et al. 2004: 1570) Pysy-isi kotona-an. stay-cond at_home-poss3 ‘May s/he stay at home/S/he should stay at home’

e. Suggestion: ‘Polite information, in case…’ (Juhani Mäkelä, Mämmi Ltd.) Lähetti sano-i: Ol-isi kirje toimitusjohtaja Alarik Staki-lle. messenger say-pst be-cond letter managing-director Alarik Stak-all ‘The messenger said: There is (lit. would be) a letter for managing-director A.S.’

Conditional is typical of unreal (hypothetical and counterfactual) subordinate clauses: conditional, concessive (11b), desiderative (12), clauses of purpose (13) and comparison. In Finnish the Conditional is also employed in the protasis of potential concessive-­conditional constructions (11b), not only in counterfactual cases. This seems to be, at least partly, due to the fact that there is no separate concessive-conditional conjunction (‘even if ’), but the general concessive conjunction vaikka ‘although’ is also used in concessive conditionals. (11) Potential concessive-conditional a.

(see Tommola 2005; and forthcoming)

English: (Haspelmath & König 1998: 563) Even if we do not get any financial support we will go ahead with our project.

b. Finnish: Vaikka e-mme sa-isi-kaan taloudellis-ta though neg-1pl get-cond=and.neg economic-prtv

tuke-a, tule-mme jatka-ma-an projekti-a-mme. support-prtv come-1pl continue-3inf-ill project-prtv-poss.1pl

In complements of verbs of wishing, hoping etc., the Conditional is often used even if the main verb is in the Present (12), and, in purpose clauses the Conditional, apparently, is the preferred choice (13).





Hannu Tommola

(12) Complement of verbs of wishing

(Tittamari Marttinen, Seelan aurinkokello)

Mutta he toivo-vat kuitenkin, että sota kohta loppu-isi, 〈…〉 but they hope-3pl however that war soon end-cond ‘But, nevertheless, they hope that the war would be ended soon, 〈…〉’ (13) Purpose clause (Kristina Carlson, Maan ääreen) Ruumii-ni kerä-ä voim-i-a, jotta body-1sg collect-3sg strength-pl-prtv conjunction aivo-t jaksa-isi-vat teh-dä työ-tä. brain-pl have_strength-cond-3pl do-inf work-prtv ‘My body is gaining strength so that my brains could work on.’

3.3  The meaning and use of the Potential The Potential is marked with the suffix -ne-, with several allomorphs, in which -n- is assimilated with -l-, -r- or -s- (e.g. tul-le-e ‘probably comes’, pur-re-e ‘~ bites’, pes-se-e ‘~ washes’). The verb olla ‘be’ has a suppletive stem in the Potential: lie ~ lienee < ‘become’ (there is evidence from several Finno-Ugrian languages of the root *le- with futural meaning, cf. Hungarian inchoative len-/lesz, which is also used as a copula with future time reference). The morpheme -ne- is older than the Conditional suffix, and has equivalents in many Finno-Ugrian languages. There is, however, no evidence of a potential meaning, rather its function has been something comparable to subjunctive/conjunctive moods in various languages (in some Finno-Ugrian languages the reflex of this suffix is used as a Conditional marker, see Majtinskaja 1974: 312–313). In some Finnic languages the Potential has disappeared (Livonian and northern Estonian), in Finnish western dialects only the suppletive form lie(nee) of the verb ‘be’ has survived. The Potential is best retained in eastern Finnish and in some Karelian dialects (Laanest 1982: 328–329). In standard written Finnish the Potential is typical of formal styles, with a meaning of epistemic possibility. In dialects the uses are much more diversified, in different interrogative clauses (14) and epistemic suppositions, in some eastern dialects frequently in subordinate clauses (especially as the complement of negated cognitive verbs) and in the protasis of a real conditional construction, as well as in directives, estimations, predictions and evaluative judgments. The epistemic probability meaning dominating in the standard language seems to have been influenced by the western dialects (on which the written language was based); the Potential forms used in the data from dialects are very different in function. It can be inferred that at the same time as the epistemic meaning gained ground the form began to become rare, because it is easy to replace it with other epistemic expressions, like adverbs (ehkä, kai, kenties ‘perhaps’; mahdollisesti ‘possibly’ etc.) and modal verbs (taitaa, mahtaa ‘may, might’). On the meaning and use, and especially on the grammaticalization of the Finnish Potential, see Forsberg (1998: 208–406) and Forsberg (2000).



Mood in Finnish

(14) Interrogative: Potential of a modal verb (Veikko Huovinen, Porsaan paperit) Sumu ohene-e, mutta mahta-ne-e-ko päivä-llä-kään kokonaan haipu-a. fog thin-3sg but may-pot-3sg-q day-adess=and.neg totally scatter-inf ‘The fog is getting thinner, but who knows whether it’ll disappear entirely even ­during the day’ (15) Suppletive Potential of olla ‘be’

(M. Kamppinen et al., Riskit yhteiskunnassa)

a.

Potential Present Liene-e selvä-ä, että on ole-ma-ssa be.pot-3sg clear-prtv that be.3sg be-3inf-iness



yli+yksilöllis-i-ä arvostuks-i-a, 〈…〉 over+individual-pl-prtv value-pl-prtv



‘It is quite obvious that cross-individual values exist 〈…〉’

b. Potential Past Työntekijö-iden elinympäristö-n kannalta worker-gen.pl living_environment-gen postposition

negatiivinen sopeutuminen liene-e ol-lut tahaton-ta, 〈…〉 negative acclimatization be.pot-3sg be-ptcp.pst unintentional-prtv

‘From the point of view of the workers’ life milieu, negative acclimatization

may have been unintentional, 〈…〉’

4.  The use of the non-indicative moods in indirect discourse None of the Finnish moods is excluded in indirect, reporting clauses, and in free indirect discourse as such. However, besides the Indicative, only the Conditional can be regarded as productive, having some distinct functions specifically in indirect speech. First, whereas the Imperative may be used in spoken discourse, and in fiction imitating speech, to refer to commands or other kinds of requests etc. (see (16a)), it is not accepted in the standard language; it is usually the Conditional that one resorts to instead (16b). Secondly, the Conditional often expresses relative future time reference, without any non-factual meaning or overt sign of hesitation, as illustrated above in (8a) and (8b) of indirect and free indirect speech. (16) Directive: Imperative (a) & Conditional (b) (Hakulinen et al. 2005: 1403) a. Se sano-i että tuo-kaa tänne vielä pron say-pst that bring-imp.pl hereto still

eläime-nne kun to-i-tte kerran jo rehu-t. animal-poss2pl as bring-pst-2pl once already feed-pl ‘He/She said that bring here your animals, too, as you already brought the feed.’

b. Veli+poika huu-si että pitä-isi-n turpa-ni kiinni. brother+boy shout-pst that keep-cond-1sg gob-poss1sg shut ‘My brother shouted that I should shut up.’





Hannu Tommola

In addition to the standard case of free indirect discourse, the Conditional often marks reporting as quoted or as hearsay without repeating the introductory reporting clause (in a somewhat similar way as the German subjunctive in berichtete Rede). The employment in subordinate clauses has in some dialects been characteristic of the Potential, as indicated before (Section 3.3. with reference to Forsberg 1998 and 2000).

5.  Other expressions of modal meanings Space does not permit us to go into detail on the means of expression of modality in Finnish (for a fairly comprehensive treatment, see Kangasniemi 1992). Besides the grammatical mood marked in the verb, various types of modality can also be expressed by lexical and syntactic means. There are numerous modal adverbs and particles, as well as a multi-faceted set of auxiliary-type modal verbs. The modal verbs include voida ‘can’ (ability and epistemic possibility), saattaa ‘may’ (epistemic possibility), taitaa and mahtaa ‘may, might’ (probability or wondering, if…), as well as jaksaa ‘can’ (‘have the strength’), and the two verbs viitsiä ‘care’ and kehdata ‘not be ashamed’, predominantly used negated, etc. Some examples of modal adverbs and particles are: kai ‘presumably’, ehkä ‘maybe’, varmasti ‘surely’, varmaankin ‘probably’, tuskin ‘hardly’. Evidentiality is not grammatically marked in Finnish, while there is an indirective mood (modus obliquus) in Estonian and Livonian (see Metslang & Sepper this volume). The variation of the Quotative morphology is manifold in Estonian dialects (see Kask 1984: 220–285), and the relative recentness of the rise of this form category can also be concluded from its sparse distribution among the Finnic languages. In fact, its development exactly in these two languages was influenced by the contiguous Baltic languages (see the descriptions of mood in Latvian and Lithuanian by Holvoet this volume). The Pluperfect is employed in several languages for secondary narration, which is not surprising in view of the status of the Pluperfect as a relative tense. Even in Estonian the use of the Pluperfect is frequent where one could expect the Quotative.6 The assumed time of primary narration, the point of reference needed for a relative tense of anteriority may remain implicit. In Finnish, different degrees of evidentiality can be discerned in the use of different tenses, as illustrated in (17), where the fact of the burglary is communicated in the simple narrative Past, the details, reported presumably by the house owners, in the Pluperfect; and the time of the incidence, assumed by inference, in the Perfect (on the Perfect and the Pluperfect used to denote indirect evidentiality in Finnish dialects, see Kuiri 1984: 225–233).

.  There is still a slight difference in meaning: using the grammatical Quotative the speaker ensures a kind of hedging: s/he does not claim that what s/he is saying is true.



Mood in Finnish

(17) Hakulinen et al. (2004: 1510)7 Varkaat saivat saaliikseen huomattavan määrän tavaraa ja antiikkia pälkäneläisestä omakotitalosta viikonvaihteen aikana. Äimälän tien varrella sijaitsevaan omakotitaloon oli murtauduttu oven kautta ja sisältä oli viety mm. vanhoja kaapistoja ja rukki. Murto on tapahtunut 30.9.–2.10. välisenä aikana. ‘Thieves got (pst) plenty of loot, antiques and other objects from a house in Pälkäne during the weekend. The house on the road to Äimälä had been broken (plup) into through the door and a spinning wheel, old cupboards etc. had been stolen (plup). The burglary took (prf) place between Sept 30th and Oct 2nd.’

For additional means of expressing directive speech acts (instead of the Imperative), see the uses of the Conditional above.

6.  Conclusions The Conditional and the Potential are together with the Present and Past Indicative incorporated into a quadruple kernal bound form inventory of the Finnish verb, and, the analytical perfect forms added, a tense-mood-aspect system of eight grammemes can be distinguished. Even if the Imperative is classified as a mood, in accordance with tradition, it is nevertheless in many respects, syntactically and semantically, quite different from both other oblique moods. In Vhael’s Grammatica Fennica (1733: 82–89) the forms that were later to be called Potential are labelled “Present Subjunctive”, and the forms we today recognize as Conditional – “Preterite Subjunctive”. In the 19th century (for example, in Setälä 1880: 59–62) both were called Conjunctive, with the same distribution into tenses as in Vhael. Therefore it may be of interest to compare the structure of the Finnish mood form inventory, for example, with that of German. Table 5.  Finnish and German mood forms Finnish vetää, rakastaa

Present Preterite

Indicative

Potential

vetää/ rakastaa

vetänee/ rakastanee

Conditional vetäisi/ rakastaisi

veti/rakasti

Perfect

on vetänyt/ rakastanut

Pluperfect

oli vetänyt/ rakastanut

lienee vetänyt /rakastanut olisi vetänyt/ rakastanut

German ziehen, lieben Conjunctive

Indicative

er ziehe/liebe

er zieht/ liebt

er zöge/ liebte

er zog/ liebte

er habe gezogen/ geliebt

er hat gezogen/ geliebt

er hätte gezogen/ geliebt

er hatte gezogen/ geliebt

.  The morpheme-by-morpheme glosses are omitted because of the length of the example; only the tense of the verbs is given.



 Hannu Tommola

It is tempting to combine the Potential and the Conditional in one category where they would neatly fit in and fill up every slot, for the Potential in the Finnish dialects was at least formerly used with a “subordinate sense” (Forsberg 2000: 14), and the Present Conditional has no real time reference at all. Anyway, these moods in Standard Finnish have different modal meanings, epistemic possibility vs. various kinds of speculative unreality, and their functions show complementary distribution.

Abbreviations abess adess ess iness el ill instr prol prtv trns

Abessive Adessive Essive Inessive Elative Illative Instructive Prolative Partitive Translative

References Bartens, H.-H. 1980. Die Verwendung von Potential und Konditional im Lappischen [Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia/Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 177]. Helsinki: Suomalaisugrilainen Seura. Bazzanella, C. 1990. ‘Modal’ uses of the Italian Indicativo imperfetto in a pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 3: 237–255. Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The Chicago University Press. Dahl, Ö. (ed.). 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology. EUROTYP, 20–6]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. De Groot, C. 2000. The absentive. In Dahl (ed.),. 641–667. Fleischman, S. 1989. Temporal distance – a basic linguistic me­taphor. Studies in Language 13, 1: 1–50. Forsberg, H. 1998. Suomen murteiden potentiaali: muoto ja merkitys [Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 720]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Forsberg, H. 2000. The Finnic potential mood and the potential of Finnic. In Laakso (ed.),. 9–30. Grünthal, R. 2000. Typological characteristics of the Finnic languages: A reappraisal. In Laakso (ed.),. 31–63. Hajdú, P. 1966. Bevezetés az uráli nyelvtudományba (A magyar nyelv finnugor alapjai). Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Hakulinen, A. et al. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 950]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Hakulinen, L. 1968. Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys. Kol­mas, korjattu ja lisätty painos. Helsinki: Otava.



Mood in Finnish

Haspelmath, M. & König, E. 1998. Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology. EUROTYP 20–3]. Van der Auwera, J. (ed.), 563–640. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Holvoet, A. This volume. Mood in Latvian and Lithuanian, 425–443. Janhunen, J. 1982. On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen XLIV, 23–42. Helsinki. Kangasniemi, H. 1992. Modal Expressions in Finnish [Studia Fennica. Linguistica 2]. Helsinki: Suo­ malaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Kask, A. 1984. Eesti murded ja kirjakeel [Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia toimetised 16]. Tallinn: Valgus. Kauppinen, A. 1998. Puhekuviot, tilanteen ja rakenteen liitto. Tutkimus kielen omaksumisesta ja suomen konditionaalista [Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 713]. Helsinki: Suo­ malaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Korhonen, M. 1981. Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan [Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 370]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Kuiri, K. 1984. Referointi Kainuun ja Pohjois-Karjalan murteissa [Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura toimituksia 405; Joensuun yliopiston humanistisia julkaisuja 2]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Laakso, J. (ed.). 2000. Facing Finnic. Some Challenges to Historical and Contact Linguistics [Castrenianumin toimitteita 59]. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society & Department of Finno-Ugrian Studies of the University of Helsinki. Laanest, A. 1982. Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Autorisierte Übertragung aus dem Estnischen von Hans-Hermann Bartens. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Lehtinen, T. 1983. Suomen konditionaalin morfologisesta ja semanttisesta motivaatiosta. Virittäjä 87, 4: 482–507. Lehtinen, T. 2006. Konditionaalit kompostissa. In Kohtaus­paikkana kieli. Näkökulmia persoonaan, muutok­siin ja valintoihin. Nordlund, T. et al. (eds), 127–140. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Leskinen, H. 1970. Imperatiivin muodostus itämerensuomalaisissa kielissä I. Suomi. Helsinki: Suo­ malaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Majtinskaja, K.E. 1974. Sravnitel’naja morfologija finno-ugorskix jazykov. In Osnovy finno-ugorskogo jazykoznanija (voprosy proishoždenija i razvitija finno-ugorskih jazykov), V.I. Lytkin & K.I. Majtinskaja (eds), 214–382. Moskva. Metslang, H. & Sepper, M.-M. This volume. Mood in Estonian. 528–550. Sammallahti, P. 1998. The Saami Languages. An Introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji. Setälä, E.N. 1880. Suomen kielen lause-oppi. Oppikirjan koe. Helsinki: K.E. Holm. Tommola, H. 1992. The marking of future time re­ference in Finnish. In Future Time Reference in European Langu­ages II. [EUROTYP Working Papers. Series VI. No. 3]. Ö. Dahl, C. De Groot & H. Tommola (eds), 12–28. Stock­holm. Tommola, H. 2000. Progressive aspect in Baltic Finnic. In Dahl (ed.),. 655–692. Tommola, H. 2005. Ustupitel’nye konstrukcii v finskom jazyke. In Tipologija ustupi­tel’­nyx konstrukcij, V.S. Xrakovskij (ed.), 223–258. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Tommola, H. Forthcoming. Concessive constructions in Finnish. To appear in Typology of concessive constructions, V.S. Xrakovskij (ed.). Munich: Lincom. Vhael, B.G. 1733. Grammatica Fennica. Aboae: Excud. Johan Kiämpe. Viitso, T.-R. 1990. Eesti keele kujunemine flekteerivaks keeleks. Keel ja kirjandus 33: 456–461, 542–548. Yli-Vakkuri, V. 1986. Suomen kieliopillisten muotojen toissijainen käyttö [Turun yliopiston suoma­ laisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 28]. Turku: Turun yliopisto.



Mood in Estonian* Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper Tartu & Tallinn

1.  Introduction Estonian belongs to the Finnic group of the Finno-Ugric language family (see Tommola, this vo­lume). About one million people speak Estonian as a na­tive language; most of them live in the Republic of Estonia. The Estonian lan­guage emerged on the basis of the local tribal dia­lects between the 13th and the 16th centuries. Standard Estonian started to evolve in the 16th–17th cen­turies; it was mostly developed by the German clergy, who were then able to study, des­cribe, and develop this hitherto unknown language. Up to the 19th century there were two va­rieties of literary language, South and North literary Estonian. In the 20th and the 21st cen­turies mainly the native speak­ers of Estonian have been responsible for the study, deve­lopment, and use of Estonian in society. Common Estonian has emerged, a relatively homo­ge­neous tool of communication, which is used in whole Estonia and is close to the standard lan­guage. As for typology, Estonian is mainly an agglutinating language; how­ever, changes that began in the middle of the previous millennium have in­creased the role of fusion and analyticity. Both the noun and verb paradigms are mostly agglutinating; fusion is revealed in certain forms. Ana­lytic feat­ures include compound tenses and negative forms of the verb. In addition, there are large numbers of periphrastic constructions expressing various mean­ings that have not gram­maticalized into verb forms as yet. Estonian has had contacts with several languages. As a language be­long­ing to the Circum-Bal­tic area, Estonian shares some features with other lan­guages belonging to this language area, such as Latvian and Lithuanian. How­ever, the main and longtime language of influence has been German (Low, High, and Baltic German). The Germans colonized and ruled the coun­try from the 13th to the 19th century. More recent influences include Rus­sian, Finnish, and English.

*The research for this article was supported by grants Nos. 5970 and 6147 of the Estonian Science Foundation and by the target-financed research project SF180084s08 of the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research.



Mood in Estonian

2.  Verb categories of Estonian Estonian verb forms1 are divided into finite and non-finite forms. The finite forms occur as a pre­dicate and auxiliary verb or quasi-auxiliary verb. The non-finite forms (infinitives, par­ticiples, gerund, etc.) occur in other func­tions. The finite forms of the verb are divided be­tween six categories: tense, mood, voice, person, number, and polarity (the affirmative and the ne­ga­tive). Mood and person are not manifested in non-finite forms, where other ca­te­gories may still show restricted uses, cf. oota-ma wait-minf ‘wait’; ooda-ta-ma wait-imps-minf ‘(is said) to be waiting’; ooda-nud wait-pp ‘(had) waited’; ooda-tud wait-imps.pp ‘awaited’; ooda-tes wait-ger ‘(while) waiting’; oota-ma-ta wait-minf-abe ‘with­out waiting’. Aspect is not represented among the Estonian verb categories; ne­ver­theless, in a sentence aspect can be expressed in various ways, such as case alternation of the object, peri­phrastic progressive and resultative con­structions, verb derivation, and particle verbs (see Erelt, et al. 1993: 24−26; Mets­lang & Tommola 1995; Erelt 2003: 104−105). Ac­cording to the present grammatical description, Estonian has five moods: indicative, im­perative, conditional, quotative, and jussive. The ca­te­gory of tense in Estonian has two mem­bers: the present and the past. The pre­sent is the unmarked member of the category of tense and is associated with all the verb categories without any constraints. The past has three sub­types only in the indicative: the simple past (traditionally called the im­per­fect), the perfect, and the pluperfect; in the other moods the past reveals va­rious manifestations and con­straints. Compound tense forms consist of the finite form of the auxiliary verb olema ‘be’ and the past participle of the per­sonal or the impersonal. In addition to grammaticalized tenses, there are also some future and progressive constructions that are first and foremost us­ed in com­bination with unmarked members of other categories (Erelt et al. 1995:  237; Metslang & Tommola 1995; Metslang 1995). Voice is divided in­to the personal (active) and the im­personal (passive). The latter can be for­ med both from transitive and intransitive verbs; its tenses are formed by ana­logy with the personal. The semantic difference of the impersonal from the personal lies in the removal of the subject (similarly to the German man or es wird con­struction) and not turning the object into the subject that ag­rees with the verb, as is the case with the English or German passive. Ne­ver­the­less, there are also constructions with a pas­sive meaning (see Erelt et al. 1993; Torn 2002, 2006a, 2006b). There are three persons in the singular and three in the plural. The persons are in some cases not distinguished by means of verb forms; the same form for all the persons is used in the ne­ga­tive forms of the indicative and the conditional, in the entire quotative and the jussive; the use of forms without personal

.  In comparison to the closely related language Finnish, Estonian has mostly the same categories and similar forms, cf. Tommola, this volume.



 Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

e­ nd­ings is extending also in the conditional. In addition, there is some homonymy between oc­casional forms. The tendency towards the disappearance of the indication of person is re­vealed both in the disappearance of the previous indications of person (ne­ga­tive forms, con­dition­al, homonymous forms) and the emergence of new non-person-specific forms (quotative and jussive). It makes Estonian, for example, different from its closely related language Fin­nish, where the per­son is marked in all finite forms. At the same time Estonian is a pro-drop language, where the absence of the subject is highly common. Usually the referent of the mis­sing subject can be ­identified on the basis of the con­text or the verb form, but subjectless sent­ences are also used to refer to a gen­eral or an unspecified referent (Erelt et al. 1993: 40; Metslang 2004; Pa­ju­salu & Pajusalu 2004). Negation is expressed in Estonian by means of the pre-verb negative particle ei (which developed from the 3rd person form of the earlier ne­gative verb). The negative forms of the indicative, conditional, and quotative of the verb olema ‘be’ reveal in addition to the compound forms with the particle ei ‘not’ also some p‑initial simple forms that can be in­ter­preted as defective verbs, for example, pole ‘is not’; polnud ‘was not’; poleks ‘were not’; polevat ‘is said to be not’ (developed from such com­bi­na­tions with the negative verb as ep ole). The negative of the simple tenses of the im­perative and the jussive consists of a form of the defective pro­hi­bi­tion verb ära (imp.2sg); ärgem (imp.1pl); ärge (imp.2pl) or ärgu (imp.3, juss) and the verb base, whereas the mood and the person markers are attached to both (Erelt et al. 1995: 20, 226). The verb cate­gories are re­veal­ed most clearly in the paradigm of the indicative, see Table 1.

Table 1.  Indicative paradigm of the verb elama ‘live’ with personal pronouns (based on Erelt et al. 1995: 94) Tense

Voice

Person and number

Affirmative

Negative

Present

Personal

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

ma ela-n sa ela-d ta ela-b me ela-me te ela-te nad ela-vad

(ma ‘I’, sa ‘you.SG’, ta ‘he/she/it’, me ‘we’, te ‘you.PL’, nad ‘they’) ei ela

ela-ta-kse

ei ela-ta

ma ela-si-n sa ela-si-d ta ela-s me ela-si-me te ela-si-te nad ela-si-d

(ma, sa, ta, me, te, nad) ei ela-nud

ela-t-i

ei ela-tud

Impersonal Past

Personal

Impersonal

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

(Continued)



Mood in Estonian

Table 1.  (Continued) Perfect

Personal

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

Impersonal Pluperfect

Personal

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

Impersonal

ma ole-n ela-nud sa ole-d ela-nud ta on ela-nud me ole-me ela-nud te ole-te ela-nud nad on ela-nud

(ma, sa, ta, me, te, nad) ei ole ~ pole ela-nud

on ela-tud

ei ole ~ pole ela-tud

ma ol-i-n ela-nud sa ol-i-d ela-nud ta ol-i ela-nud me ol-i-me ela-nud te ol-i-te ela-nud nad ol-i-d ela-nud

(ma, sa, ta, me, te, nad) ei ol-nud ~ pol-nud ela-nud

ol-i ela-tud

ei ol-nud ~ pol-nud ela-tud

3.  Mood categories in Estonian The Estonian mood can be defined as a morphological category expressing the mode of re­port­ing (directness or indirectness of information), modality (assessment concerning the rela­tion between the action and reality), and directiveness of the communicative functions (see Erelt et al. 1995: 80–83). The concept of mode of reporting was introduced into the grammatical descrip­tion of Est­onian by Huno Rätsep (1971). The mode of reporting is bas­ed on the concept of evidentiality – the category that indicates the nature of evi­dence for a given statement. Direct evidentiality re­fers to information re­lying on a speaker’s perception. Indirect evidentiality can be divided into re­ported evidentiality and inferred evidentiality (see Willett 1988: 57–58). Verb forms ex­pressing indirectness can be found in the Baltic area, for example, in Latvian and Lithuan­ian (see Klaas 1997; Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Wälchli 2001; Holvoet, this volume); indirectness can be expressed also by cer­tain forms of the German subjunctive (see Thieroff, this volume), which have probably influenced the development of evidentiality in Estonian and Lat­vian. At the same time indirectness is not expressed by the verb paradigms of Finnish and Russian. Rätsep suggested the mode of reporting as a new supra-modal verb category for the gram­matical description of Estonian; it would serve as a criterion for dividing the moods on the basis of whe­ther they express direct or indirect information.2 According to the present gram­matical description, the mode of reporting is one of the markers for distinguishing between the moods. The direct mode of reporting is repre­sen­ted by the indicative (1) and the impe­rative (2). .  Differentiation of the mode of reporting and the mood as different categories would help to avoid such intersections of two moods in language description, as we see in Latvian (see Holvoet, this volume).





Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

(1) Vanaema loe-b ajalehte. grandmother read-3sg newspaper.prtv ‘Grandmother is reading a newspaper.’ (2) Loe ajalehte! read.imp.2sg newspaper.prtv ‘Read the newspaper!’

The marked, indirect mode of reporting is manifested in the quotative and the jussive (see Erelt et al. 2006; Sepper 2002, 2007; Erelt 2002a). The quotative can be regarded as the reported in­dica­tive (3). (3) Vanaema luge-vat ajalehte. grandmother read-quot newspaper.prtv ‘Grandmother is reported to be reading the newspaper.’

The jussive may also express a reported command, whereby it could be call­ed the reported im­pera­tive (4). (4) Mulle öeldi, et ma puha-ku ja luge-gu i.all say.imps.pst that I rest-juss and read-juss ajalehte, kui teised tööd teevad. newspaper.prtv when other.pl work.prtv do.3pl ‘I was told to have some rest and read the newspaper while the others are working.’ Nevertheless, there is some evidence that the jussive is more used to express op­ta­tivity (5). (5) Vanad inimesed puha-ku ja las-ku noortel tööd teha! old.pl people.pl rest-juss and let-juss young.pl.all work.prtv do.dinf ‘May the old people have some rest and let the young people do the work!’

A command can be expressed also by means of the conditional (6). (6) Mulle öeldi, et ma puhka-ksi-n ja I.all say.imps-pst that I rest-cond-1sg and loe-ksi-n ajalehte, kui teised tööd teevad. read-cond-1sg newspaper.prtv when other.pl work.prtv do.3pl ‘I was told to have some rest and read the newspaper while the others are working.’

As regards modality, what is important is the assessment whether the si­tuat­ion corresponds to rea­lity – most moods express a real situation (1)­­–(4); the con­ditional with an unreal meaning is marked (7). (At the same time the op­ta­tivity of the jussive belongs also to the modal mean­ings.) (7) Vanaema loe-ks ajalehte, kui ta grandmother read-cond newspaper.prtv if s/he oma prillid üles leia-ks. own spectacles up find-cond ‘Grandmother would read a newspaper if she were able to find her spectacles.’



Mood in Estonian

Directiveness is marked by the imperative (2) and the jussive (4); at the same time the con­ditional (6) can also be used to mediate a command. Tab­le 2 shows the core meanings of the moods. Table 2.  Core meanings of the Estonian moods as evidenced by the verb lugema ‘read’

Indicative (ma loe-n) Conditional (ma loe-ksi-n) Imperative (loe) Quotative (ma luge-vat) Jussive (ma luge-gu)

Mode of reporting: indirectness of ­information

Modal meaning: unreality

Function of ­communication: directiveness

– – – + +

– + – – –

– – + – +

The indicative is unmarked with regard to all three content features, being un­marked also by form; however, all the other moods have their own formal mar­kers. The indicative forms an op­po­sition with the quotative on the basis of in­di­rect­ness, with the conditional on the basis of un­real­ity, and with the im­per­a­tive on the basis of directiveness. The jussive is a peripheral mood with a number of uses, which has some functional closeness both with the con­di­tional and the imperative. The historically older categories, shared with the other Finnic lan­guages, include the in­di­ca­tive, the imperative, and the conditional. The Es­ton­ian language has lost the potential, which is still somewhat used, for example, in Finnish (see Tommola, this volume). As a separate lan­guage, Es­tonian developed the quotative and the jussive, whereas the development of quo­tative evidentiality in grammar was supported both by the Estonian dia­lects and the contact lan­guages (German and Latvian).

3.1  Imperative Similarly to other languages (see e.g. Hrakovskij 1992; Bybee et al. 1994: 210), the im­perative in Estonian is an exceptional mood for the reason that its personal forms are not homo­ geneous. Because of the pragmatic function the most central second-person forms show least variation with regard to mor­phology and semantics. The imperative paradigm is de­fec­tive; the 1st per­son singular form is absent. The 3rd person singular and plural forms show va­ria­tion, express various additional meanings, and are more susceptible to changes (Erelt & Metslang 2004). The imperative has only present tense forms. Because the gu-/ku-mar­ked third-person form can be used also with the 1st and 2nd person pro­nouns, it was singled out as the jussive mood in its own right in recent gram­mars. Researchers have discussed the place of the gu-/ ku-mar­ked form, ex­pres­sing a command directed at 3rd person, in the system of moods. All the uses of the gu-/ku-form share the feature that there is no one-to-one ­cor­res­pondence





Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

Table 3.  Imperative paradigm Tense

Voice

Person and number

Affirmative

Negative

Present

Personal

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl

– ela ela-gu ela-ge-m ~ ela-me

2pl 3pl

ela-ge ela-gu ela-ta-gu

– ära ela är-gu ela-gu är-ge-m ela-ge-m ~ är-me ela-me ~ är-me ela är-ge ela-ge är-gu ela-gu är-gu ela-ta-gu

Impersonal

between the pairs speaker – recipient and source of command − reci­pient of command. Therefore, all such uses have been regarded as the jus­sive, leaving the three-member imperative to express only commands of the 2nd person and the 1st person plural (Erelt et al. 1995: 83). In more re­cent discussions (Erelt 2002b; Erelt & Metslang 2004), researchers have thought that it would be expedient to return the third-person form, which is ho­mo­nymous with the jussive, to the tra­ditional paradigm of the imperative. Fol­lowing the latter treatment, the status of such past ten­ses as ol-gu be-gu ela-tud live-imps.pp ‘may it have been lived’ (see 3.4.) would re­main prob­le­matic. Table 3 shows the forms of the imperative. The gem-/kem-ending imperative of the 1st person plural imperative (ela-ge-m liveimp-1pl ‘may we live’) belongs to the high style; in ordinary com­muni­cation one would use the indi­ca­tive form (ela-me live-1pl ‘we live’) in­stead.3 Unlike the other moods, the negative of the im­perative and the jus­sive is expressed by the conjugable negative verb. The prohibitive 1st per­son plural form, derived from the indicative, fluctuates between the in­di­ca­tive and the im­pe­rative model; both the variant with the base of the main verb (är-me ela ‘may we not live’) and the variant with the personal ending (är-me ela-me) are used. The third-person form has a pa­ral­lel variant in the con­struc­tion with the particle las ‘let’: las ta elab ‘let him live’, las nad elavad ‘let them live’ (see 3.4.). The Proto-Finnic imperative marker was *-k, *-ka-/-kä-, which, in turn, may have been an affix of the verbal noun. -k was lost in the 2nd person singular (ela ‘live’); it survived in other forms. The ge‑/ke-, gem‑/kem-end­ings evolved as a result of the merging of the imperative mar­ker and the per­sonal ending ‑te or -me. The third-person marker *-ko-/-kö(‑gu/-ku in con­temporary Estonian) may have functioned as the optative; earlier the forms ended in markers denoting the singular and the plural, which were lost in Estonian (but have survived in the Finnish hän eläköön, he eläkööt); the vowel o became u in Estonian (Laanest 1982: 236; Erelt & Metslang 2004; Tommola, this volume). .  Similarly, the Finnish imperative form, e.g. ottakaamme ‘let’s take’ belongs to the high style; in Finnish the passive form otetaan! is used as the we-form.



Mood in Estonian

The core meaning of the imperative is directive: a command, pro­posal, request, etc. It is es­pe­cially unambiguous in the usage of the second-per­son forms, combining with verbs that de­note a situation depending on the will of an animate subject. (8) Kasta lilli! water.imp.2sg flower.pl.prtv ‘Water the flowers!’ (9) Ära muutu tüütavaks! neg.imp.2sg become.imp.2sg boring.trnsl ‘Don’t become boring!’ (10) Ära ole tüütu! neg.imp.2sg be.imp.2sg boring ‘Don’t be a bore!’

The semantics of commands does not fit in with sentences where there is no animate subject (11) or the subject cannot control the situation (12). Therefore, some sentences that can be seen in ad­ver­tise­ments look foreign from the point of view of Estonian (13); a sentence with the in­di­ca­tive would be more ap­propriate (14). (11) *Juhtu! occur.imp.2sg ‘Occur!’ (12) *Ole pikka kasvu! be.imp.2sg long.prtv height.prtv ‘Be of great height!’ (13) Võida 20,000! win.imp.2sg 20,000 ‘Win 20,000!’ (14) Sul on võimalik võita 20,000! you.ade be.3 possible win.dinf 20,000 ‘You can win 20,000!’

The gem-/kem-marked imperative of the 1st person plural is first and foremost used in festive rhe­toric to express a call, to make the recipient involved in the action and the positions of the speaker (15). (15) Pida-ge-m kalliks oma maad ja rahvast! hold-imp-3pl dear.trnsl own land.prtv and people. prtv ‘Let us hold our land and people in high esteem!’

The indicative form expresses a pragmatically unmarked command (16). In ac­tual use where the speaker and the recipient are discussing joint action, transi­tional cases, such as (17) are ra­ther common; they can be regarded either as only consideration and discussion, that is, as a state­ment, or as a call to ac­tion, that is, a command (Erelt & Metslang 2004).





Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

(16) Kutsu-me arsti! call-1pl doctor.gen ‘Let’s call a doctor!’ (17) Mida teha, kui palavik ei alane? – Kutsu-me arsti. what.prtv do.dinf if fever neg come_down call-1pl doctor.gen ‘What shall we do if the fever does not come down? – Let’s call /we’ll call a doctor.’

The 3rd person form expresses a wish (18) or a command (19). The interpretat­ion often re­mains unclear – is the recipient expected to forward the will of the speaker or not (20). (18) Min-gu sul eksamil hästi! go-imp.3 you.ade exam.ade well ‘May you have success with your exam.’

(19) Need, kellel

töö tegemata, jää-gu siia! those who.ade work do.minf.abe remain-imp.3 here ‘May those remain here who did not do their assignments.’ (20) Müüja rääki-gu oma sõbrannaga kohvikus, salesperson speak-imp.3 own friend.f.com café.ine mitte leti taga! neg counter.prtv behind ‘The salesperson should speak to her friend at a café and not behind the counter!’

A wish can be expressed also by other imperative forms, including with verbs that do not com­bine with the imperative expressing a command. They are mostly fixed constructions of wishes (21). (21) Saa õnnelikuks! Kasva suureks! Ole terve! become.imp.2sg happy.trnsl grow.imp.2sg big.trnsl be.imp.2sg healthy ‘Be happy! Grow up! Have a good health!’

The imperative is secondarily used for the expression of concession (22), also in some fixed phrases with third-person forms: tulgu mis tuleb, saagu mis saab ‘come what may’. (22) Pinguta palju tahad, tööga sa rikkaks ei saa. effort.imp.2sg much want.2sg work.com you rich.trnsl neg become ‘No matter how much effort you put into it, you will never be rich through work.’

The central imperative forms serve as a source for such pragmatic particles and formulae as kuule ‘listen’, näe ‘see’, vaata ‘look’, kuulge ‘listen’, vaadake ‘look’, mine tea ‘you never know’ (lit. ‘go know’); Mine metsa! ‘go to hell’ (lit. ‘go to forest’); Ole terve! ‘may you be in good health’ (lit. ‘be healthy’); Ole tubli! ‘keep up with the good work’ (lit. ‘be fine’); Ole mõnus! ‘have fun’ (lit. ‘be pleasant’). Analysis of oral conversations shows that usually the imperative and not the jussive or the con­ditional is used to mediate a command (23). The im­pe­rative and a statement with



Mood in Estonian

deontic mo­dality can replace each other – the imperative is used to express a non-directive obligation (24); however, it is highly common that directiveness is softened with statements carrying deon­tic modality (25)–(27). Also, one can hide directiveness by means of the conditional (27), (29); the recipient can by expressed by an oblique form (26), or the recipient may be im­plicit (27). A command can be expres­sed also by means of statements without a modal verb (28) and questions (29), where the verb is in the indicative or in the conditional (Metslang 2004). (23) Ta ütles meile, et tul-ge jälle. s/he say.pst.3sg we.all that come-imp.2pl again ‘S/he told me to come again.’ (24) Aasta lõpus läheb kiireks, muudkui käi year.gen end.ine go.3sg quick.trnsl nothing_but go.imp.2sg jõulupidudel ja lõpeta tegemata töid. Christmas_parties.pl.ade and end.imp.2sg do.minf.abe job.pl.prtv ‘The end of the year will be hectic, you have to attend Christmas parties all the time and do the undone jobs.’ (25) Me pea-me selle töö ära tege-ma. we must-1pl this.gen job.gen off do-minf ‘We have to get this job done.’ (26) Su-l tule-b see töö ära teh-a. you-ade come-3sg this job off do-dinf ‘You’ll have to get this job done.’ (27) Pea-ks poodi mine-ma. must-cond shop.ill go-minf ‘You should go to the shop.’ (28) Sa lähe-d nüüd poodi! you go-2sg now shop.ill ‘Now you will go to the shop!’ (29) Kas sa lähe-ksi-d poodi? Q you go-cond-2sg shop.ill ‘Would you go to the shop?’

3.2  Conditional The conditional has two tenses: the present and the past (which has the ana­lytic form as the per­fect in the indicative, but does not make a distinction be­tween the meanings of the simple past, the perfect, and the pluperfect). In ad­dition, the Estonian language reform in the 1920s intro­duced a new syn­thetic past form, which is an artificial compound form





Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

(cf. analytic past ole-ks ela-nud and synthetic past ela-nu-ks ‘would have lived).4 A similar but, as a rule, longer form (ela-nu-vat ‘is told have lived’) has been sug­gested for the quotative, see 3.3. The con­di­tional forms are used either together with the personal endings or without them, whereas the data of the spoken lan­guage show the retreat of the personal endings (Pajusalu & Pajusalu 2004). Table 4 presents the paradigm of the conditional. In fact, the separate pre­sen­tation of the simple past form is somewhat conventional because it has ta­ken root on a limited scale and in a more literary usage, but it is spreading in more frequent and shorter verbs (võinuks ‘could have’, tulnuks ‘would have come’) and is not used in the impersonal. Table 4.  Paradigm of the conditional Tense

Voice

Person number

Affirmative

Negative

Present

Personal

1sg

ma ela-ks(in)

2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

sa ela-ks(id) ta ela-ks me ela-ks(i-me) te ela-ks(i-te) nad ela-ks(id) ela-ta-ks

(ma, sa, te, me, te, nad) ei ela-ks

1sg

ma ole-ks(in) ela-nud

2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

sa ole-ks(id) ela-nud ta ole-ks ela-nud me ole-ks(i-me) ela-nud te ole-ks(i-te) ela-nud nad ole-ks(id) ela-nud

1sg

ma ela-nu-ks(in)

2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

sa elanu-ks(id) ta ela-nu-ks me ela-nu-ks(i-me) te ela-nu-ks(i-te) nad ela-nu-ks(id) ole-ks ela-tud

Impersonal Past (analytic)

Personal

Past (synthetic)

Personal

Impersonal

ei ela-ta-ks (ma, sa, te, me, te, nad) ei ole-ks ~ pole-ks ela-nud

(ma, sa, te, me, te, nad) ei ela-nu-ks

ei ole-ks ~ pole-ks ela-tud

.  A similar past form is also used in the dialects (see Pajusalu 1996) and among the genetically related languages in Karelian, e.g. Veps lugenuižin (Laanest 1982:  238). The academic grammar (Erelt et al. 1995: 95) presents the synthetic and analytic forms of both the conditional and the quotative as parallel past tense forms. Nevertheless, in the case of the synthetic form the use in the meaning of the compound tense is impossible, see Metslang 1991: 165.



Mood in Estonian

The conditional marker is -ks~-ksi-. Probably it comes from the conditional with the marker *kś, which developed in the southern dialects of Proto-Fin­nic (Lehtinen 2006). In functional terms the traditional conditional shares some common fea­tures both with the con­ditional and the subjunctive in other languages. The former is characterized by the implicit ‘if–then’ background in­for­ma­tion and its use in structures expressing condition; the latter typ­ic­ally reveals an abundance of other syntactic, textual, and pragmatic uses. The content of a sen­tence with a conditional predicate is not valid at the moment of ut­ter­ance. In the case of the present form (30) the situation is imaginary and even pos­sible under some circumstances; how­ever, the past form (31) points to ne­gation with regard to reality. (30) Ilusa ilmaga lähe-ksi-n randa. good.gen weather.com go-cond-1sg beach.ill ‘In the case of good weather I would go to the beach.’ (31) Kui ole-ksi-n tead-nud, ole-ksi-n tul-nud. if be-cond-1sg know-pp be-cond-1sg come-pp ‘If I had known, I would have come.’

The meaning of the conditional falls into two main types: the frame inter­pre­tation­ (‘if–then’ re­la­tion) and the intention interpretation (see Kauppinen 1998). Typical usage contexts in­clude sentences with a conditional clause (31), sentences with a conditional adverbial (30), con­cessive clauses (32), claus­es of purpose (33), clauses of comparison (34), the complement clause of a verb of perception (35), the sentence with ilma et negation clause (36), op­ta­ tive clauses (37), consideration questions (38), and reported commands, see (6) above. (32) Ta sõitis ära, kuigi oleks või-nud veel siia jää-da. s/he travel.pst.3sg away although be-cond can-pp yet here stay-dinf ‘S/he left although s/he could have stayed here for some more time.’ (33) Katsin suu käega, et teised cover.pst.1sg mouth.gen hand.com that other.pl mu muiet ei märka-ks. I.gen smile.prtv neg notice-cond ‘I covered my mouth with my hand so that the others would not see my smile.’ (34) Ta nägu oli nukker, nagu s/he.gen face be.pst.3sg sad as_if ole-ksi-d kõik maailma mured tema õlgadel. be-cond-3pl all world.gen worry.pl s/he.gen shoulder.pl.ade ‘His/her face was sad as if all the worries of the world were on his/her shoulders.’ (35) Näis, nagu lähe-ks kõik hästi. seem.pst.3sg as_if go-cond everything well ‘It seemed as if everything went well.’



 Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

(36) Ta lahkus, ilma.et ole-ks sõna-gi lausu-nud. s/he leave.pst.3sg without be-cond word-cl say-pp ‘S/he left without uttering a word.’ (37) Ole-ks homme ilus ilm! be-cond tomorrow fine weather ‘If only the weather were fine tomorrow.’ (38) Kas kirjuta-ks veel paar lehekülge? Q write-cond yet pair page.prtv ‘Would I/you/we write some more pages?’

The conditional predicate with a modal verb expresses desirability, undesir����������������� ­a­bility, a proposal to someone else or oneself but also a guess. (39) Sa ei pea-ks nii mõtle-ma. you neg must-cond so think-minf ‘You shouldn’t think like that.’ (40) See kleit või-ks sulle sobi-da. this dress can-cond you.all suit-dinf ‘This dress might suit you.’

The pragmatic use of the condition to express politeness is widespread (41)−(43); it often oc­curs together with a modal verb (especially together with peaks directiveness or to soften a state­ment and a wish expressed by tahaks ‘would like’). The subject is often unspecified, which is one of the ways to reduce directness (43) (Metslang 1999, 2003, 2004; Pajusalu & Pa­ju­sa­lu 2004). (41) See töö pea-ks homseks valmis saa-ma. this job must-cond tomorrow.trnsl ready become-minf ‘This job should be ready by tomorrow.’ (42) Kas direktoriga või-ks kokku saa-da? Q manager.com can-cond together get-dinf ‘Could I speak to the manager?’ (43) Lähe-ks nüüd koju! go-cond now home ‘We could go home now!’

3.3  Quotative The Estonian quotative has two tenses: the present and the past; the paradigm has forms for the affirmative and negative personal and impersonal. The quotative forms do not change in per­son but can be used together with the corresponding personal pronoun



Mood in Estonian

(see Table 1, 5). The pre­sent personal is ex­pres­sed in the affirmative by means of the finite vat-marked simple form, see (3) above, in the negative by means of the negative particle ei and the com­pound form of a verb base with the mood marker. The past tense is formed from the auxiliary verb ole-vat ‘be’ with the quotative marker and the past participle of the main verb. In addition to the analytic past tense form, there is also a synthetic nuvat-marked form (44), which is, in fact, not wi­de­spread (Sepper 2002). A possible reason for this is the circumstance that the single past participle is used in the same function (45). (44) Poiss kaota-nu-vat võistluse. boy lose-pst-quot competition.gen ‘The boy is reported to have lost the competition.’ (45) Poiss kaota-nud võistluse. boy lose-pp competition.gen ‘The boy is reported to have lost the competition.’

Table 5 presents the quo­tative paradigm together with the jussive paradigm. Table 5.  Quotative and jussive paradigms (Erelt et al. 1995: 96) Tense

Present Past

Voice

Quotative

Jussive

Affirmative

Negative

Affirmative

Negative

Personal Impersonal Personal

ela‑vat ela-ta-vat ole-vat ela-nud ~ ela-nu-vat

ela-gu ela-ta-gu

är-gu ela-gu är-gu ela-ta-gu

ol-gu ela-nud

är-gu ol-gu ela-nud

Impersonal

ole-vat ela-tud

ei ela-vat ei ela-ta-vat ei ole-vat ela-nud ~ pole-vat ela-nud ~ ei ela-nu-vat ei ole-vat ela-tud ~ pole-vat ela-tud

ol-gu ela-tud

är-gu ol-gu ela-tud

Dia­chronically the marker ‑vat consists of the present participle marker ‑v(a) and the partitive end­ing ‑t. The participle-based quotative emerged from such syntactic constructions where the main verb was that of speaking. In the source construction the partitive of the present par­tici­ple is in the func­tion of the object, for example, ütles Liina olevat haige ‘s/he said that Liina is re­ported to be ill’, ta räägitakse haige olevat ‘s/he is reported to be ill’. The participle in the con­struction acquired the meaning of reported speech, and the vatform was reanalysed as a fini­te verb form, whereby there was no need for a finite verb of speaking, and it was discarded (see Airila 1935; Camp­bell 1991). The core meaning of the quotative is indirect presentation of the mes­sage. The quotative marks that the speaker identifies himself or herself as the mediator of what was heard; s/he dis­tances her/himself from what was said and takes no responsibility for the truthfulness of what was said because s/he has not enough information about the





Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

truth value of the message. Dis­tancing from the message provides the speaker with the possibility to use the quotative as a polite­ness strategy. The expression of one’s opinion or sound knowledge in an indirect man­ner enables the speaker to present a si­tua­tion that is unpleasant for the recipient not as definite and commonly known but as a piece of gossip that the recipient may comment, deny, or even ig­nore (Toomet 2000: 257), see (46). Usually the quotative is used to dis­cuss something that hap­pened in some other place or at some other time, but it is also possible to denote some­thing that is happening here and now (47). (46) Sa ole-vat taas tööle hiline-nud. you be-quot again work.all be_late-pp ‘You are reported to have been late for work again.’ (47) Need dokumendid ole-vat siin ülemises laua sahtlis. these document.pl be-quot here upper.ine table.gen drawer.ine ‘These documents are reported to be here in the upper drawer of the desk.’

In addition to the quotative, Estonian has various other morphosyntactic means for the ex­pres­sion of reported speech. The compound tenses of the in­di­cative, the modal verb pidama ‘must, have to’ with ma-infinitive, the non-finite past participle and the da-infinitive occur in the quotative function as predicates. The indicative pluperfect in the quotative function, in spoken language also the rarely used per­fect (Toomet 2000: 255) usually indicate that the event had taken place before the mo­ment of speaking, that the speaker re­ports some information, or that one is dealing with a nar­rative. The pluper­fect and perfect forms distance the speaker from the event and the in­for­ma­tion and create the situation of reported message as in the sentence (48). When expressing ob­li­queness, one can omit the auxiliary verb olema ‘be’ as a rather unstressed element in the sen­tence, and the meaning will be carried by a single past participle, which can be used for all the persons in the singul­ar and in the plural (49). (48) Herman ol-i öel-nud-ki, et ju tema Herman be-pst say-pp-cl that likely he on-gi see Anna paratamatu saatus. be.3-cl this Anna.gen inevitable destiny Anna ol-i selle peale vait jää-nud, Anna be-pst this.gen on silent remain-pp kinnitamata aga ka ümber.lükkamata midagi. (CELL) confirm.minf.abe but also refute.minf.abe anything ‘Actually Herman had said that he is the one who is Anna’s inevitable destiny. Upon this Anna had remained silent, neither confirming nor refuting anything.’ (49) Ma/sa/ta/me/te/nad käi-nud eile teatris. I/you.sg/he/we/you.pl /they go-pp yesterday theatre.ine ‘I/you/he/we/you/they (are said) to have visited the theatre yesterday.’



Mood in Estonian

A single past participle as the predicate is identical in terms of the form and func­tion with the past participle predicate, which has survived in Estonian folk tales and is productive in nar­ra­tive texts; however, its diachronic develop­ment is different (see Künnap 1992; Muižniece et al. 1999: 529). Although the narrative past participle predicate occurs first and foremost in the sen­tence-initial position (50), (51), it is impossible to diachronically define whe­ther one is deal­ing with the elliptical perfect, pluperfect, or quotative past. Depending on the context the par­ticipial predicate may express the direct command, recommendation, and obliqueness. In ad­dition, the form may ex­press an indirect past command directed at the 3rd person (52), which pro­vides the basis for the formation of the jussive paradigm with two sets of past forms (see Table 6, Erelt 2002b). (50) Ela-nud kord kuningas ja ol-nud ta-l kolm poega. live-pp once king and be-pp he-ade three son.prtv ‘Once there lived a king, and he is reported to have had three sons.’ (51) Pere ol-nud kõik koos ja istu-nud family be-pp all together and sit-pp parajasti söögilauas ja äkki haka-nud just_then dinner_table.ine and suddenly begin-pp eeskojas hirmus lärm peale. (CELL) anteroom.ine terrible noise on ‘The whole family is reported to have been together and sitting at dinner table when a terrible noise is reported to have started in the anteroom.’ (52) Tul-nud eile õigel ajal koju! come-pst.pp yesterday right.ade time.ade home ‘You should have come home in time last night!’

The da-infinitive in the function of an independent predicate that is characteristic of the finite verb (53) has a North Estonian dialect background and de­veloped from the non-finite con­struc­tion similarly to the quotative, which de­veloped from the participial construction (Mägiste 1952: 359–360). (53) Poiss olla haige. boy be.dinf ill ‘The boy is said to be ill.’

The indicative imperfect form pidi ‘had to’ of the deontic modal verb pidama ‘must, have to’ gram­maticalized into the auxiliary verb of the post-modal quotative through the intermediate stage of epistemic modality (Erelt 2001). When accompanied by the ma-infinitive, the past mean­ing of the verb form pidi became neutralized, and the construction expresses the present (54) or reports on the basis of what was heard or read what is likely to hap­pen in the future (55); the construction is also used for the wording of pre­dic­tions, including the weather report (56).



 Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

(54) Ta pid-i haige ole-ma. s/he must-pst.3sg ill be-minf ‘S/he is said to be ill.’ (55) Suvel pid-i Madonna Eestisse tule-ma. summer.ade must-pst.3sg Madonna Estonia.ill come-minf ‘Madonna is reported to visit Estonia in summer.’ (56) Homme pid-i ilus ilm tule-ma. tomorrow must-pst.3sg fine weather come-minf ‘It is said that the weather will be fine tomorrow.’

For example, the verb elama ‘live’ has the following forms with quotative func­tion in the pre­sent personal: ela-vat live-quot, ela-da live-dinf, pid-i ela-ma must-pst live-minf; the forms of the same verb with the past quotative mean­ing include ole-vat ela-nud be-quot live-pp, oll-a ela-nud be-dinf live-pp, on ela-nud be.prs live-pp, ol-i ela-nud be-pst live-pp, ol-nud ela-nud be-pp live-pp, ela-nud live-pp. The marking of obliqueness is not obligatory – for example, the use of the indicative is highly com­mon in a report with a reporting clause (57). (57) Öeldi, et ta on haige. say.imps.pst that s/he be.3 ill ‘It was said that s/he is ill.’

3.4  Jussive and particle las As the functional essence of the jussive and its categorical nature are concerned, re­searchers have come up with various views during the past decades, which can be explained by the different treat­ment of diachronic and synchronic ma­terial (for a more detailed discussion see 3.1.). The academic grammar of Estonian calls the gu‑/ku‑marked paradigm the jussive or the con­cessive mood, which is isomorphic with the quota­tive paradigm; the negative word of the jus­sive is ärgu (see Table 5 and 3.3.). The primary function of the jussive is to express a reported com­mand (Erelt et al. 1995: 96, 83). (58) Liina ütles, et tul-gu ametnik ise Liina say.pst.3sg that come-juss official himself/herself dokumentidele järele. document.pl.all after ‘Liina said that the official should himself come and collect the documents.’

The secondary functions of the jussive include the meanings of direct command (59), malignant plea­sure (60), accusatory attitude (61), and concession (62) (Erelt et al. 1995: 83). The concessive mean­ing is emphasized by means of the par­ticles pealegi and kas või. (59) Ol-gu su-l homme paberid kaasas! be-juss you-ade tomorrow paper.pl with ‘May you bring the papers with you tomorrow!’



Mood in Estonian

(60) Min-gu, ega see heaga ei lõpe! go-juss neg.ptl this good.com neg end ‘He can go, but it will end in a disaster.’ (61) Mina kä-igu tööl ja hoolitse-gu I go-juss work.ade and take_care-juss laste eest ja sina aina reisid! child.pl.gen for and you all_the_time travel.2sg ‘Why should I work and take care of the kids, and you are travelling all the time!’ (62) Sada-gu pealegi homme vihma. fall-juss all_right tomorrow rain.prtv ‘May it rain tomorrow, no problem.’

Erelt (2002) claims that the primary meaning of the gu-/ku-forms include (a) deon­tic necessity, that is, whether someone is forced or not forced to do some­thing, and (b) optativity. The deon­tic-modal meaning has been supplement­ed with a secondary reference to the source of com­mand (evidential mean­ing); the verb form pidi ‘had to’ developed into the quotative auxiliary verb in a similar manner. Thus, obliqueness and directiveness are not defining features but ex­press modality and wish. Also, the past participle tends to ex­press wish rather than command, as in (52), especially when it oc­curs together with the particle eks (63). (63) Eks jäe-tud mulle kiri uksele. ptl leave-imps.pp I-all letter door.all ‘Someone must have left a note for me on the door.’

For this rea­son Erelt includes the par­ti­cipial predicate in the jussive paradigm as a simple past form. The com­pound form of the jussive should be regarded as the perfect jussive, which se­man­tically ex­presses the future in the past (Erelt 2002b). Table 6 shows the jussive paradigm with two pasts. Table 6.  Jussive paradigm (according to Erelt 2002b: 116) Voice Personal

Tense Present Past Perfect

Impersonal

Present Past Perfect

Jussive Person

Singular

Plural

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

ma kirjutagu sa kirjutagu ta kirjutagu – sa kirjutanud ta kirjutanud ma olgu kirjutanud sa olgu kirjutanud ta olgu kirjutanud kirjutatagu kirjutatud olgu kirjutatud

me kirjutagu te kirjutagu nad kirjutagu – te kirjutanud nad kirjutanud me olgu kirjutanud te olgu kirjutanud nad olgu kirjutanud



 Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

One has to note, however, that the previously mentioned past forms are periph­e­ ral, indeed. Ac­cor­ding to another diachronic treatment, the gu-/ku-forms develop­ed from the optative, that is, a paradigm that expresses wish. The purest op­ta­tive meaning occurs in curses and swear words (64). The original mean­ing of the gu-/ku-paradigm, which developed from the 3rd per­son optative, was wish (65) or necessity/inevitability (66); it gave rise to (a)  3rd person im­pera­tive, (b)  reported imperative, and (c)  concessive (Erelt & Metslang 2004). (64) And-ku jumal andeks! give-juss god gift.trnsl ‘May god forgive!’ (65) Saa-gu ta terveks! become-juss s/he healthy.trnsl ‘May s/he be well!’ (66) Poliitikud mõel-gu rohkem rahva peale! politician.pl think-juss more people.gen on ‘May politicians think more about people!’

The optative origin of the jussive is supported by the las-construction, which expresses modal mean­ings that are similar to the gu-/ku-paradigm and provides the same developments. In ad­dition to the imperative meaning of the 3rd person (see (71) below), the las-construction has evidential (72) and concessive uses (73), (74). The semantic shifts and parallels with the gu-/ku-paradigm are shown in Figure 1.  3rd  

 



-gu/-ku



las

Figure 1.  Function shifts of the optative and the permissive construction (Erelt & Metslang 2004: 173)

The particle las has grammaticalized with the causative-permissive meaning of the verb laskma ‘let’ from the imperative construction lase + da-infini­ti­ve: lase ela-da ‘let live’. Upon gram­ma­tica­lization at first the particle las re­tains the meaning of dynamic modality but stops func­tioning as a verb and oc­curs only in an unstressed position in the sentence and carries the mean­ing of the permission of the action directed at the recipient or the 3rd person. The per­missive use is possible with the 1st (67) and the 3rd person (68) but not with the 2nd person be­cause semantically permission cannot be directed at oneself (*las sa istud ‘allow you to sit’). As a particle las underwent short­ening and lost its role as a semantic predicate in the sen­tence. For this reas­on, it has no category of affirmation/negation (69) and no ability to ag­ree with a subject (70) (Metslang 2000; Erelt & Metslang 2004).



Mood in Estonian

(67) Las me istu-me. let we sit-1pl ‘Allow us to sit.’ (68) (69)

Las ta istu-b. let he sit-3sg ‘Allow him to sit.’ *Ära las Liina aita-b sind. neg.imp.2sg let Liina help-3sg you.prtv

(70) *Sa las Liina aitab sind. you let Liina help-3sg you.prtv

In the case of the 3rd person imperative the speaker’s permission has become a command that the recipient forwards to the 3rd person, that is, the speak­er directs the command not at the reci­pient but the 3rd person (71). By con­trast, in the case of the evidential imperative the source of the command is un­known; the speaker acts as a mediator of the command received from the 3rd person (72). (71) Las Liina aita-b sind! let Liina help-3sg you.prtv ‘May Liina help you!’ (72) Arst ütle-s, et las Liina oota-b ukse taga. doctor say-pst.3sg that let Liina wait-3sg door.gen behind ‘The doctor said that Liina should wait behind the door.’

In the concessive meaning the enabler is reduced to an indefinite imaginary per­son who does not any more affect the action expressed by the predicate verb (73). In the concessive mean­ing the particle las may also occur with the da-infinitive (74). (73) Las nad vaidle-vad pealegi, küll nad ükskord ära tüdi-vad. let they argue-3pl all_right certainly they once away get­_bored-3pl ‘They may argue as long as they like, I’m sure they will get bored in the end.’ (74) Las nad vaiel-da pealegi. let they argue-dinf all_right ‘May they argue if they like.’

4.  Conclusions The old Estonian moods with clear-cut spheres of use and obligatory usage con­texts include the indicative, the imperative, and the conditional. The quo­ta­tive and the jussive are more re­cent and have re-grammaticalized from other verb forms after the Estonian language set itself a­part from the other Fin­nic languages. Their development was affected by the



 Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper

gram­ma­tica­lization of evidentiality in the Circum-Baltic area – the quotative reports a sta­ te­ment, the jus­sive reports a command. Their use is not grammatically ob­lig­atory; usually the report remains in the form of the unmarked mood − in the indicative or the imperative. However, they have a num­ber of additional meanings and shades of meaning. Although peripherally used, these two moods with their linguistic peculiarity and developments have caught the at­tention of lin­guists. The development of the jussive on the basis of the optative has follow­ed a widespread gram­maticalization tendency, where the means of expres­sing modality become means of ex­pressing mood. The agent-centred mod­al verb laskma ‘let’ in Estonian has become the speaker-centred particle las. At the same time the particle carrying the meaning of mood and the quo­ta­tive constructions act as manifestations of analyticity in Estonian.

Abbreviations abe ade all cl dinf el ger ill imps ine juss minf prtv pp trnsl

abessive adessive allative clitic da-infinitive elative gerund illative impersonal inessive jussive ma-infinitive partitive past participle translative

References Airila, M. 1935. Katsaus viron kielen oratio obliqua’an. Suomi 5(16): 46–59. Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The Chicago University Press. Campbell, L. 1991. Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implica­tions. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 19], E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds), 285–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



Mood in Estonian 

CELL (Corpus of the Estonian Literary Language). (18 July 2007). Erelt, M. 2001. Some notes on the grammaticalization of the verb pidama in Estonian. In Estonian: Typological Studies V [Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 18], M. Erelt (ed.), 7–11. Tartu: University of Tartu. Erelt, M. 2002a. Evidentiality in Estonian and some other languages: Introductory remarks. Linguistica Uralica XXXVIII(2): 93–97. Erelt, M. 2002b. Does Estonian have the jussive? Linguistica Uralica XXXVIII(2): 110–117. Erelt, M. 2003. Structure of the Estonian language. Syntax. In Estonian Language [Linguistica Uralica Supplementary Series 1], M. Erelt (ed.), 93–129. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. Erelt, M., Kasik, R., Metslang, H., Rajandi, H., Ross, K., Saari, H., Tael, K. & Vare, S. 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II. Süntaks. Lisa: kiri. M. Erelt, T. Erelt, H. Saari & Ü. Viks (eds). Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut. Erelt, M., Kasik, R., Metslang, H., Rajandi, H., Ross, K., Saari, H., Tael, K. & Vare, S. 1995. Eesti keele grammatika I. Morfoloogia. Sõnamoodustus. M. Erelt, T. Erelt, H. Saari & Ü. Viks (eds). Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Eesti Keele Instituut. Erelt, M. & Metslang, H. 2004. Grammar and pragmatics: Changes in the paradigm of the Estonian imperative. Linguistica Uralica XL(3): 161–178. Erelt, M., Metslang, H. & Pajusalu, K. 2006. Tense and evidentiality in Estonian. In Topics in Subjectification and Modalization [Belgian Journal of Linguistics 20], B. Cornillie & N. Delbeque (eds), 125–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Holvoet, A. This volume. Mood in Latvian and Lithuanian. 425–443. Hrakovskij, V.S. 1992. Tipologija imperativnyh konstrukcij. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Kauppinen, A. 1998. Puhekuviot, tilanteen ja rakenteen liitto. Tutkimus kielen omaksumisesta ja suomen konditionaalista [Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 713]. Helsinki: Suoma­laisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Klaas, B. 1997. The quotative mood in the Baltic Sea area. In Estonian: Typological Studies II [Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 8], M. Erelt (ed.), 73–97. Tartu: University of Tartu. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Wälchli, B. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. In The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact, Vol. 2: Grammar and Typology [Studies in Language Companion Series 55], Ö. Dahl & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 615–750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Künnap, A. 1992. Elanud kord. Keel ja Kirjandus 4: 209–215. Laanest, A. 1982. Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Lehtinen, T. 2006. Konditionaalit kompostissa. In Kohtauspaikkana kieli: näkökulmia persoonaan, muutoksiin ja valintoihin [Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 1078], T. Nordlund, T. Onikki-Rantajääskö & T. Suutari (eds), 127–140. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Metslang, H. 1991. Ajast ja tema vormist verbitarindeis. Keel ja Kirjandus 3: 163–168. Metslang, H. 1995. The progressive in Estonian. In Tem­poral Reference, Aspect and Actionality, Vol. 2: [Typological Perspectives], P.M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham & M. Squartini (eds), 169–183. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier. Metslang, H. 1999. Is the Estonian and Finnish conditional actually a conditional? In Estonian: Typological Studies III [Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 11], M. Erelt (ed.), 159–184. Tartu: University of Tartu. Metslang, H. 2000. Reflections on the development of a particle in Estonian. In Estonian: Typological Studies IV [Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 14], M. Erelt (ed.), 59–86. Tartu: University of Tartu.



Helle Metslang & Maria-Maren Sepper Metslang, H. 2003. Eesti konditsionaali funktsioonidest muude keelte taustal. Paper presented at the seminar “Viisakas keel ja keeleline viisakus”. Tartu, 17 November, 2003. Metslang, H. 2004. Imperative and related matters in everyday Estonian. Linguistica Uralica XLI(4): 243–256. Metslang, H. & Tommola, H. 1995. Zum Tempussystem des Estnischen. In Tense Systems in European Languages II, R. Thieroff (ed.), 299–326. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Muižniece, L., Metslang, H. & Pajusalu, K. 1999. Past participle finitization in Estonian and Latvian. In Estonian: Typological Studies III [Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 11], M. Erelt (ed.), 128–157. Tartu: University of Tartu. Mägiste, J. 1952. Eesti nn. da-infinitiivilise kaudse kõneviisi selgituseks. Tulimuld. Eesti Kirjanduse ja Kultuuri Ajakiri 6: 357–361. Pajusalu, K. 1996. Multiple Linguistic Contacts in Southern Estonian: Variation of Verb Inflection in Karksi [Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 54]. Turku: Turun yliopisto. Pajusalu, R. & Pajusalu, K. 2004. The conditional in everyday Estonian: Its forms and functions. Linguistica Uralica XLI(4): 257−269. Rätsep, H. 1971. Kas kaudne kõneviis on kõneviis? Keel ja struktuur 5: 45–69. Sepper, M.-M. 2002. Evidentsiaalsuse väljendamine eesti kirjakeeles ühe sajandi jooksul. In Väikeste keelte kontaktid [Võro Instituudi Toimindusõq 14], K. Pajusalu & J. Rahman (eds), 185–206. Võro: Võru Instituut. Sepper, M.-M. 2007. Indirectal in literary Estonian. Trames: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 11(3): 299–323. Thieroff, R. This volume. Mood in German. 133–154. Tommola, H. This volume. Mood in Finnish. 511–527. Toomet, P. 2000. Mõnest kaudsuse väljendamise võimalusest tänapäeva eesti keeles. Keel ja Kirjandus 4: 251–259. Torn, R. 2002. The status of the passive in English and Estonian. Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 7: 81–106. Torn, R. 2006a. poolt-tarind eesti keele impersonaalis ja passiivis. In Lause argumentstruktuur [Preprints of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 2], P. Penjam (ed.), 108–121. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool. Torn, R. 2006b. The Estonian periphrastic passive. In Finest Linguistics. Proceedings of the Annuual Finnish and Estonian Conference of Linguistics. Tallinn, May 6–7, 2004. [Publications of the Department of Estonian of Tallinn University 8], K. Kerge & M.-M. Sepper (eds), 73–92. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press. Willett, T. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of eviden­tiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97.

Mood in Hungarian Casper de Groot Amsterdam

1.  Introduction The term mood is used in language descriptions for the morphological category that covers the grammatical reflections of a large semantic area. This area can be subdivided into two smal­ler ones: the first concerns the area of il­locution, the second the area of modality. This sub­division is warranted on semantic grounds: the category of illocution is concerned with iden­tifying sen­tences as instances of specific types of speech act, whereas the category of mo­da­lity is concerned with the modification of the content of speech acts. Apart from these se­mantic differences, there are also formal reasons to distin­guish between the two areas. In the ex­pres­sion of illocution the morpholo­gical category of mood has to compete with word order and intonation as mar­kers of particular sub-distinctions, whereas modality is expressed by mood markers only.1 A fourth parameter relevant to the discussion of mood in Hungarian is that of factuality, i.e. the quality of the communicated content being actual (opposed to vir­tual) or based on fact. I will argue in this paper that the relations between the four parameters mood, illocution, moda­lity, and factuality are the following: Mood Illocution Modality Factuality

Indicative Declarative Interrogative

Subjunctive Behavioural

Factual

Conditional

Condition Non-factual

Figure 1.  The parameters defining ‘Mood’ in Hungarian

2.  General information about Hungarian Hungarian (Uralic, Finno-Ugric) is spoken by about 10.2 million people in Hun­gary and about 12.7 million in the Carpathian Basin. Hungarian is also found as a minority language through­out most of Western and East Central Eur­ope, as well as in North America,

.  This distinction is from Dik (1997: 241) and Hengeveld (2004).



Casper de Groot

South America, Au­stralia, South Africa, and Israel.2 This study is based on Hungarian spoken inside Hun­gary.3 Hungarian is generally classified as an SOV language. The adjective and the genitive precede the noun (A–N Gen-N), and the language has postpo­si­tions. Constituent order in Hun­garian is, however, relatively free. All 24 per­mu­tations of, for instance, a clause consisting of a verb, subject, object, and indirect object or some other constituent yield grammatical ut­terances. The pragmatic context in which these clauses are used dictates part of the order of con­stituents. Clauses generally have the constituent specifying the prag­matic function of topic in initial position, followed by the element with the function of focus, and then the verb. Schema­tically:

(1) Topic, Focus, Verb, other elements

Morphologically, Hungarian can be characterized as an agglutinative language (with vowel harmony). It has a rich case system of about 17 cases and syn­thetic forms for various verbal and nominal categories. There is almost a one-to-one relation between lexical and gram­ matical elements and the morphemes in a word. Derivational morphemes immediately fol­low the stem; in­flectional (aspectual) morphemes may precede the stem, and all other in­flec­­tional morphemes follow the stem or the derivational morphemes. Sche­ma­tically:

(2) asp-stem-der-infl

3.  The verbal categories4 Verbal agreement. In Hungarian there is agreement between the Verb and the subject (person and number) and the object (definiteness). The different types of agreement are fused into one suffix, i.e. they do not correspond to dis­tinct morphemes. The suffix -ok in (3a) cor­responds to the first person sin­gular subject and the indefinite object (a newspaper), whereas the suffix -om in (3b) corresponds to the first person singular subject and the definite ob­ject (the newspaper).5 There is one exception in the paradigm, i.e. there is a suffix .  I refer to Fenyvesi (2005) for references about the distribution of Hungarian speakers around the world and grammatical variation between Hungarian spoken inside Hungary and Hungarian spoken outside Hungary. .  See Kenesei, Vago & Fenyvesi (1998) for a comprehensive description of the Hungarian language. .  I refer to Törkenczy (1997) for a detailed morpho-phonological description of the Hungarian verbal system. The description also includes vowel harmony (the set of vowels per affix available from which a choice is made) and various kinds of assimilation. An example of all forms of a verb is given in Appendix 1. .  There is a massive amount of literature on the (in)definiteness conjugations in Hungarian. For a comprehensive discussion of the distribution of the two conjugations, I refer to de Groot (2009).



Mood in Hungarian

which marks a first person singular subject together with a second per­son (singular or plural) object as in (3c). (3) a.

Újság-ot olvas-ok. newspaper-acc read-1sg.indec ‘I read a newspaper.’

b. Az újság-ot olvas-om. the newspaper-acc read-1sg.dec ‘I read the newspaper.’ c.

Lát-lak. see-1sg. subj.2sg/pl.obj ‘I see you.’

Tense. Hungarian distinguishes between three tenses: Present, Past, and Future. Present and Past are marked on the verb (zero marking and overt marking, respectively), whereas Future takes a periphrastic form with the auxiliary element fog.6 (4) a.

Present Pali javít-Ø-ja az öreg órá-t. Paul repair-prs.3sg.dec the old clock-acc ‘Paul repairs the old clock.’

b.

Past Pali javít-ott-a az öreg órá-t. Paul repair-past.3sg.dec the old clock-acc ‘Paul repaired the old clock.’

c.

Future Pali javít-ani fog-ja az öreg órá-t. Paul repair-inf fut.3sg.dec the old clock-acc ‘Paul will be repairing the old clock.’

Aspect. Hungarian distinguishes between Imperfective and Perfective aspect.7 When Im­per­ fec­tive aspect is used, reference can be made to a point in time within the temporal structure of the event. This is not possible when the Perfective aspect applies. For that reason, example (5a) but not (5b) and (5c) combines with a phrase of the type When I called, because such a phrase specifies a point of time. The Imperfective form of a verb is zero mar­ked, whereas the Perfective takes a morpheme which either attaches to the verb as a prefix or follows the verb as a free morpheme. The position of the perfective morpheme depends on the focus of the clause. When there is no emphatic focus as in (5b), the ­morpheme occurs

.  See Csató (1994) for a description of Tense and Actionality in Hungarian. .  In the sense of Comrie (1976).





Casper de Groot

as a prefix to the ver­bal stem. When there is an emphatic focus as in (5c), the morpheme takes the po­si­tion fol­low­ing the verb. (5) a.

Pali Ø-javította az öreg órá-t. Paul ipfv-he_repaired the old clock-acc ‘Paul repaired the old clock.’

b. Pali meg-javította az öreg órá-t. Paul pfv-he_repaired the old clock-acc ‘Paul repaired the old clock.’ c.

Pali az öreg órá-t javította meg. Paul the old clock-acc he_repaired pfv ‘Paul repaired THE OLD CLOCK.’

Pro­gressive aspect arises in Hungarian when primary sentence stress (indicat­ed by ′) is as­sign­ed to the verb. In those cases where the verb selects a pre­fix, this element will be placed after the verb similar to the construction in (5c). (6) Mari ′szállt le a villamos-ról, amikor láttam. Mary stepped down the tram-abl when I_saw_her ‘Mary was getting off the tram, when I saw her.’

In the examples used in this paper, I will treat Imperfective Aspect, Present Tense, and In­de­finite Conjugation as default, i.e. I will not gloss these catego­ries in the examples.

4.  Mood: basic illocutions The basic illocution of a sentence can be defined as the conversational use con­ventionally as­sociated with the formal properties of that sentence (cf. Sa­dock & Zwicky 1985: 155), which to­gether constitute a sentence type.8 By their very nature, basic illocutions are restricted to in­dependent sentences and quotations. The most frequently attested basic illocutions in lan­guages of the world are declarative, interrogative and imperative (Sadock & Zwicky 1985). The declarative sentence in (7) is conventionally associated with an assertion, the inter­rogative in (8) with a question, and the imperative in (9) with a command. Grammars of Hun­gar­ian generally recognize these three types of illocution. I will, however, show that Hun­garian does not distin­guish a separate illocution of imperative, but rather a more general il­lo­cu­tion of Behavioural. The three illocutions in Hungarian – if the interrogative is a yes-no ques­tion – are marked in a different prosodic way, i.e. each illocut­ion combines with a unique in­to­nation contour of the clause. Interrogatives which contain a question word

.  For the description of basic illocutions in Hungarian I will use the distinctions put forward by Hengeveld et al. (2007).



Mood in Hungarian

have the same in­to­nation as declaratives. In addition, the Behavioural is always marked by means of the af­fi x -j or alternative forms.9 (7)

Declarative A lányok filmet láttak. the girls film.acc they_saw ‘The girls saw a movie.’

(8)

Interrogative Hódmezővásárhely Magyarországon fekszik? Hódmezővásárhely Hungary_in lies ‘Is Hódmezővásárhely situated in Hungary?

(9)

Behavioural Men-j-etek haza! go-sbjv-2pl home ‘Go home!’

Apart from these most frequently attested basic illocutions there are several others that oc­cur with some frequency (cf. Sadock & Zwicky 1985). Among these are, for instance, Pro­hi­bi­tive, Hortative, and Optative, conventionally as­so­ciated with prohibitions, exhortations, and wishes. Below we will see that Hungarian Behavioural allows for a Hortative inter­pre­ta­tion. Basic Illocutions may be modified. Markers of illocutionary modificat­ion do not i­denti­fy sentences as speech acts of certain types, but rather mark much more general com­mu­ni­cative strategies on the part of the Speak­er: they reinforce or mitigate the force of the speech act (Hengeveld 2004). Ex­amples of the modification of the Polar Interrogative illocution and Be­ha­viour­al illocution in Hungarian will be discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1, re­spec­tively. Hengeveld et al. (2007) argue on the basis of a sample of 23 languages spoken in Bra­zil that basic illocutions can be grouped together in the following fashion. Illocutions can be divided in term of their communicat­ive use: propositional or behavioural. The first type en­com­passes assertion and questioning. By using an assertive or questioning illocution, the Speak­er wishes to assert some proposition to an Addressee or inform about some proposition from an Addressee. By using the Behavioural illocution, the Speaker wishes to influence the Ad­dressee as to his behaviour in a certain way.

.  There is morpho-phonological variation in the marking of the Subjunctive. The standard marker is -j. Verbal stems ending in -t­, s, sz,and z often show alternations where the -t disappears and a sibilant replaces the -j. I refer to Törkenczy 1997 for a detailed description of the distribution of forms used in the Subjunctive.





Casper de Groot

>

Assertive types are Declarative and Mirative. Questioning types are Polar Interrogative (yes-no question) and Content Interrogative (question word question). Behavioural types are Im­pe­rative, Hortative (exhortation), Pro­hi­bi­tative, Dishortative, Admonitive (warning), and Sup­plicative (request for permission). Figure 2 summarizes the different types and their im­plica­tional relations indicated by the arrow heads > and : if a language has the Supplicative it will also have the Admonitive, the Hortative and the Imper­at­ive, or if a language has the Pro­hibi­tative it will also have the Imperative.10 Declarative >

Assertive

Mirative Polar Interrogative >

Questioning

Content Interrogative Imperative

Prohibitative

>

Dishortative

>

>

>

Hortative >

Behavioural

Admonitive > Supplicative

Figure 2.  Typology of basic illocutions and their implicational relations

4.1  Assertive Hungarian does not morpho-syntactically mark Declarative mood, as can be seen in ­example (7) above. There is no distinct form to express Mirative as, for instance, in Albanian, hence there is just one basic assertive illocution, that of the Declarative.11

.  None of the 23 languages in the sample have an Optative. For that reason the Optative is not represented in the figure. I assume that the Optative would call for a fourth category. I will not enter this discussion, because Hungarian does not distinguish an Optative illocution. See É. Kiss (to appear) for a discussion of an optative construction in Hungarian. .  Kenesei et al. (1998: 25) give some examples of exclamation. They cannot be considered to be expressions of a distinct speech act. Albanian has both the Declarative and the Admirative mood. The latter one is used to express surprise, doubt, irony or sarcasm on the part of the speaker (Newmark et al. 1982: 76).



Mood in Hungarian

4.2  Questioning Hungarian distinguishes between both types of Interrogatives: Polar Interro­gat­ives (4.2.1) and Con­tent Interrogatives (4.2.2).12 The different types can be defined in the following fashion: (10) a.

Polar Interrogative By using the Polar Interrogative, A Speaker requests an Addressee to tell whether a certain proposition is true or false.

b. Content Interrogative By using the Content Interrogative, a Speaker requests an Addressee to iden­tify or specify some part of a predication.

4.2.1  Polar Interrogative Polar Interrogatives or yes-no questions in Hungar­ian are marked by a specific low-highlow intonation pattern, where the pen­ultimate syllable is high and the last one low. (11)



Szegeden voltál? Szeged_in you_were ‘Were you in Szeged?’

Polar Interrogatives do not impose restrictions on the order of constituents. The order of the two constituents in (11) is not fixed, the alternative order would yield a grammatical utterance as well. The intonation patterns would be the same as in (11), where the high pitch would co­in­cide with the penultim­ate syllable -ed- in Szeg-ed-en. There would be, however, a different prag­matic meaning. In (11) emphasis is on the location Szeged. In the utterance with the al­ter­native order of constituents, the emphasis would be on voltál ‘were you’. In Polar Interrogatives the free morpheme vajon or the enclitic -e may be used.13 These forms express some kind of doubt, desire, or uncertain­ty on the part of the speaker.  They do not create sub-types of illocutions, but they modify the content of Polar In­ter­ ro­ga­tives, hence they belong to the area of modality and not illocution. Here are some examples. (12) a.

Jön-e Imre holnap? come-mod Imre tomorrow ‘Will Imre come tomorrow (or not)?’

.  In de Groot (2005) I labelled the different types as General Question and Special Question, respectively. I refer to this publication for a comprehensive description of the typology of question words in Hungarian. .  According to Hungarian orthography there is a hyphen between the clitic and the verb.





Casper de Groot

b. Vajon jön(-e) Imre holnap? mod come(-mod) Imre tomorrow ‘Will Imre come tomorrow?”

The intonation pattern characteristic of Polar Interrogatives applies in examples such as (12) too. The use of the modal elements does not change the in­to­nation pattern. The modal question markers are used obligatorily in the complement clause of verbs of wondering, as in (13a) or if one of the modal distinctions is expressed on the matrix level, as in (13b): (13) a.

Gondolgozom, hogy jön-e Imre holnap. I_wonder that come-mod Imre tomorrow ‘I wonder whether Imre will come tomorrow.’

b. Nem tudom, hogy jön-e Imre holnap. not I_know that come-mod Imre tomorrow ‘I don’t know whether Imre will come tomorrow.’

Embedded Polar Interrogatives do not take the characteristic intonation pattern as main clauses do.

4.2.2  Content Interrogative Content Interrogatives in Hungarian contain a ques­tion word and they take the same intonation pattern as Declaratives. The question word immediately pre­ce­des the verb, i.e. is in the focus position in the clause. The intonation pattern takes the fol­low­ing form: (14)



János mikor volt úszni? John when was swim ‘When was John off for a swim?’

A Declarative utterance specifying the time that János was off swimming, e.g. ma ‘today’ takes the same intonation as (14). Compare: (15)



János ma volt úszni. John today was swim ‘John was off for a swim today’

Hungarian is actually one of the few languages in the world where interrogative clauses of the type as in (14) does not have a rising intonation towards or at the end of the ­utterance. The for­mal marking of a Content Interro­ga­tive in Hungarian is thus the presence of a question word. A survey of the question words in Hungarian is presented in appendix 2.



Mood in Hungarian

4.3  Behavioural illocution The intonation pattern of the clause used with the Behavioural illocution is the same as that of the Declarative. The affix -j or alternative forms mark the Behavioural.14 The full paradigm is as follows: (16) Öl-j-ek Öl-j-él Öl-j-ön

kill-sbjv-1sg.indec kill-sbjv-2sg.indec kill-sbjv-3sg.indec

‘Let me kill.’ ‘Kill!’ ‘Kill!’, ‘Let him/her kill.’

Öl-j-ünk Öl-j-etek Öl-j-enek

kill-sbjv-1pl.indec kill-sbjv-2pl.indec kill-sbjv-3pl.indec

‘Let us kill.’ ‘Kill!’ ‘Kill!’, ‘Let them kill.’



kill-sbjv-1sg.dec kill-sbjv-2sg.dec kill-sbjv-3sg.dec kill-sbjv-1pl.dec kill-sbjv-2pl.dec kill-sbjv-3pl.dec

‘Let me kill it.’ ‘Kill it!’ ‘Kill it/ Let him/her kill it!’ ‘Let us kill it.’ ‘Kill it!’ ‘Kill it!’, ‘Let them kill it.’

kill-sbjv-sg.subj.2sg/pl.obj

‘Let me kill you.’

Öl-j-em Öl-j-ed Öl-j-e Öl-j-ük Öl-j-étek Öl-j-ék

Öl-j-elek

The interpretation of the Behavioural may be most of the subtypes given above in Figure 2, and it may also enter the area of modality. The following sections dis­cuss the different ­inter­pre­tations. It will become clear that none of the in­ter­pretations could be claimed to be the ex­pres­sion of one of the subtypes of the Behavioural illocution as a distinct illocution in Hun­gar­ian. Given the im­pli­cational relations between the subtypes of illocutions one may wonder whether the same implicational relations may hold between possible interpre­ta­tions of the Be­ha­vioural in a language. I will demonstrate so for Hungarian.

4.3.1  Imperative The interpretation of Imperative arises when a speaker com­mands an ad­dres­see to perform some action. The addressee may be sin­gular or plural, and the addressee may be addressed informally and formal­ly (polite form), in Hungarian reflected by using the se­cond or third person, respectively. In other words, four of the six forms in the paradigm may be used as an Imperative:

.  Kenesei et al. (1998: 24) also recognize that the term ‘Imperative’ for the use of -j in Hungarian is impropriate; it is rather a Subjunctive: “Technically speaking, it is here that (literal) third and first person imperative forms belong, thus providing an argument for their more appropriate classification as a form of subjunctive.”



 Casper de Groot

(17)

2nd sg 3rd sg 2nd pl 3rd pl

várj(ál) várjon várjatok várjanak

‘Wait!’ [informal singular] ‘Wait!’ [polite singular] ‘Wait!’ [informal plural] ‘Wait!’ [polite plural]



2nd sg 3rd sg 2nd pl 3rd pl

vár(ja)d Pált várja Pált várjátok Pált várják Pált

‘Wait for Paul!’ [informal singular] ‘Wait for Paul!’ [polite singular] ‘Wait for Paul!’ [informal plural] ‘Wait for Paul!’ [polite plural]

When the Imperative is used, the perfectivizing prefix is standard as a default and is pla­ced after the verb. For instance: (18) Zsuzsá-t vár-j-ad meg az állomáson! Zsuzsa-acc wait-sbjv-2sg.dec pfv the station.at ‘Go to meet Zsuzsa at the station!’

The Imperative in Hungarian may be modified, i.e. it may be reinforced. Kenesei, Vago & Fenyvesi (1998: 21f) mention that an Imperative may become a ‘threat’ if the verbal prefix is placed in its otherwise usual preverbal location. The in­to­nation is rising instead of the fall normal for Im­peratives. Compare (19) with (18): (19) Zsuzsá-t meg-vár-j-ad az állomáson! Zsuzsa-acc pfv-wait-sbjv-2sg-dec the station.at ‘Go to meet Zsuzsa at the station, or …!’

4.3.2  Hortative The interpretation of Hortative occurs in all person distinctions in the verbal pa­radigm. Consider: (20) a.

Hol vár-j-átok ők-et? where wait-sbjv-2pl.dec 3pl-acc ‘Where do you (pl) wait for them?’

b. Men-j-ünk tovább. go-sbjv-1pl further ‘Let’s go on.’ c.

Válassz, melyikkel öl-j-elek meg! choose.sbjv.2sg which.with kill-sbjv.1sg.2sg/pl pfv ‘Choose the one I kill you with.’

4.3.3  Prohibitive Utterances used as an Imperative together with a negation yield a Pro­hi­bi­ti­ve interpretation as in: (21) Ne men-j el. neg go-sbjv.2sg pfv ‘Do not go away!’



Mood in Hungarian

Note that the negative element in (21) differs from the negative element in De­cla­rative sen­ tences, namely ne instead of nem. The shorter form is used in all utterances where the Sub­ junc­tive is used, i.e. the verb is marked by the affix -j or alternative forms. In other words, the ne­gative form being different from the negative form in the Declarative cannot be taken to be a marker of a Prohibitive, but rather as the marker of negative uses of the Behavioural. This can be seen in the use of the negative form within the context of the Hortative interpretation, which yields a Dishortative interpretation, as de­mon­strated in the following section.

4.3.4  Dishortative The utterance in example (22) is used in the following con­text: Egy katona nem mondhatja, inkább én haljak meg, csakhogy téged, kedves ellenség, meg ne öljelek. ‘A sol­dier can’t say that, rather I die (SBJV), so that, you, dear enemy, I do not kill (SBJV).’ (22) Téged, kedves ellenség, meg ne öl-j-elek. you.acc dear enemy pfv neg kill-sbjv-1sg.2sg/pl ‘You, dear enemy, I do not kill.’

The Hortative use of the Behavioural together with negation yield the Dis­hor­tative inter­ pre­ta­tion in (22).

4.3.5  Admonitive There are no clear examples of the Behavioural with the in­ter­pretation of an Ad­moni­tive. This would then constitute a counter example against the idea that the im­pli­ca­tional relations between the subtypes of il­lo­cutions also apply to the interpretations, because the Supplicative interpretation does occur in Hungarian, as can be seen in the following sec­tion. 4.3.6  Supplicative With the form hadd it is possible to express a request for per­mission. Hadd is actually the form which corresponds to the second person definite conjugation of the Sub­junc­tive form of the verb hagy ‘let’. The lexi­cal verb in constructions with hadd ‘let’ is in­flec­ted with the -j affix and a personal ending. For example: (23) a.

Hadd men-j-ek a moziba! let.sbjv.2sg.dec go-sbjv-1sg the movie.ill ‘Please let me go to the movies.’

b. Hadd beszél-j-enek tovább! let.sbjv.2sg.dec talk-sbjv-3pl further ‘Please let them speak further.’

The analysis of constructions with hadd ‘let’ as a Supplicative accounts for the fact that the con­struc­tion only allows first and third person and not second person, since the Supplicative is a request for permission to the Addres­see (i.e. second person) about somebody else. The question arises whether hadd should be considered the expression of the Sup­pli­ca­ tive? If that were the case, it would be a counter-ex­ample against the implicational hierarchy



 Casper de Groot

pro­posed by Hengeveld et al. (2007) as in Figure 2, because other categories higher in the hierarchy would not be marked as separate illocutions. The expressions in (23), how­ever, could be analysed differently, namely that hadd is a matrix verb and the rest of the clause its com­plement. The reason for assuming this is the fact that hadd is marked for a definite object. Ex­ample (23a) could thus be paraphrased as: “You let it that I go to the movies!”, because an ob­ject clause counts as definite in Hungarian. Under this interpretation, the use of the -j affix on the lexical verb would be standard as we will see in Section 5 be­low: the Subjunctive mood is used in complement clauses, where the matrix verb expresses some force, wish etc. I con­ clude that hadd is not an element which exclusively marks Supplicative illocution, and con­se­ quently that Supplicative should not be distinguished as a separate illocution in Hun­gar­ian.

5.  Mood: modalities Basic illocutions such as Interrogative and Behavioural should be distinguish­ed from mo­dalities such as Dubitative, Necessitive and Volitive. Consider, for instance, the difference be­tween Interrogative and Dubitative. The ba­sic difference between the two is that sentences with Interrogative basic il­locution constitute questions, whereas sentences which contain a Du­bi­ta­tive modality report doubt. Thus, a speaker may execute an Assertive speech act using a Declarative sentence, within which he presents his doubts, rather than execute a question as such. An example illustrating this combination is gi­ven in (13a). A similar difference holds be­tween the basic illocution Beha­viour­al and modalities such as Necessitive and Volitive, as in some examples under (25). The examples with the affix -j in (24) and (25) correlate with dif­ferent types of modality.15 (24) In main clauses a. Wish Él-j-en a királynő! live-sbjv-3sg the queen ‘Long live the queen!’ b.

Dubitative Mit csinál-j-ak? what.acc do-sbjv-1sg ‘What shall I do?’

(25) In complement clauses a. Indirect speech Éva Feri-nek mondta, hogy vezes-s-en lassabban. Éva Feri-dat said that drive-sbjv-3sg slower ‘Eva told Feri that he should drive slower.’

.  See Note 9 concerning alternative forms of the general form -j.



Mood in Hungarian

b.

Complements of performative verbs16 Kíván-om hogy gyere. wish-1sg.dec that come.sbjv.2sg ‘I wish that you would come.’

c.

Purpose Iskolába jár, hogy nyelveket tanuljon. school.to go.3sg that languages.acc learn.sbjv.3sg ‘He attends school to learn languages.’

d.

Complements of deontic verbs Kell, hogy dolgozzunk. must that work.sbjv.1pl ‘It is necessary that we work.’

e.

Complements of adjectives Fontos, hogy ezt ne felejtsd el. important that this.acc not forget.sbjv.2sg pfv ‘It is important that you do not forget this.’

Note that the application of the affix -j in complement clauses cannot be con­sidered the ex­pres­sion of some illocution, because the domain of illocution is the main clause. An overall cha­racterization of the use of the affix -j as the Subjunctive in Hungarian does justice to the dif­ferent uses: the expres­sion of the Behavioural illocution, several modal distinctions, and the ver­bal form in various dependent clauses. There is more evidence supporting this view, na­mely, the position of the verbal prefix in complement claus­es. It will take the preverbal position and not the post verbal position as in main clauses. Compare: (26) a.

Nem menj el! not go.sbjv.2sg pfv ‘Do not go away!’

b. Apám nem akarja, hogy el-men-j-ek. my_father not want.3sg.dec that pfv-go-sbjv-1sg ‘My father does not want me to go away.’

6.  Mood: Conditional Hun­garian distinguishes a Conditional mood. The conditional is marked by the affix -n on the verbal stem.

.  Verbs such as: kér ‘request’, akar ‘want’, ajánl ‘recommend’, tanácsol ‘advise’, (meg)parancsol ‘command’, kíván ‘wish’, (el)vár ‘expect’.



 Casper de Groot

(27) Bár/Ha/Bár-ha tud-ná-nak

olvas-ni!

though/if know-cond-3pl read-inf ‘If they could read!’

The conditional is used in both the protasis and apodosis. Consider: (28) a.

Ha megtalál-n-ám Feri-t, (akkor) elmen-n-énk moziba. if find-cond-1sg.dec Feri-acc then go-cond-1pl movies_to ‘If I could find Feri, we’d go to the movies.’

b. Jó len-ne, ha több-et lát-n-ám. good be-cond if more-acc see-cond-1sg ‘It would be good, if I could see him/her/it more.’

It is not compulsory to use the conditional mood in sentences such as (28a). Both the protasis and apodosis allow the present tense and future tense, inde­pen­dently of each other: (29) a. b. c. d.

Ha meg-talál-om Feri-t, (akkor) elmegyünk moziba. if find-1sg.dec Feri-acc then go.1pl movies_to ‘If I find Feri, we’ll go to the movies.’ Ha meg fogom találni Feri-t, (akkor) elmegyünk moziba. Ha megtalálom Feri-t, (akkor) el fogunk menni moziba. Ha meg fogom találni Feri-t, (akkor) el fogunk menni moziba.

The conditional mood may also be used to formulate polite requests, as in: (30) Ad-n-ál egy pohár vizet? give-cond-2sg a glass water-acc ‘Would you give me a glass of water.’

Past tense conditionals form counterfactuals, as can be seen in the following examples: (31) a.

Ha megtalál-t-am volna Feri-t, (akkor) elmen-t-ünk volna moziba. if find-past-1sg cond Feri-acc then go-past-1pl cond movies_to ‘If I had found Feri, we would have gone to the movies.’

b. Jó lett volna, ha több-et lát-t-am volna. good be.past cond if more-acc see-past.1sg cond ‘It would have been good, if I had seen more.’

The form volna in past conditionals is the third person indefinite conditional of the verb van ‘be’.

7.  Conclusion The description of mood in Hungarian can be best given on the basis of the idea that mood is the form or expression of a large semantic area consisting of illocution and parts of the do­main of modality. A significant difference be­tween the expression of illocution on the one hand and modality on the other is that word order and intonation may be relevant to the ex­pres­sion of



Mood in Hungarian

il­lo­cution, but not to modality. Morphological expressions – taking the same form – may be relevant to both illocution and modality. Apart from Mood, Il­lo­cution and Modality as parameters I argue that a fourth parameter, that of Factuality, is required to account for other uses of the affix -j on verbs. The following figure summarizes the different values of the para­meters: Mood Illocution Modality Factuality

Indicative Declarative Interrogative Factual

Subjunctive Behavioural

Conditional

Condition Non-factual

Figure 1.  The parameters defining ‘Mood’ in Hungarian

Figure 1 shows that both Declarative and Interrogative illocution take the In­di­cative form and that the communicated content is actual or based on fact. The third type of basic illocution dis­tinguished is the Behavioural, which finds it expression in the Subjunctive mood. The Sub­junc­tive is also us­ed in non-factual utterances. The modal distinctions in those cases are not spe­cified in the figure, apart from the Conditional, which is related to the third mood, the Con­ditional. New in the paper is the explicit claim that Hungarian does not distin­guish the Im­pe­ ra­tive or Hortative, but the Behavioural illocution. The morpho­lo­gical form which corresponds to the Behavioural, i.e. the affix -j, allows for a great number of interpretations for which in some other languages distinct illocutions must be posited. These interpretations are Im­pe­ra­tive, Hortative, Prohibitive, Dishortative, and Supplicative. Contrary to what can be predicted on the basis of a sample of languages, Hungarian does not allow for the Admonitive inter­pre­ta­tion of the Behavioural.

Abbreviations dec definite conjugation mod indec indefinite conjugation

(some kind of) modality

References Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP. Csató, É.Á. 1994. Tense and actionality in Hungarian. In Tense Systems in European Language, R. Thieroff & J. Ballweg (eds), 231–243. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. de Groot, C. 2005. The typology of question words in Hungarian. In Papers from the Düsseldorf Conference [Approaches to Hungarian 9], C. Piñón & P. Siptár (eds), 111–131. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. de Groot, C. 2009. Identifiability and verbal conjugation in Hungarian. In The Interpersonal Level of Functional Discourse Grammar, Special Issue of Linguistics 47–7, 997–1019. M. van Staden & E. Keizer (eds). Dik, S.C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.



 Casper de Groot É. Kiss, K. to appear. On a type of counterfactual construction. In Approaches to Hungarian 12. T. Laczkó, C. Ringen, Gy. Rákósi (eds). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Fenyvesi, A. (ed.). 2005. Hungarian Language Contact Outside Hungary: Studies on Hungarian as a Minority Language [IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society 20]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hengeveld, K. 2004. Mood and modality. In Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word formation, Vol. 2, G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (eds), 1190–1202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hengeveld, K. et al., 2007. Basic illocutions in the native languages of Brazil. Alfa – Rivista de Lingüística (Special issue: Advances in Functional Discourse Grammar) 51(2): 73–90. Kenesei, I., Vago, R.M. & Fenyvesi A. 1998. Hungarian [Descriptive Grammars]. London: Routledge. Newmark, L., Hubbard, P. & Prifti, P. 1982. Standard Albanian. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Sadock, J.M. & Zwicky, A.M. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. I, T. Shopen (ed.), 155–196. Cambridge: CUP. Törkenczy, M. 1997. Hungarian Verbs & Essentials of Grammar. Chicago IL: Passport Books.

Appendix 1 Verbal paradigm All forms of öl ‘kill’ (imperfective). The Perfective form is: megöl ‘kill’. The lexical entry of verbs in Hungarian is the form of third person singular, present tense, indicative. This form is ac­tually the stem of the verb. ‘Indefinite’ refers to the conjugation which is used when the object counts as in­de­fini­te, and ‘definite’ to the conjugation which is used when the object counts as definite. The forms which do not fall under one of these headings are the forms which are used when the sub­ ject is first person singular and the object second person singular or plural.

subjunctive

indicative

Table 1.  Verbal paradigm of Hungarian Present indefinite definite ölök ölöm ölsz ölöd öl öli ölünk öljük öltök ölitek ölnek ölik ölelek öljek öljem öljél öljed öljön ölje öljünk öljük öljetek öljétek öljenek öljék öljelek

Past indefinite öltem öltél ölt öltünk öltetek öltek öltelek

definite öltem ölted ölte öltük öltétek ölték

Future indefinite definite ölni fogok ölni fogom ölni fogsz ölni fogod ölni fog ölni fogja ölni fogunk ölni fogjuk ölni foktok ölni fogjátok ölni foknak ölni fogják ölni foglak

(Continued)



Mood in Hungarian

Table 1.  Verbal paradigm of Hungarian (Continued)

conditional

Present

Past

indefinite

definite

indefinite

ölnék

ölném

öltem volna

ölnél

ölnéd

ölne

ölné

ölnénk

ölnénk

ölnétek

ölnétek

ölnének

ölnék ölnélek

Future definite

indefinite

definite

öltem volna öltél volna ölted volna ölt volna ölte volna öltünk volna öltük volna öltetek volna öltétek volna öltek volna ölték volna öltelek volna

Appendix 2 Question words in Hungarian Table 2.  Question words in Hungarian Reference

ki mi melyik kié

who what which whose

Modification

milyen miféle mifajta mekkorra

what what kind what kind what size

Quantification

hány mennyi hányadik hányad

how many how much how many-eth what fraction

Manner

hogy(an)

how

Depictive

miként

as what

Space

hol hova/hová honnan

where where to where from

Time

mikor

when

Cause

miért

why



part viii

Other European languages

Mood in Maltese Martine Vanhove Paris

1.  Introduction Maltese is one of the two Semitic languages spoken in Europe.1 Situated in the very centre of the Mediterranean Sea, Malta, a new member of the E.U., has long been a strategic place for the control of the Mediterranean area. When the Muslims took over Malta in 870, they also brought with them a variety of Maghribi Arabic of which today’s Maltese is an offspring. But, sin­ce the expulsion of the Muslims from the islands in 1250, it has been almost entirely cut off from the rest of the Arabic speaking community. Since then, the Maltese language has had deep and pervasive contacts with Sicilian, Italian, and nowadays with English. Maltese is now the national and of­fi­cial language2 of Malta. These longstanding contacts have produced ra­di­cal changes, such as massive lexical borrowings, loss and acquisition of pho­nemes, syntactic cal­ques, but also peculiar developments of structures in­her­ited from Arabic, such as a flour­ish­ing system of auxiliaries. Still, Maltese has retained many genetic features of an Arabic ver­na­cular, such as the lexi­cal structure based on stems and consonantal roots. However, these fea­tur­es are receding in some categories, e.g. the verbal derivation system, yet not in others, e.g. the nominal plural patterns.3 One of the most spectacular consequences of language contact is the spelling system, which was adopted in 1934 during British rule over the is­lands: Maltese is written with a Latin-bas­ed alphabet.4 From a typological point of view, it has to be mentioned for the pur­pose of this study that Mal­tese is an inflectional language, with an SVO ca­no­nical word order, and finite and non-finite verb forms.

.  The other one is Kormakiti Arabic, a highly endangered language of Cyprus. .  The latter status is shared with English. .  For a general overview of the consequences of language contact over Maltese, see Vanhove (2000) and (2001). .  This alphabet will be used throughout this presentation, even though most of the examples are taken from the oral data I recorded during fieldwork in the late 1980-s. The particular symbols of the Maltese alphabet are the following: ċ, voiceless palatal affricate; ġ, voiced palatal affricate; għ, etymological spelling lengthening or diphthongizing the adjacent vowel; ħ, voiceless pharyngeal fricative; ie, opening diphthong; q, glottal stop; x, voiceless velar fricative; ż, voiced dental fricative; z, voiced dental affricate.



Martine Vanhove

2.  Verbal categories The morphology of the finite verb forms, as far as moods are concerned, is bas­ed on a binary dis­tinction between Indicative and Imperative. Within the In­di­cative, the basic opposition is as­pec­tual (Perfective vs Imperfective), but it is undergoing an evolution towards a more com­plex system (see below). The voice distinctions are historically a matter of verbal derivation, and the deriva­ tion­al pat­terns express both passive (or middle) and reflexive values, depending on the se­man­tics of the ver­bal or nominal base. To­day, the derivation system is frozen, and Maltese pre­ferab­ly makes use of pe­ri­phrastic constructions with auxiliaries, which distinguish between a pas­sive and a re­fle­xive voice. As a matter of fact, the Maltese language has developed a very rich verbal system bas­ed on 45 auxi­liaries, which form periphrases subdivid­ing the system into more aspectual, Ak­tions­arten, mo­dal, and temporal va­lues, as well as epistemic and deontic (i.e. agentorient­ed) modalities. This results in some 200 different periphrases, which would be beyond the scope of this chap­ter to describe all.5 From a morphological viewpoint, one has to note that the two ver­bal elements of the peri­phras­is, the auxiliary and the core verb, are both finite verbs in most constructions, i.e. both forms are fully inflected for TAM, gender, and number. In a few instances one of them may be a non-finite verb form, i.e. either the active or the passive participle: e.g. the Pro­ gres­sive auxi­liary is an active participle, and the core verb is a finite form, the Imperfective; on the con­trary, the passive auxiliaries are finite forms (Per­fective or Imperfective, depending on the as­pect), and the core verb is a pas­sive participle.

2.1  Morphology of the Indicative and Imperative moods The basic aspectual distinction in the Indicative between the Perfective and the Imperfective is marked by a vocalic alternation (which varies according to semantic and phonetic rules), and an opposition between a suffix conjugat­ion (Perfective) and a prefix one (Imperfective), as in other Arabic varieties. The Imperative mood is morphologically derived from the Imperfec­tive, minus the per­son dis­tinction. The gender opposition only exists for 3rd person singular. Plural mar­kers are suffix­ed for both ten­ses, but person markers are suffixed in the Per­fec­tive and prefixed in the Im­per­fective. Be­low is an example of the conjugation of the basic verb stem for the verb kiteb ‘write’:

.  For a complete description of the Maltese verbal system, see Vanhove (1993).



sg 1 2 3m 3f pl 1 2 3

Mood in Maltese

Perfective ktib-t6 ktib-t kiteb kitb-et ktib-na ktib-t-u kitb-u

Imperfective n-i-kteb t-i-kteb j-i-kteb t-i-kteb n-i-ktb-u t-i-ktb-u j-i-ktb-u

Imperative i-kteb

i-ktb-u

Maltese, as Arabic, also has derivational patterns expressing mainly causative, intensive, pas­sive-reflexive, and denominative values. All the derived forms have similar inflectional mar­kers, with phonetically conditioned minor changes.6

2.2  The morphology of the non-finite verb forms Verbs of Arabic origin may have two participial forms. The active participle is characterized by a long diphthongized vowel ie after the first consonan­tal root, but this category is residual, and only occurs with a dozen verbs. The passive participle, more common, is characterized by a m(V)- prefix (and a long u: after the second consonantal root, for the basic stem): Masculine active nieżel passive mi-ktub

Feminine nieżl-a mi-ktub-a

Plural niżl-in ‘going down’ mi-ktub-in ‘written’

Verbs of Romance and English origin (and some rare Arabic ones), only have a ­(productive) pas­sive participle, made with a suffix borrowed from Italian, either -at, or more rarely -ut and -it: ippumpj-at ‘pumped’, iċċekkj-at ‘checked’, spell-ut ‘spelled’, iddivert-it ‘amused’.

2.3  The morphology and morphosyntax of voices Two different systems are used for the expression of voices: the morpholo­gi­cal derivation in­heri­ted from Arabic, and periphrastic constructions, which are calques of Romance languages.

.  For the sake of this part of the description, the morphological boundaries are marked by a hyphen, which is not used in the orthography for this purpose (it only marks the boundary between the article and the noun).





Martine Vanhove

2.3.1  The inherited derivational system As already mentioned, the derivational devices are now frozen and limited to verbs of Arabic  ori­gin, with few exceptions dating back from the time when the system was still productive. The passive-reflexive voice is derived with two main devices:7 – –

A prefix n- is added to the basic form: kiteb ‘write’, n-kiteb ‘be writ­ten’, firex ‘spread’, n-firex ‘be spread’. A prefix t- is added to quadriconsonantal roots (j-i-t-bandal ‘it is swung’), and to the in­ten­sive-causative derived form: ferrex ‘spread fre­quently’, t-ferrex ‘be scattered’.

The middle-reflexive voice (which in a few cases may also have a passive value) is character­ iz­ed by -t-, infixed after the first consonant of the root: f-t-akar ‘remember’. Some basic verbs may have both derived forms with the prefix n- and the infix -t-: fehem ‘un­der­stand’, n-fehem and f-t-ehem or f-t-iehem ‘be un­der­stood’.

2.3.2  The periphrastic constructions The most common periphrastic construction for the passive voice is a calque from colloquial Ital­ian. It is made of the auxiliary ġie ‘come’ + passive participle: ġie miktub ‘it was written’, ġie ppumpjat ‘it was pumped out’. Two rare other auxiliaries may also be used with the pas­sive participle: kien ‘be’, safa’ ‘become’. The reflexive periphrastic construction is made of a verb followed by an adverbial. It is cog­nate with the Arabic noun meaning ‘soul’, ruħ, to which suffix pronouns co-referring to the sub­ject are added. It can apply to any verb, whatever its origin: (1) ssib ruħ=ha8 fi=ha find.ipfv.3f.sg refl-3f.sg in-3f.sg ‘She finds herself in it.’

3.  The modal uses of the two basic aspects It is well known that aspect and modality are in one way or another intertwined within the ver­bal systems of natural languages, and Maltese is no ex­cep­tion. Both Perfective and Im­per­fec­tive may also have modal values in some instances that are detailed below.

.  For the marginal ones, see Vanhove (1993: 32–34). .  The = sign is used to indicate morphological boundaries which are not mar­ked in the Maltese orthography, in order to facilitate the reading of the glosses, in which morphological boundaries are indicated by a hyphen.



Mood in Maltese

3.1  The modal uses of the Perfective Although the value of the Perfective is basically aspectual, it can sometimes be used in de­pen­dent clauses in order to express various types of modality, with or without an overt marking of sub­ordination: as the complement of a verb of movement, in purpose, and counterfactual claus­es. Insofar as it contrasts with the use of the Imperfective in similar contexts, the Per­fec­tive then expresses various degrees of commitment of the speaker towards his ut­ter­ance, i.e. epi­stemic values, which are in line with the traditional approach of epistemics as “clausal-scope indicators of a speaker’s commitment to the truth of a proposition” (Bybee & Fleishman 1995: 6). i.

The use of the Perfective is obligatory in counterfactual claus­es, but not, con­trary to other Ara­b­ic vernaculars, in other hypothetical sentence types. The use of the Per­ fec­tive aspect, whose basic value is to mark a com­pleted process (whatever the time reference of the ut­teran­ce), seems to match the fact that in counterfactuals the event described in the pro­posi­tion has not occurred at all, meaning that the speaker validates the truth of the pro­posi­tion, i.e. that a de­sirable, potential or possible event did not take place in the end.

(2) li ma qabdu=hie=x kienet toqtol=hie=l=u. if neg grasp.pfv.3pl-3f.sg-neg be.pfv.3f.sg kill.ipfv.3f.sg-3f.sg-to-3m.sg ‘Had they not caught her, she would have killed it for him.’

ii. When a verb in the Perfective follows directly a verb of movement, of which it is the com­ple­ment, it triggers a purpose meaning. As opposed to the more common and neutral use of the Imperfective in such a case, the Perfective signals that the speaker insists on the veracity of the utterance, of the event which he has witnessed (e.g. in (3) below, he has seen the co-spea­ker buy the rosaries): (3) il-kuruni li mort xtrajt=hom art-rosaries that go.pfv.2m.sg buy.pfv.2m.sg-3pl ‘The rosaries that you went to buy.’

Although this Maltese use of the Perfective cannot be considered as a true evi­dential, as it is just a marginal value, it shows in this particular case similar semantic and pragmatic pro­per­ties, as opposed to the Imperfective, which is neutral regarding the commitment of the speaker to­wards the truth of the proposition (see 3.2.). iii. The same is true of the use of the Perfective in a subordinate clause with a purpose mar­ker (in (4) the speaker is looking at the cheese while speaking): (4) issa dan biex għaqad għamilt=l=u xi ħaġa? now this purp coagulate.pfv.3m.sg put.pfv.2m.sg-at-3m.sg some thing ‘So, this one, so that it has coagulated, what did you put in it?’



 Martine Vanhove

3.2  The modal uses of the Imperfective The Imperfective aspect has undergone a deeper evolution than that of the Per­fec­ tive: it is now split into a General Imperfective (the old prefixed conjuga­tion) and a Pro­gressive Im­per­fec­tive (constructed with the auxiliary qiegħed, often reduced to an invariable ­particle qed, ori­gi­nally meaning ‘sitting’ + the General Imperfective).9 The General Imperfective, which can still be used in all temporal contexts (past, present, future), is now limited in main clauses to the expression of general truths (e.g. in proverbs), habituality, and general commentary (e.g. comments of football matches), i.e. ­gnomic values. It is also the most common form found as the complement of another verb, often ex­press­ing va­lues of simultaneity, manner, or purpose (after a verb of movement, and with no par­ticular com­mitment of the speaker to­wards the utterance, contrary to the use of the Per­fec­tive, see 3.1.). Finally, it is also the regular form used in dependent clauses, in­clud­ing com­pletives and hypotheticals (potential and irrealis). The various uses of the Imperfective as briefly described above, and the parallel de­ve­ lop­ment of a Progressive form which has split the aspec­tual system, suggest that the Mal­ tese General Im­per­fective is on the way of becoming more and more a dependent form, akin to a kind of Sub­junc­tive-Conditional mood,10 like some other Arabic varieties, such as Moro­c­can Arabic (see Caubet 1993).

3.2.1  Epistemic uses In an appropriate context the Imperfective may also be used for the expression of epistemic va­lues of possibility or eventuality, which is in line with the use of the Imperfective in a tem­poral context of future: (5) jien qatt ma għaddiet=l=i minn moħħ=i 1sg never neg pass.pfv.3f.sg-to-1sg from mind-1sg li dawk taqtagħ=hom rel dem.m.pl cut.ipfv.2sg-3pl ‘To me, it never occurred that you could cut those!’ (6) għax ma nneħħu=l=u=x dawk why neg take off.ipfv.1pl-to-3m.sg-neg dem.m.pl l-ispak li għandu ma’ saqaj=h art-strings rel have.pres.3m.sg with feet-3m.sg ‘Why would we not take it off the strings that it has around its feet?’

.  For a dozen verbs of movements and corporal attitudes, the active participle is used instead. See Vanhove (1993: 134–150). .  For a general description of this process in Semitic languages, see Cohen (1984, 1989).



Mood in Maltese

3.2.2  Optative Maltese has no specialized morphological expressions for the Optative, and uses the Im­per­ fec­tive preceded by a series of particles, of which the most com­mon are the word meaning ‘God’, Alla, and a frozen form derived from it, jalla: (7) jalla tmut daqskemm għamilt=l=i ħsara opt die.ipfv.2sg similar do.pfv.2sg-to-1sg damage ‘May you die from all the evil you did to me!’

3.2.3  Hortative Similarly, the Hortative is expressed with the Imperfective, preceded by an auxi­liary at the Im­pera­tive, either ħalli ‘let!’, often reduced to an invariable cli­tic particle ħa, ejja ‘come!’, or imxi ‘walk’: (8) ħa nimxu hor walk.ipfv.1pl ‘Let’s go!’

3.2.4  Prohibitive The Prohibitive is not based on the Imperative form, but on the Imperfective, whose negative par­ticle is different from that of the Prohibitive. The ne­gative Imperfective is made of a dis­ conti­nuous marker ma- (ipfv) -x¸ while for the Prohibitive it is either the sole suffix -x ad­ded to the Imperfective, or a discontinuous marker la- (ipfv) -x: tibża=x ‘don’t be afraid!’. 4.  The modal auxiliaries Even though Maltese has a poor grammaticalized system of inflectional moods, the language, as already stated, has developed a rich system of periphras­tic constructions, some of which are specialized for the expression of mo­dal values, be they “epistemic” or “deontic” (also named “root”, “agent-orient­ed” or “intersubjective” modalities). Six auxiliaries, which are also us­ed as full verbs, are relevant for the study of modality: seta’ ‘can’, jaf ‘know’, ried ‘want’, għandu (and its “irregular” forms kellu and ikollu) ‘have’, mess ‘touch’, and ikun ‘be’. When used as modal auxiliaries, it must be noted that only one of them is limited to epistemic va­lues (ikun ‘be’), three are polysemous with both epistemic and deontic values (jaf ‘know’, seta’ ‘can’, and għandu ‘have’), and two are limited to deontic values (ried ‘want’, and mess ‘touch’). These auxiliaries are fully inflected for TAM, gen­der and number. It must be re­mind­ed also that the core verb of the periphras­tic construction is also a finite verb form, in this particular case, that of the General Imperfective for the epistemic values.11 .  In Maltese, as in other Arabic varieties, the core verb of a verbal periphras­tic construction is regularly a finite verb form, usually the Imperfect­ive. In some instances, the use of the Perfective is also possible. The use of non-finite verb forms is only marginal (see above Section 2, in particular 2.3.2.).





Martine Vanhove

Keep­ing in mind the working definition of mood as an inflection­al category pro­pos­ed by Bybee (1985), and for the sake of comparison with other European languages des­cribed in these volumes, in particular those which have a rich mood system, the following des­ cription will focus on the Mal­tese epistemic auxiliaries, be they monosemous or poly­se­ mous, i.e. ikun, jaf, seta’, and għandu. But let me first remind Bybee’s working definition: mood is a marker on the verb that signals how the speaker choos­es to put the pro­posi­ tion into the discourse context. The main function of this definition is to dis­tin­guish mood from tense and aspect, and to group together the well-known moods, indicative, imperative, subjunctive and so on. It was intentionally for­mu­la­ted to be general enough to cover both markers of il­lo­cutionary force, such as im­pe­rative, and markers of the degree of commitment of the speaker to the truth of the proposition, such as dubitative. What all these markers of the mood ca­te­gory have in common is that they signal what the speaker is do­ing with the proposition, and that they have the whole proposit­ ion, in their scope. Included under this de­fini­tion are epistemic modalities, i.e. those that signal the degree of commitment the speaker has to the truth of the proposition. These are usually said to range from certainty to probability to possibility. Exclud­ed, however, are the other “mo­dali­ties”, such as the deontic modal­ities of permission and obligation, because they describe certain conditions on the agent with regard to the main predicate. (Bybee 1985: 165–166)

Further on (p. 169) she specifies that “there is no specific prohibition against agent-oriented mo­dalities as verbal inflections, but they are rare”.12

4.1  The epistemic auxiliary ikun ‘be’ Ikun is the General Imperfective form of kien ‘be’, a cognate of Arabic ka:n ‘be’. It can also be used, although not very frequently, as a modal auxiliary for the sole expression of epis­ tem­ic values. This usage is also found in other Ara­bic vernaculars, such as Moroccan or Egyptian Ara­bic (see Vanhove et al. 2009). This is the sole modal auxiliary with no deontic value, just as in the above mentioned Arabic vernaculars. In Maltese, the particular epistemic values are linked to the syntac­tic context. In an adverbial, completive or relative clause, ikun conveys a va­lue of eventuality, or pro­babi­lity: (9) taħseb li l-iswed ikun jixraq=l=i? think.ipfv.2sg rel art-black be.ipfv.3m.sg suit.ipfv.3m.sg-to-1sg ‘Do you think black would suit me?’

In independent or coordinated clauses, the epistemic value is that of a logical con­sequence, a logi­cal probability (i.e. inference), hence its frequent trans­lation by a future tense:

.  Not as rare as she thought at that time, as further crosslinguistic studies have shown, see e.g. Verstraete (2005) for non-Pama-Nyungan Aus­tralian languages.



Mood in Maltese

(10) sib ħmar ċkejken u saqaj=k ikunu find.imp.sg donkey small and feet-2sg be.ipfv.3pl imissu ma’ l-art touch.ipfv.3pl with art-ground ‘Find a small donkey and your feet will touch the ground!’

4.2  The polysemous auxiliary jaf ‘know’ Jaf is a defective verb, limited to the Imperfective inflection. It is cognate with Arabic ôarafa ‘know’. As an epistemic auxiliary, jaf is rarely used in Maltese. Aquilina (1987–1990: 8) men­ tions an “adverbial” use of the verb jaf ‘know’, which he translates by ‘maybe, it is pos­sible that’, i.e. epistemic va­lues of eventuality or possibility: (11) jaf jagħmel ix-xita llum know.ipfv.3m.sg do.ipfv.3m.sg art-rain today ‘It is quite possible that it may rain today.’

In spontaneous speech and writing, I only found jaf with the verb qal~igħid ‘say’, and my data gives both an epistemic value of possibility (11) and a deontic value of ability (12): (12) Ma taf=x tgħid=il=na forsi xi ħaġa… neg know.ipfv.2sg-neg say.ipfv.2sg-to-1pl maybe some thing ‘Could not you tell us maybe something…’ (13) għandu żewġ skopijiet sa fejn naf ngħid have.pres.1sg two objectives till where know.ipfv.1sg say.ipfv.1sg ‘He has two objectives as far as I can judge.’

4.3  The polysemous auxiliary seta’ ‘can’ The Maltese modal verb seta’ ‘can’ is a cognate of Arabic istat.a ôa ‘can’. Seta’ is most com­monly a deontic auxiliary. The precise modal values (ability, permission, a posteriori ad­vice…) depend on the TAM inflection of both ver­bal forms of the periphrasis, the se­mantics of the main verb, as well as on con­textual factors. Yet, there are a few  instances in which seta’ triggers epi­ste­mic values. In this case, it should be noted that this is only possible with the Imperfective form for both the auxiliary and the main verb. The episte­mic value of pro­ba­bi­lity is the only possible one when the main verb is ikun ‘be’, frozen, like the auxiliary, in the 3rd person masculine singular of the ­Im­per­fective: (14) jista’ jkun ma niftakar=x can.ipfv.3m.sg be.ipfv.3m.sg neg remember.ipfv.1sg-neg ‘I might forget.’



 Martine Vanhove

With other verbs, it seems that epistemic values (eventuality, probability, feas­ibility of an ac­tion) are a matter of register: my data only provided instan­ces in the written literature: (15) taħt il-maskra tista’ tinheba r-rejaltà under art-mask can.ipfv.3f.sg be hidden.ipfv.3f.sg art-reality ‘Under the mask, it happens that the reality is hidden.’

4.4  The polysemous auxiliary għandu/kellu/ikollu ‘have’ The Maltese language, as many Arabic vernaculars, has grammaticalized pseudo-verbs mean­ing ‘have’. In Maltese two lexical sources and gramma­ti­cal constructions are involved: a pre­po­sition għand ‘at’ + the suffix object pro­nouns, and the verb kien (Perfective)/ikun (Im­per­fec­tive) ‘be’ + the pre­po­sition lil ‘towards, to’ (shortened to l) + the suffix object pronouns. The origi­nal object pronouns have been reinterpreted as subject indices in contem­porary Mal­tese. As far as TAM are concerned, the three forms do not par­take to the aspectual system, but bear a temporal distinction between, res­pectively, a present, a past, and a future tense. More original as compared with Arabic vernaculars is the very com­mon use of these pseudo-verbs as modal auxiliaries. Since this particular use is unknown or incipient in other Arabic va­rieties, the language contact hypothesis needs to be examined seriously: con­tact with Ro­mance languages and English might well be the source of the auxiliary con­struc­tion with its mo­dal values, even more so as it is considered by native speakers as be­long­ing to a high re­gister of the language. Għandu, kellu, and ikollu mainly express deontic values of necessity, obligation, in­eluc­tabi­lity, a posteriori advice, and interdiction. But epis­temic values do also occur, and more fre­quent­ly than with seta’ ‘can’. Inference, near-certainty, and calculation are the most com­mon ones, and all of them are more common with għandu than with the two other forms: (16) min jagħżel it-triq it-tajba għandu who choose.ipfv.3m.sg art-way art-good have.pres.3m.sg ikollu l-prosperità have.fut.3m.sg art-prosperity ‘Who chooses the right way, should get prosperity.’ (17) għandhom ikunu hawn għal s-sebgħa have.pres.3pl be.ipfv.3pl here for art-seven ‘They should be here around seven.’ (18) jekk ikollok ir-riħ fuq sa erbgħat ijiem if have.fut.2sg art-wind on till four days ħamsa ikollha tinxef five have.fut3f.sg dry.ipfv.3f.sg ‘If you have North wind, it should dry within four or five days.’



Mood in Maltese

(19) drama kif kellha tinħadem fuq play how have.past.3f.sg be worked.ipfv.3f.sg on il-palkijiet moderni ta’ l-Ewropa art-stages modern of Europe ‘A play as they might have been worked on in modern European theatres.’

5.  Conclusion Maltese has a set of morphological moods limited to two categories: an asser­tive mood, the In­dica­tive, with a basic aspectual distinction between a Per­fective and an Imperfective (with fur­ther aspecto-temporal divisions), and an illocutionary mood, the Imperative. In this lan­guage, it is noteworthy that the Imperative is morphologically based on the Imperfective, and that the other illocutionary mood, the Prohibitive is made, with a particular negative marker, with the Imperfective form itself. The two basic aspects can also bring modal values, which are in line with their se­man­tics. The Per­fec­tive, which basically expresses a complet­ed process validated by the speak­er, is used for the expression of epistem­ic values in which the speaker is fully committed to­wards the truth of the pro­position: in counterfactuals to signal that the expected event has in fact not taken place, and in purpose clauses as a sort of evidential: by using the Per­fective in­stead of the Im­per­fective, the speaker indicates that he has witnes­sed the event. The Imperfective, the uncompleted aspect, can also be used for the expression of other modal va­lues, which have the whole proposition in their scope: epistemic values of pos­ si­bility and event­uality, and, together with a particle, an optative and a hortative. It has been noted that there are se­ver­al indications that the Maltese Imperfective is on the way of be­coming a de­pen­dent mood, i.e. used in dependent (adverbial) clauses, similarly to a Sub­junc­tive or a Con­dition­al in Indo-European languages. Below is a table summarizing the modal values of the Perfective and the Imperfective: Table 1.  Modal values of the Perfective and the Imperfective Aspect

Modal values

Perfective Imperfective

counterfactuality, evidentiality possibility, eventuality, optative, hortative, syntactic dependency

The expression of modality in Maltese is not limited to morphological categor­ies, and the lan­guage has grammaticalized into modal auxiliaries a set of verbs from different semantic do­mains. The fact that some epistemic values, but no deontic ones, can be taken in charge by the two aspects of the Indicative, could explain, or at least partly, why Maltese has developed a richer and more productive system of modal auxiliaries for the deontic





Martine Vanhove

modalities than for the epistemic ones. But just as modal auxiliaries in English, most of the Maltese modal auxi­liaries have the two readings. The fact that with poly­semous auxiliaries, the deontic mo­dali­ties are more frequent than the epistem­ic ones might be an indication that, as it is often the case crosslinguistical­ly (see e.g. Bybee 1985: 168), the Maltese modal auxiliaries originally had a deontic value and are developing into epistemic modal auxiliaries. Be­low is a table summarizing the epistemic values of the concern­ed auxiliaries, together with their semantic source, keeping in mind that all of them, but ikun, express also, and more often, deon­tic values: Table 2.  Epistemic values of the modal auxiliaries Auxiliary

Epistemic value

seta’ ‘can’ jaf ‘know’ ikun ‘be’ għandu, ikollu, kellu ‘have’

eventuality, feasability, probability eventuality, possibility eventuality, probability, inference near certainty, inference, calculation

Taking into consideration the history of the Maltese language and its long con­tact with Ro­mance languages and English, it is remarkable that the deve­lop­ment of only one of the four episte­mic auxiliaries (the ‘have’ auxiliary) could be attributed to an external influence. The other three have undergone paral­lel syntactic and semantic developments in other Arabic ver­nacu­lars (see Vanhove et al. 2009).

References Aquilina, J. 1987–1990. Maltese-English Dictionary, 2 Vols. Malta: Midsea Books. Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. & Fleischman, S. (eds). 1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Caubet, D. 1993. L’Arabe marocain, Tome I: Phonologie et Morphosyntaxe; Tome 2: Syntaxe et Catégories Grammaticales, Textes. Louvain: Peeters. Cohen, D. 1984. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique. Etude de syntaxe historique. Leuven: Peeters. Cohen, D. 1989. L’Aspect verbal. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Vanhove, M. 1993. La langue maltaise. Etudes syntaxiques d’un dialecte arabe “périphérique”. ­Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Vanhove, M. 2000. Le maltais et les interférences linguistiques. In Language in the Mediterranean Area. Typology and Convergence. Il Progetto MEDTYP: Studio dell’area linguistica mediterranea, S. Cristofaro I. & Putzu (eds), 187–199. Milano: FrancoAngeli.



Mood in Maltese

Vanhove, M. 2001. Contacts de langues et complexification des systèmes: Le cas du maltais. Faits de Langues (Special issue: Langues de diaspora. Langues en contact) 18: 65–74. Vanhove, M., Miller, C. & Caubet, D. 2009. The grammaticalization of modal auxiliaries in Maltese and Arabic vernaculars of the Mediterranean area. In Modals in the Languages of Europe, B. Hansen & F. de Haan (eds), 325–362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Verstraete, J.-C. 2005. The semantics and pragmatics of composite mood marking: The non-­ Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia. Linguistic Typology 9(2): 223–268.



Mood in Turkish Astrid Menz Istanbul

1.  Introduction Turkish belongs to the South-Western (Oghuz) branch of the Turkic language family. It is spo­ken in Turkey, Cyprus, on the Balkan and in Northwest Europe by approx. 75 million na­tive speakers. Turkish is of the agglutinative type and employs suffixes for derivat­ion and de­clen­sion. Suffix boun­daries are fairly lucent, and most suffix var­iants are predictable due to re­gul­ar vowel har­mony and consonant assimi­lation processes. It is a head-final language with (S) OV as the ba­sic word-order. In main clauses there is, however, a great range of word-order va­ria­tion ser­ving pragmatic purposes.1

2.  Verbal categories of Turkish Most verbal categories in Turkish are expressed by suffixes.2 The root verb can take suffixes for voice (passive, causative, reflexive and cooperative-reci­procal), possibility/necessity, ne­ga­tion, tense, aspect and mood, indirectivity, and person and number, mainly in the order gi­ven here. The various voic­es can be in combination with each other. Non-finite verb forms like verb­al nouns, participles, and converbs serve as predicators in embedded claus­es. These take the position of the TAM markers. Most non-finite forms lack an agreement marker. Some participles can take possessive suffixes as agree­ment marker. We thus can observe the fol­lowing principle order of suf­fi x­es:

.  For a general overview of the structure of Turkish see Kornfilt (1990) and Johanson & Csató (1998). .  All suffixes are given in their archimorphemic form following the conventions in Johanson & Csató (1998: xx–xxi). Capital letters indicate that variations occur according to vowel harmony or consonant assimilation processes. Capital E stands for the unrounded low vowels a and e, capital I for high vowels i, ı [Y], u and ü [y]. Capital V stands for all vowels except the rounded low vowels o and ö [ø]. A vowel in parentheses appears only after a stem ending in a consonant; a consonant in parentheses appears only after a vowel-final stem. Capital consonants assimilate to the preceding consonant with regard to voicedness. The past tense suffix ‑DI e.g. can have the forms -di, -dı, -dü, -du, -ti, -tı, -tü, -tu.



Finite

Mood in Turkish

root öp

voice mod neg TAM agree üş e me di k

‘We could not kiss each other’

Non-finite root voice mod neg vn/ptl/cvb öp üş e me yen ‘who could not kiss each other’ öp üş e me dik

[agree]

leri

‘that they could not kiss each other’

Note, however, that TAM markers can be complex, built on a simple aspecto­temporal suffix + a copula particle and that one of the markers for modality can also follow the negation suffix, see also 3.1.5. The aspecto-temporal system of Turkish is rather complex, with a var­iety of ­com­binat­ions of the basic formants and auxiliary elements. Seman­t­ically it can roughly be divided into three main branches, anterior (past), non-anterior (present) and prospective (future). These main bran­ches sub­sume various aspecto-temporal forms that express different temporal and as­pec­tual, some also modal, ideas; for details see Johanson (1994). The basic inventory consists of: future: present: past:

-(y)EcEK -(V)r, -Iyor, -mEktE -DI and -mIş

The future conveys modal meanings of intention and obligation: (1) Çalış-acak-sın. work-fut-2sg ‘You will/shall work.’

Present forms: The form in -(V)r, often called aorist, expresses either habi­tua­lity or modal va­lues like intention, prediction, assumption, e.g. (2) a.

Sigara iç-er. cigarette smoke-hab.3sg ‘He smokes (is a smoker).’

b. Gel-ir-im. come-hab-1sg ‘I will come, intend to come’.



 Astrid Menz

The present tense is -(I)yor: (3) Sigara iç-iyor-um. cigarette smoke-prs-1sg ‘I smoke (now).’

A present tense progressive in -mEktE expresses a higher focus on continuity than -(I)yor: (4) Sigara iç-mekte-yim. cigarette smoke-prog-1sg ‘I am smoking.’

This form, however, is somewhat restricted in usage in that it is mostly used in formal, es­pe­cial­ly in written, language. It is then often combined with the co­pula -DIr, see below. Past forms: The simple past is -DI; the form -mIş expresses past + indirectivity,3 see below, e.g. aldı ‘he has taken’ and almış ‘he has (obviously, as they say, etc.) taken’. All primary aspecto-temporal suffixes can be combined with copula particles built on a de­fec­tive verb *i- that takes either -DI or -mIş,4 and most of them can also be combined with the co­pula in -DIr.5 The past copula particle =(y)DI can be combined with all the simple aspecto-tem­por­al forms cited above. The result is various past tense forms; for their individual tem­poral se­man­tics see Jo­hanson (1994). The copula particle in =(y)mIş as well as the copula in -DIr in com­bination with the sim­ple tense forms result in various modal meanings, see below under 4. The future as well as the pre­sent forms can be combined with the modal copula particle =(y)mIş, resulting in the forms ‑(y)EcEkmIş, -(V)rmIş, -Iyormuş, -mEktEymIş; agreement markers follow the copula ex­cept in the 3rd plural. The copula -DIr can be combined with the future, present tense in -Iyor and ‑mEktE, and the indirective past in -mIş, following the agreement marker except in the 3rd plu­ral.6 The possible combinations are given in Table  1, for the order of agreement suf­fi xes and the various copula forms see Table 3.

.  For the term indirectivity see Johanson (2000). .  And also the conditional in -SE, see 3.1.4. .  Besides this function in the verbal paradigm, -DIr and the copula particles =(y)DI and =(y)mIş (+ personal markers) are primarily used to mark the predicate in nominal sentences, e.g. Ben ev-de=ydi-m [I house-loc=pst.cop-1sg] ‘I was at home’. .  Habitual present in -(V)r and past in -DI cannot be combined with -DIr.



Mood in Turkish

Table 1.  Possible combinations of aspecto-temporal suffixes with copulae

present -(I)yor + habitual present -(V)r + present progressive -mEktE + future -(y)EcEK + simple past -DI + past -mIş +

=(y)DI

=(y)mIş

-DIr

geliyordu gelirdi gelmekteydi gelececkti geldiydi gelmişti

geliyormuş gelirmiş gelmekteymiş gelecekmiş – gelmişmiş

geliyordur gelmektedir gelecektir – gelmiştir

Turkish has four types of agreement suffixes in the verbal paradigm, one com­ bining with the con­di­tional -SA and the past in -DI, one combining with all other tense and aspect markers. Vo­lun­tative and imperative each have spec­ial agreement markers, see below. Non-finite verb forms have a reduced aspecto-temporal system and often bear no per­ sonal mar­ker. The order of suffixes is fixed to a great ex­tent. Voice suffixes precede the ne­gation suf­fi x, all others (with one excep­t­ion, see 3.1.5.) follow the negation suffix.

Table 2.  Examples for paradigms of verbal forms Finite

1. sg 2. sg 3. sg 1. pl 2. pl 3. pl

Non-finite

come-neg-pst-agr come-prs-agr

come-vol-agr come-imp-agr

come-vn-poss

gel-me-di-m gel-me-di-n gel-me-di gel-me-di-k gel-me-di-niz gel-me-di-ler

gel-eyim

gel-me-m gel-me-n gel-me-si gel-me-miz gel-me-niz gel-me-leri

gel-iyor-um gel-iyor-sun gel-iyor gel-iyor-uz gel-iyor-sunuz gel-iyor-lar

gel-sin gel-elim gel-sin-ler

– gel – gel-in(-iz)

Table 3.  Examples of paradigms of verbal forms, combinations with copula

1. sg 2. sg 3. sg 1. pl 2. pl 3. pl

come-neg-fut-cop-agr

come-prs-cop-agr

come-prs-agr-cop

gel-me-yecek-ti-m gel-me-yecek-ti-n gel-me-yecek-ti gel-me-yecek-ti-k gel-me-yecek-ti-niz gel-me-yecek-ti-ler/gel-me-yecek-ler-di

gel-iyor-muş-um gel-iyor-muş-sun gel-iyor-muş gel-iyor-muş-uz gel-iyor-muş-sunuz gel-iyor-lar-mış

gel-iyor-um-dur gel-iyor-sun-dur gel-iyor-dur gel-iyor-yuz-dur gel-iyor-sunuz-dur gel-iyor-lar-dır





Astrid Menz

3.  Mood categories in Turkish Most of the aforementioned aspecto-temporal suffixes express factuality and thus also in­di­ca­tive mood. However, the future tense in -(y)EcEk, habitual pre­sent in -(V)r and past in ‑mIş also express modal values, see 4.1. To express deontic commands, demands, requests or wishes, Tur­kish has three dif­fer­ ent forms: imperative, voluntative, and optative (also cal­led subjunctive). None of these has a com­plete paradigm for all persons. Se­man­tically all three types are connected insofar as they, to various degrees, express a kind of demand by the speaker for an action. Syntactically they are close insofar as they can be used in the same types of embedded claus­es, sometimes inter­changeab­ly, see below. In grammars of Turkish these three paradigms are often merged into two: imperative (Turkish emir kipi) and optative (Turkish istek kipi), adding the 3rd person vo­lun­tative to the imperative paradigm and the 1st person to the optative paradigm.7 A form of irrealis is derived from the optative with the help of the past copula par­ticle =(y)DI. Tur­kish has a special form to express obligation, the so-called necessitative (gereklilik kipi), a con­ditional (şart kipi), and a form to express possibility and ability.

3.1  Morphology of non-indicative moods 3.1.1  Imperative, voluntative, optative The imperative is the bare stem of the verb in the singular and an unstressed suffix -(y)In in the plural. The suffix of the 2nd plural also serves as a polite form with a singular or plural ad­dres­see. In official language, the suffix for the 2nd plural can get an additional suffix -Iz, which ser­ves as a polite form for a plural addressee.8 These polite plural forms thus resemble mor­pholo­gical­ly those of the agreement markers in the paradigm of e.g. the present tense. (5) oku oku-yun oku-yunuz! read.imp read-imp.2pl read-imp.2pl.pol ‘read!’

Besides the simple imperative there is a second form in -sEnE, plural -SEnIzE, which is histori­cally built on the conditional suffix -SE + person and an interjection in A.9

.  For the historical development of the respective paradigms see Ergin (1984:  310–312), Adamović (1985: 228–278) and Johanson forthcoming. .  This plural formation is peculiar for the Oghuz languages. All other Turkic languages form a polite plural form with an additional ‘normal’ plural suffix in -lAr. According to Erdal (2004: 237) the Oghuz form developed analogously to the plural of personal pronouns and possessive suffixes. .  Adamović (1985: 230) hints to the possibility that the form -sEnE developed from the personal pronoun sen ‘you’+ interjection E at least in some dialects as well as in some other Turkic languages.



Mood in Turkish 

(6) oku-sana oku-sanıza read-impii.2sg read-impii.2pl ‘Please, read.’

The negative imperative is formed by adding the negation suffix -mA to the stem. This ne­ga­tive stem is then followed by the appropriate imperative suffixes: (7) oku-ma oku-ma-sanıza read-neg.imp. read-neg.impii.2pl ‘Don’t read!’ ‘Don’t you read.’

etc.

The voluntative has singular and plural first and third person forms. Negation is formed by ad­ding the negation suffix -mE to the stem. 1. 3.

affirmative singular plural -(y)EyIm -(y)ElIm -sIn -SInlEr

negative singular -mEyEyIm -mEsIn

plural -mEyElIm -mESInlEr

The voluntative can form yes/no questions with the help of the question particle mI following the verb, e.g. gideyim mi? ‘Shall I go?’ The optative has forms for the 2nd persons singular and plural and third person sin­gular only. The form is nowadays falling out of use.10 The third person occurs only in idio­matic ex­pres­sions, and even there it tends to be supplanted by the 3rd person of the voluntative. The 2nd person is also quite infrequent and often replaced by the imperative. It sometimes oc­curs, however, in warnings and in clauses of purpose with either ki or diye, see below. Forms are: 2. 3.

affirmative singular -(y)EsIn -(y)E

negative plural -(y)EsInIz –

singular -mEyEsIn -mEyE

plural -mEyEsInIz

3.1.2  Irrealis The irrealis, a form for counterfactual wishes, is derived from the optative in com­bination with the past copula in =(y)DI. Agreement is marked at the co­pu­la; this form therefore has a com­plete paradigm with all three persons, sin­gular and plural: 1. 2. 3.

affirmative singular plural -(y)EydIm -(y)EydIk -(y)EydIn -(y)EydInIz -(y)EydI -(y)EydI(lEr)

negative singular -mEyEydIm -mEyEydIn -mEyEydI

plural -mEyEydIk -mEyEydInIz -mEyEydI(lEr)

.  For the historical development of the optative in West-Oghuz Turkic, see Johanson forthcoming.

 Astrid Menz

(8) Hastahane-ye daha erken getir-eydi-niz. hospital-dat cmpr early bring-irr-2pl ‘If only you had brought her to the hospital earlier.’

3.1.3  Necessitative Obligation can be expressed by the so-called necessitative in -mElI, to which agreement mar­ kers are added. -mElI can take the copula -DIr and the co­pu­la particles =(y)DI and =(y)mIş. -DIr follows, while the other two copula particles precede agreement marking. (9) Önce yemeğ-in-i bitir-meli-sin. first meal-poss2-acc finish-nec-2sg ‘You must finish your meal first.’

3.1.4  Conditional The conditional mood is formed by the suffix -SE + agreement markers to form a simple con­ ditio­nal form (git-se-m, git-se-n, git-se…). An additional past copula =(y)DI results in a form us­ed in counterfactual conditional claus­es (git-se=ydi-m …). Besides this, complex forms are built by adding the conditional copula ise to various aspecto-temporal forms (gel-ir-se, geliyor-sa, gel-miş-se etc.). The obtained complex forms are non-finite ones. Only forms built with the conditional added directly to the verbal stem can also be used finitely, see below. The co­pula is in most cases used as an encli­tic, following the rules of vowel harmony: suffix 1. 2. 3.

singular -sEm -sEn -sE

suffix + copula plural -sEk -sEnIz -sE(lEr)

singular -sEydIm -sEydIn -sEydI

Plural -sEydIk -sEydInIz -sEydIler/-sElErdI

copula singular isem/-(y)sEm isen/-(y)sEn ise/-(y)sE

plural isek/-(y)sEk iseniz/-(y)sEnIz ise(ler)/-(y)sE(lEr)

Negation is again formed by the suffix -mE following the verbal stem, e.g. git-me-sem ‘if I would not go’, git-me-yecek-sem ‘if I will/shall not go’.

3.1.5  Possibility Possibility (and ability) is expressed by the suffix -(y)Ebil-, which is follow­ed by the ap­propriate finite or a non-finite suffix. Historically this suffix deve­loped from a periphrastic con­struction containing a converb -(y)E and the verb bil- ‘to know’. (10) Nihayet arkadaş-ım=la görüş-ebil-di-m. at last friend-poss1sg=with meet-abil-pst-1sg ‘At last I could meet my friend.’



Mood in Turkish

The choice of the finite suffixes has consequences for the interpretation of the modality, see Savaşır (1986: 137–138).11 -(y)Ebil- has two different ne­ga­tive forms, one in -(y)EmE- and one in -(y)EbilmE-. The two forms can also be combined resulting in-(y)EmEyEbil-, see below.

3.2  Restrictions of non-indicative moods As voice is the verbal category nearest to the root, there are no restrictions in combinations with either moods or the possibility marker. Furthermore, the latter, -ebil- and its negated forms, can take the whole spectrum of aspec­to-temporal forms. The imperative and the 1st person voluntative can not be combined with a copula par­ ticle, the 3rd person voluntative can be combined with =(y)DI and =(y)mIş. The optative, as stat­ed above, can be combined with past and inferential copula. This, however, does not result in past tense but rather in counterfactual semantics. The combination with the past copula =(y)DI therefore also appears in a vernacular form of counterfactual condition­al clauses, see be­low 3.3.4. All basic tense forms as well as some combinational forms can theo­re­tically be com­ bined with the conditional copula ise and thus appear in con­di­tional clauses, e.g. gideceksem, gidiyorsam, gittiysem, gitmişsem etc. In praxis, however, the most frequently ap­pear­ing form in conditional claus­es in the literal sense is the habitual present combined with the conditional co­pula, gidersem ‘if I go’, see 3.3.4.

3.3  Meaning and use of non-indicative moods 3.3.1  Commands, demands etc. The imperative is used to express “straightforward commands” (Göksel & Kerslake 2005: 360) and, negated, prohibition. In imperative sentences the pre­dicate is often sentence initial, com­pare examples (8) and (9). The command in the second example is stronger than in the first one with a connotation of impatience of the speaker: (11) Buraya gel! here come.imp ‘Come here!’ (12) Gel buraya! come.imp here ‘Come here!’

.  In Turkish grammar books this form is not always treated as a modal form but, according to its construction type (converb + auxiliary verb), together with aktionsart forms, see e.g. Gencan (2001: 340), Koç (1996: 354–355).



 Astrid Menz

The affirmative imperative is also used in a set of blessings. In this idioma­tic use, the pre­ di­cate is never sentence initial: (13) Bir yastık-ta koca-yın! one pillow-loc get.old-imp.2pl ‘(May you) Grow old on one pillow (said to newlyweds)!’

This example shows that the Turkish imperative has a certain semantic overlap with the op­ta­tive. The imperative form in -sEnE/-sEnIzE is less formal than the simple imperative and of a some­what lower register, used mainly inside fa­mi­ly and amongst friends and ac­quain­t­ ances. It is also less rigid than the simple imperative, more a request than a command. (14) Tuz-u ver-sene. salt-acc give-impii.2sg ‘Pass me the salt, (please).’

The gradated imperative seems to exclude the optative meaning. It is neither us­ed in idiomatic bles­sings nor in embedded clauses that contain a predicate in the imperative. The voluntative expresses either the intention of the speaker or a de­mand or invitat­ion of the speaker directed either to the addressee or to a third person via the listener. The 1st person singular of the voluntative is used to express the in­ten­tion or wish of the speaker. The 1st person plural expresses an invitation to the listener to do something to­geth­er with the speaker (and possibly other per­sons): (15) Bir kahve iç-eyim. one coffee drink-vol.1sg ‘I’ll drink a coffee.’ (16) Bir kahve iç-elim. one coffee drink-vol.1pl ‘Let’s drink a coffee.’

The inter­rogative forms ask for the opinion of the listener, see Ersen-Rasch (2001: 161): (17) a.

Bir kahve iç-eyim mi? one coffee drink-vol.1sg q ‘Shall I drink a coffee?

b. Bir kahve iç-elim mi? one coffee drink-vol.1pl q ‘Shall we drink a coffee?’

The 3rd person is used to express a demand or an invitation to a person other than the listener. It is also used in formulaic wishes: (18) Yeni yıl-ınız kutlu ol-sun! new year-poss.2pl blessed be-vol.3sg ‘May your New Year be blessed (Happy New Year)!’



Mood in Turkish

The optative has nowadays almost completely fallen out of use as a finite form. The examples for the 2nd persons cited in Ersen-Rasch (2001: 166) have a definite ring of being old fashioned or are examples from older language. The third person can sometimes be found in formulaic wishes, but even here it is often replaced by the voluntative, alternative b. in example (19) be­ing the usual form in contemporary Turkish. (19) a.

Kolay gel-e! easy come-opt.3sg

b. Kolay gel-sin! easy come-vol.3sg ‘May it (the work) be easy!’

All three moods expressing a demand can be used in adverbial clauses of pur­pose. There are two principal possibilities to build clauses of purpose with the predicate of the embedded clause in either of the three moods. One has a pre-positive dependent clause that is syn­tac­ti­cal­ly embedded by a petrified converb diye ‘lit.: saying’ which follows the predicate. The se­cond pos­si­bility is a dependent clause introduced by the particle ki following the main clause; com­pare the respective examples in (20). (20) a.

Bir dakika dinlen-eyim diye otur-du-m. one minute rest-vol.1sg diye sit_down-pst-1sg ‘I sat down to rest for a minute!’

b. Otur-du-m ki bir dakika dinlen-eyim.12 sit_down-pst-1sg ptl one minute rest-vol.1sg ‘I sat down so I might rest for a minute.’

Whereas the embedded clause introduced by ki has to follow its main clause, the construction with diye can also be put after the main clause: Oturdum, bir dakika dinleneyim diye. This type of purpose clause is the only syntactic context where the optative appears in the mo­dern language, and here also only for the 2nd person. This furthermore means that 2nd per­son subjects can be expres­sed either by the optative or by the imperative. The fol­low­ing two examples are taken from Ersen-Rasch (2001: 165–166). (21) a.

Sana, oku diye kitap al-dı-m. you\dat read diye book buy-pst-1sg

b. Sana, oku-ya-sın diye kitap al-dı-m. you\dat read-opt-2sg diye book buy-pst-1sg ‘I bought you a book so that you might read.’

The main difference between the two alternatives lies in the fact that the use of the imperative in clauses of purpose is replacing the use of the optative. In other words, the frequency

.  Example b. and its translation are taken from Lewis (1985: 264).



 Astrid Menz

of examples with the imperative on the embed­ded verb is much higher in the modern language. In the 2nd person the replacement is taking place slower than in the first and third persons, where it is completed. This, according to Johanson (forthcoming), has to do with the fact that the imperative is semantically less qualified to replace the opta­tive than the voluntative. A third person subject is expressed by the voluntative: (22) Üşüt-me-sin diye hırka ver-di-m. catch_cold-neg-vol.3sg diye cardigan give-pst-1sg ‘I gave her a cardigan so that she might not catch a cold.’

3.3.2  Counterfactual wishes with the irrealis The irrealis built with the basic form of the optative -(y)E plus the past copula clitic, to which agree­ment suffixes are added, is used to express unfulfill­ed wishes. It is not very frequently used, belonging to a low register of spok­en language.13 Counterfactual wishes based on this form are often introduced by keşke ‘if only’(older form keşki) or bari ‘at least’. (23) Keşke buraya gel-me-ye=ydi-m. if_only here come-neg-opt=pst.cop-1sg ‘If only I hadn’t come here.’ (24) Bari bana bir ipucu ver-e=ydi-n. at_least me\dat one hint.acc give-opt=pst.cop-2sg ‘If only you had given me a hint.’

In some dialects the irrealis is somewhat more frequently used, especially as an alternative to the counterfactual conditional form in the protasis of counter­factuals.

3.3.3  Necessitative The necessitative in -mElI is used to express an obligation placed by the speak­er either on her­self or on others,14 compare the following examples. (25) Hemen ev-e git-meli-yim. at_once house-dat go-nec-1sg ‘I must go home at once.’ (26) Yalan söyle-me-meli-sin. lie say-neg-nec-1pl ‘You mustn’t lie.’

.  For counterfactual wishes in a higher register see 3.3.4. .  Göksel & Kerslake (2005: 352) call this form “speaker generated obligation”.



Mood in Turkish

The third person is often used impersonally ‘one must/should …’, as in the fol­lowing example ta­ken from Kocaman (1996: 105): (27) Tarihsel olay-lar neden-leri=yle birlikte incele-n-meli. historical event-pl cause-poss.3pl=with together study-pass-nec.3sg ‘Historical events should be studied together with their causes.’

It should be noted that the impersonal use is not dependent on a passive verb. Kocaman (1996), in accordance with other researchers, points to the se­man­tic closeness of ‑mElI to the im­perative. He explicitly states that -mElI is not a “polite means of expressing obligation or ne­cessity” (p. 105). But -mElI is not as direct as a command to a second person expressed by the impe­rat­ive, and the semantic and pragmatic difference between git! and gitmelisin is the same as in go! and you must go. Olmalı (literally ‘it must be’) is the necessitative form of the verb ol- ‘to be’. It is used in no­mi­nal sentences to express presumption and speculation. (28) Blair′-in Ortadoğu elçiliğ-i şaka ol-malı. B.-gen Middle_East legation-poss.3sg joke be-nec.3sg ‘Blair’s legation to the Middle East must be a joke.’

(newspaper heading)

3.3.4  Conditional The forms of the simple conditional can be used as final predicates to express open wishes (29), or, with the past copula added, counterfactual wish­es (30). Wishes with the predicate in the conditional can be enforced by keşke or bari: (29) Ben-i yemeğe çağır-sa! I-acc meal.dat invite-cond.3sg ‘If she would invite me to dinner!’ (30) Bunu dün söyle-se=ydi-n! this yesterday tell-cond=pst.cop-2sg ‘If (only) you had said that yesterday!’

In conditional constructions the predicate of the protasis is marked by either a conditional suf­fi x on the bare stem or, if it bears a tense suffix, by the clitic conditional copula ise/ =(y)sE. The various possibilities are employed to ex­press conditionality with different degrees of hypo­theticality. The backbone in the system of predictive conditional constructions, i.e. con­ditio­nal claus­es in the literal sense, are the two extreme poles of real and counterfactual con­ditio­nal constructions.15

.  For the semantic differentiation between predictive and non-predictive conditional constructions see Dancygier (1998) and, applied to Turkish, Kerslake (2003).



 Astrid Menz

Real (open) conditional constructions contain in the protasis a pre­di­cate in the aorist + the con­ditio­nal copula ise; the apodosis predicate is either in the aorist or future. (31) Geç kal-ır=sa-m anne-m kızar. be late-hab=cond.cop-1sg mother-poss.1sg be_angry.hab.3sg ‘If I’m late, my mother will be angry.’ (32) Biraz devlet desteğ-i sağla-n-ır=sa little state support-poss.3sg provide-pass-hab=cond.cop.3sg Türk sinema-sı çok daha iyi yer-ler-e gel-ecek. Turkish cinema-poss.3sg much cmpr good place-pl-dat come-fut.3sg ‘If only a little state support is provided, Turkish cinema will reach a much better place.’ Radikal 07/03/2005

Hypothetical conditional constructions are either counterfactual or weakly hy­po­thetical. In these types of conditional constructions the protasis predicate is built by adding the con­ditio­nal suffix directly to the verbal stem. In counterfactual (irrealis) conditional constructions, the protatis pre­di­cate marked with the con­ditional takes in most cases an additional past co­pu­la =(y)DI (+person); the apo­dosis pre­di­cate is marked with either -irdi or ‑ecekti, i.e. aorist or future + past copula. (33) Alfabe değiş-tir-il-me-se=ydi, alphabet change-caus-pass-neg-cond=pst.cop.3sg dil-imiz bu kadar yoksul ol-maz mı=ydı? language-poss.1pl this much poor be-neg.hab q=pst.cop.3sg ‘If our alphabet hadn’t been changed, our language wouldn’t have been so poor?’  Radikal 03/01/2005

This construction does not necessarily refer to a past situation; depending on the context it can also have present or future time reference. It is only expressed that the speaker judges the condition as contrary to fact and thus she does not expect the event of the apodosis to take place. The tem­poral interpretation depends on the context or the presence of temporal adverbs. The past co­pula in counterfactual wishes as well as in counterfactual conditional construc­tions thus has the function of expressing what James (1982: 375) calls ‘dis­tance to present reality’.16 Coun­ter­factual conditional constructions can also contain a protasis predicate mark­ed by the bare con­ditional alone or by optative + past co­pu­la=(y)DI. The same degree of hypo­ theticality can thus be expressed in three ways:

.  If the conditional construction belongs to a text based in the past tense, however, the copula on the apodosis predicate can be ambiguous, see Kerslake (2003: 221).



Mood in Turkish

(34) a.

Dün gel-se=ydi-n sohbet ed-er=di-k. Yesterday come-cond=pst.cop-2sg chat aux-hab=pst.cop-1pl

b. Dün gel-se-n sohbet ederdik. Yesterday come-cond-2sg chat aux.hab=pst.cop.1pl c. Dün gel-e=ydi-n sohbet ederdik. Yesterday come-opt=pst.cop-2sg chat aux.hab=pst.cop.1pl ‘If you had come yesterday, we would have talked.’

The absence of the past copula without an effect on the interpretation of the de­gree of hypo­the­ti­cality in (34b) is possible due to the tendency in Tur­kish to avoid redundant mor­pho­logical marking. ‘Distance to present real­ity’ is expressed only once, at the ­predicate of the main clause. The pre­sence of the past copula at the main clause predicate is sufficient for an inter­pretation of the degree of hypotheticality as high, i.e. counterfactual condi­t­ional. De­le­tion of the past copula at the protasis predicate is not possible in (34c), on the other hand, possibly because of the decline of the use of the optative in general. The simple conditional on the bare stem can also occur in condition­al constructions with a lo­wer degree of hypotheticality (weak hypothetical in Dancygier’s/Kerslake’s termino­logy, also of­ten called remote condition­al or potentialis). The apodosis predicate in this con­struc­tion is in the aor­ist/habitual present form: (35) Gel-se-n sohbet ed-er-iz. come-cond-2sg chat aux-hab-1pl ‘If you came, we would talk.’

In actual language use this construction type is extremely rare: e.g. in my col­lection of con­ dition­al constructions from written language material only 1.3% of a total of 954 sentences con­tain it. We thus have basically a twofold system (compare Kerslake 2003: 219), with a rare third alter­native (V-cond + V-hab) expressing low hy­po­theticality. open/neutral hypothetical

protasis v-hab-cond.cop v-cond-[pst.cop]

apodsis v-hab v-hab-pst.cop

The interpretation of the degree of hypotheticality in hypothetical constructions depends on the main clause predicate. A pro­tatis predicate bearing the habitual present suffix is always in­ter­preted as an open con­dition. Instead of the habitual present form other aspecto-temporal suffixes can occur in con­ di­tion­al con­structions. Most of these forms, however, oc­cur only in non-predictive con­di­ tion­al con­struc­tions, see Kerslake (2003). (36) Eğer bil-mi-yor-lar=sa kabahat kim-in? if know-neg-prs-3pl=cond.cop fault who-gen ‘If they don’t know it, whose fault is it?’



 Astrid Menz

Eğer ‘if ’,17 a conjunction of Persian origin, can occur in the protasis either clause initially or im­mediately after the predicate. This conjunction serves to re­in­force the conditional meaning. It must, however, always occur in combi­nat­ion with the conditional suffix, i.e. it does not ex­press conditionality on its own. (37)

Eğer gel-ir=se-n, sevin-ir-im. if come-hab=cond.cop-2sg be_glad-hab-1sg Gelirsen eğer, sevinirim. ‘If you come, I’ll be glad.’

3.3.5  Possibility The form -(y)Ebil can be used to express epistemic and deontic possibility as well as abi­ lity.18 As Savaşır (1986) has shown, for the interpretation of ‑(y)Ebil as possibility, however, the presence of the suffix of the habitual pre­sent (aorist) is crucial. (38) Her an gel-ebil-ir. vs. any moment come-abil-hab.3sg ‘She may come any minute.’ vs.

gel-ebil-iyor come-abil-prs.3sg ‘She can come …’.

(39) Gid-ebil-ir-siniz. vs. gid-ebil-diniz go-abil-hab-2pl go-abil-pst-2pl ‘You may go.’ ‘You were able to go.’

In combination with all other (simple) aspecto-temporal markers -(y)Ebil ren­ders ability. The para­digmatic negation of this suffix, in other words a form for impossibility, is -(y)EmE (note that this form does not contain the se­con­dary predicate bil-). Besides the negative form ‑(y)EmE, a “regular” ne­ga­tive form with a negation suffix before -(y)Ebilis also possible. This form serves to express the possibility of the event not taking place. Negation of the moda­lity and of the possibility of the event not taking place can also be combined, compare the examples in (40) taken from Ersen-Rasch (2001: 171): (40) a.

Suzan bugün gel-e-mez. Suzan today come-abil-neg.hab.3sg ‘Suzan cannot come today.’

b. Suzan bugün gel-me-yebil-ir. Suzan today come-neg-abil-hab.3sg ‘It may be the case, that Suzan doesn’t come today’ c.

Suzan bugün gel-eme-yebil-ir. Suzan today come-neg.abil-abil-hab.3sg ‘Suzan might not be able to come today.’

.  A second, somewhat outdated copied conjunction is şayet ‘if, in case’. .  For a detailed description of how possibility is expressed in Turkish in general, see Kerslake (1996).



Mood in Turkish 

The auxiliary ol + -(y)Ebil- + the habitual present can be used in periphrastic pre­dicates with the lexical verb in either present tense or perfect resulting in the respective combinations ‑(I)yor olabilir/olamaz and -mIş olabilir/olamaz. (41) Ayşe şu an-da uyu-yor ol-abil-ir. Ayşe this moment-loc sleep-prs aux-abil-hab.3sg ‘Ayşe might be sleeping at the moment.’ (42) Ali eve git-miş ol-abil-ir. Ali house.dat go-pstii aux-abil-hab.3sg ‘Ali may have gone home.’

The personal marker in this construction is added to the auxiliary. For details see van Schaaik (2001: 77–78). Besides aspecto-temporal and non-finite suffixes, -(y)Ebil can be com­bined with all the modal mar­kers described in 2. Oddly enough even imperative is possible after the pos­ si­bility mar­ker, but only as a predicat­or in purpose clauses, where, as stated in 3.3.1. above, the im­pe­ra­tive tends to replace the optative for the 2nd person. The following example is taken from an Internet chat forum: (43) ben bomba ihbar-ın-da bulun-acağ-ım sırf sen gel-ebil diye I bomb notice-poss.3sg-loc aux-fut-1sg just you come-abil diye ‘I will give a (false) bomb warning, just so that you can come.’

4.  Other expressions for non-indicative moods 4.1  Modal values of some aspecto-temporal suffixes Some aspecto-temporal forms also have modal connotations. This is particularly true for the ha­bitual present in -er, which has presumptive and prospec­tive connotations.19 These can be inter­preted as intention, possibility or be­lief, etc. According to Ersen-Rasch (2001: 140) the spea­ker can use this form to express her own stance toward the event. (44) Okul-dan sonra park-a gid-er-im. school-abl after park-dat go-hab-1sg ‘After school I (usually/intend to) go to the park.’

The past form in -miş, besides its temporal function, also has strong modal con­notations. The mo­dal shade can range from evidential, inferential, hearsay, to surprise, etc., see Johanson (2000).

.  Yavaş (1982: 41) states that “…in Turkish, the aorist (= habitual present A.M.) reflects aspectual, modal notions rather than temporal ones;…”. See also Johanson (1996).

 Astrid Menz

(45) Ali sınav-dan geç-miş. Ali examination-abl pass-pstii.3sg ‘ali passed the examination (as I heard, surprisingly, obviously, etc.)

The future tense in -(y)EcEk conveys prospective events, interpretable as vo­li­t­ion or ob­liga­ tion. According to Johanson (1994) this form signals (deon­tic) modal values more strongly than temporal values. (46) Okul-dan sonra hemen eve gid-eceğ-im. school-abl after immediately house.dat go-fut-1sg ‘After school I will go home immediately.’ (47) Bugün bütün gün ders çalış-acak-sın! today whole day lesson work-fut-2sg ‘Today you will study the whole day!’

4.2  The copula elements -DIr and =(y)mIş The copula particle -DIr has two antithetic functions in contemporary Turkish. It can serve to make an otherwise modal form indicative on the one hand, and to express presumption on the other hand.20 Both functions seem to be distributed to different registers; the in­di­cat­ive function is restricted to written formal language, whereas in spoken lan­guage -DIr almost always adds the meaning of presumption or, sometimes, assertion. This is especially striking in combination with the past form in -mIş, which on its own has strong modal connotations. The combina­tion with the co­pula -DIr results in a non-modal past in formal written lan­guage and a presumptive past in spo­ken language. The following example thus can be interpreted either as indicative or as pre­sump­tive past: (48) ameliyat başarılı geç-miş-tir. operation successful pass-pstii.3sg-cop ‘The operation was [supposedly] successful.’

The modal copula =(y)mIş serves as a marker for epistemic modality. It should be noted that =(y)mIş does not convey temporal or aspectual semantics, see Csató (2000: 37–38). (49) Adam çok zengin=ymiş. man very rich=modcop.3sg ‘The man is very rich, (as they say, supposedly, apparently).’

.  Note that nominal sentences with a 3rd person subject have, unless the speaker intends to express presumption or assertion, no copula in spoken language, whereas in some written registers, e.g. academic writing, the copula in this sentences is obligatory.



Mood in Turkish 

4.3  gerek and lazım Obligation can also be expressed by a periphrastic construction containing a no­mi­nal pre­di­cate (lazım or gerek ‘it is necessary’) with the dependent lexical verb in a non-finite form. The sub­ject of the action is expressed by a poss­essive suffix on the embedded predicate as in: (50) Eve telefon aç-ma-m lazım. house-dat telefon open-vn-poss1sg necessary ‘I must phone home.’

Alternative expressions to express obligation are şart ‘condition’ and zorunda olmak ‘to be ob­liged to’. These periphrastic constructions are by far more frequent than the ne­cessi­tative in -mElI. A­mong them the construction with lazım is the most com­mon.

5.  Conclusion As can be seen, Turkish has a well developed morphological mood system. There is a variety of non-factual verbal morphemes, for epistemic and deontic moods as well as a conditional form. Among the forms for deontic moda­li­ty the optative is losing ground in favor of the im­pe­rative. The form -(y)Ebil- is interpretable as expressing possibility only in combination with the habitual present. The modal connotation obviously developed from the ori­gi­nally non-mo­dal periphrastic form to express ability. Among the members of the aspecto-temporal system some are primarily modally interpretable. Among those, the habitual present -(V)r has lost its ori­ginal aspecto-tem­poral values almost completely. Like all simple aspecto-temporal mar­kers, those with modal values can be combined with copula forms and also ap­pear in peri­phras­tic verb forms with several auxiliaries. For reasons of space, the resulting changes in as­pec­to-temporal and modal values can not be demonstrated here.

Abbreviations abil impii modcop pol pstii vn

ability imperative II modal copula polite past II verbal noun

 Astrid Menz

References Adamović, M. 1985. Konjugationsgeschichte der türkischen Sprache. Leiden: Brill. Csató, É. Á. 2000. Turkish miş- and imiş-items. Dimensions of a functional analysis. In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. L. Johanson & B. Utas (eds.), 29–43. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dancygier, B. 1998. Conditionals and Prediction: Time, Knowledge, and Causation in Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: CUP. Ergin, M. 111984. Türk dil bilgisi (Turkish grammar). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Yay. Ersen-Rasch, M.I. 2001. Türkische Grammatik für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. München: Hueber. Gencan, T.N. 2001. Dilbilgisi (Grammar). Ankara: Ayraç. Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. James, D. 1982. Past Tense and the Hypothetical: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Studies in Language. VI.3. 375–403. Johanson, L. & Csató, É.Á. 1998. Turkish. In The Turkic Languages, L. Johanson & É.Á. Csató (eds), 203–235. London: Routledge. Johanson, L. 1994. Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora. In Tense Systems in European Languages, R. Thieroff & J. Ballweg (eds), 247–266. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Johanson, L. 2000. Turkic indirectives. In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, L. Johanson & B. Utas (eds), 61–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Johanson, L. Forthcoming. Diskontinuität in der Entwicklung des Türkischen: Aufstieg und Niedergang des osmanischen Optativs. To appear in Proceedings of the 6. Deutsche Turkologenkonferenz, Frankfurt 23–26 July 2005. Kerslake, C. 1996. The semantics of possibility in Turkish. In Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, School of Oriental and African Studies, 15 – 17 August, 1990, Vol. 1, B. Rona (ed.), 85–103. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi. Kerslake, C. 2003. A new look at conditional constructions in Turkish. In Studies in Turkish ­Linguistics: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 16–18, 2000, Boğaziçi University, A.S. Özsoy et al. (eds), 215–226. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. Koç, N. 1996. Yeni dilbilgisi (New grammar). İstanbul: İnkılâp. Kocaman, A. 1996. The necessitative mood in Turkish. In Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, School of Oriental and African Studies, 15 – 17 August, 1990, Vol. 1, B. Rona (ed.), 104–110. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi. Kornfilt, J. 1990. Turkish and the Turkic languages. In The World’s Major Languages, B. Comrie (ed.), 619–644. Oxford: OUP. Lewis, G.L. 51985. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon. van Schaaik, G. 2001. Periphrastic tense/aspect/mood. In The Verb in Turkish [Linguistik Aktuell/ Linguistics Today 44], E. Erguvanlı Taylan (ed.), 61–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Savaşır, İ. 1986. Habits and abilities in Turkish. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics [Typological studies in language 8], D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (eds), 137–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yavaş, F. 1982. The Turkish aorist. Glossa 16: 40–53.

Mood in Modern Georgian* Winfried Boeder Oldenburg

1.  Introduction Georgian is one of the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages which are spoken in a ­relatively compact area to the south of the Caucasus ridge where (as far as we know) they have always been in contact with each other: Georgian in the east, Megrelian (or Mingrelian) in the west and Svan in the north-western mountains of Georgia; Laz is mainly spoken in an area adjacent to the Black Sea between Trabzon and Batumi. Only Georgian has a long-standing 1500 year old written tradition. Modern Georgian has a “moderate” system of nominal inflection of seven cases and a very rich verbal morphology, including numerous tense-mood distinctions. Relational coding is characterized by a split system of subject-object-marking depending on the tense-mood series of the verb. Most subordinate clauses have conjunctions or relative pronouns and finite verbs; there are verbal nouns (masdars), but no morphological infinitives (for a survey see Boeder 2005). In the following sections, I will first give an outline of the verbal categories that are needed for an understanding of the Georgian mood system and of the examples instantiating its different uses (2.). One of the aims of the subsequent description is a tentative specification of tense-mood assignment (3.). Bare main clause subjunctives, imperatives and prohibitives, on the other hand, are interpreted on the background of overtly specified structures (4.-6.). Similarly, the use of the subjunctive in adverbial clauses mirrors its use with overt specification (7.). Lastly, we will mention some areas of future research (8.).

*This paper is an extract from a larger investigation into the modal systems of the Kartvelian ­languages. I am greatly indebted to Rezo Kiknadze (Lübeck/Tbilisi) without whose unending ­patience and insightful comments I could not have filled the gaps in the otherwise rich literature on mood in Georgian. He should not be blamed for any misrepresentation and for any pertinent questions I might have failed to ask. Similarly, Nino DoborŠˇ giniŠe (Tbilisi) volunteered to answer . innumerable questions. Many comments I owe to Nino SaqvareliŠe (München/Tbilisi). Many thanks go to the editors of this volume for suggesting this topic in the first place and in particular for their unending patience with an unusually dilatory contributor.

 Winfried Boeder

2.  The verbal morphology of Georgian Consider the “active” paradigm of ga-tl-a preverb-carve-verbal.noun ‘cut, carve (wood), whittle’ (only 1st and 3rd person singular forms of the “active” are given): Table 1.  The verbal morphology of Modern Georgian (gatla ‘carve’) non-past

Past

Subjunctive

Present v-tl-i tl-i-s Future ga-v-tl-i ga-tl-i-s

Imperfect v-tl-i-d-i tl-i-d-a Conditional ga-v-tl-i-d-i ga-tl-i-d-a

Present subjunctive v-tl-i-d-e tl-i-d-e-s Future subjunctive ga-v-tl-i-d-e ga-tl-i-d-e-s

Aorist series

Aorist

Optative

Imperfective

v-tal-e tal-a ga-v-tal-e ga-tal-a

v-tal-o tal-o-s ga-v-tal-o ga-tal-o-s

Present series Imperfective Perfective

Perfective Perfect series

Perfect

Pluperfect

Perfect subjunctive

Imperfective

m-i-tl-i-a u-tl-i-a ga-m-i-tl-i-a ga-u-tl-i-a

m-e-tal-a e-tal-a ga-m-e-tal-a ga-e-tal-a

m-e-tal-o-s e-tal-o-s ga-m-e-tal-o-s ga-e-tal-o-s

Perfective

The paradigm of the optative (marker: allomorph -o) illustrates Georgian verbal inflection: Table 2.  The paradigm of the optative Subject

1st person

2nd person

3rd person

Singular Plural

ga-v-tal-o ga-v-tal-o-t

ga-tal-o ga-tal-o-t

ga-tal-o-s ga-tal-o-n

a.  As in Old Greek and other old forms of Indo-European, Georgian has three tensemood “series”: present series, aorist series, and perfect series. Morphologically, the roots and stems of a series and of its subparts are marked in the verb by ablaut and/or affixation and/or suppletion. Most present series forms have thematic markers (TS) like Georgian -i (as in v-tl-i ‘I carve it’), -av (as in: v-k. l-av ‘I kill it/him/her’), etc. Syntactically, the three series are distinguishable by their subject-object case alignment. For instance, the “logical subjects” of active transitives are in the nominative with present series verbs, in the ergative with aorist series verbs, and in the dative with perfect series verbs, whereas the direct object is in the dative with present series verbs and



Mood in Modern Georgian 

in the nominative elsewhere. Some verbs like ‘fear’, ‘want’, ‘sleep’, ‘have’ etc. generally have the same “indirect (inverse)” construction as the transitive perfect series; they are comparable to impersonals of the type me thinketh. Since the perfect series of transitive verbs has an “indirect” construction, the “logical subject” is coded by object markers (e.g. m- in ga-m-i-tl-i-a prev-1obj-ov-carve-pm-3sg.sbj ‘I have carved (perfect) it’). – Note that the glosses sbj, o, io in this article refer to morphological, not to “logical” (or “syntactic”) relational categories. b.  As for the aspectual meanings of the series, the present series is “durative” in a broad sense, the aorist series is “punctual”, while the perfect series seems to be neutral with regard to this feature. Taking the past tenses as an example, we may say that the imperfect roughly has a “durative” meaning (e.g. vtlidi ‘I was carving it’), whereas the aorist is a “punctual” narrative tense ((ga-)v-tale ‘I carved it’). The perfect has evidential, “indefinite past”, and other meanings (ga-g-i-tl-i-a ‘you have apparently carved it’; ‘you have carved it [at a non-specified point in time]’ etc.; Boeder 2000). It regularly occurs in past time negative clauses. c.  ga- ‘out’ is one of the perfectivizing preverbs. With most verbs, we have aspectual oppositions that double each paradigm of the three series (Arabuli 1999): the imperfective aorist tal-a has a perfective counterpart ga-tal-a with the preverb ga-, and the optative talo-s is paralleled by ga-tal-o-s. Similarly, we have three additional perfective counterparts in the perfect series, and a corresponding opposition in the present series: a future that parallels the present tense, a conditional that parallels the imperfect, and a future subjunctive that parallels the present subjunctive. Note, however, that not all verbs have a perfec­ tivity opposition: the so-called “middle verbs” (e.g. v-muša-ob ‘I (am) work(ing)’, imperfect v-muša-ob-d-i, subjunctive present v-muša-ob-d-e; Tschenkéli 1958: 300) are “aspectless” (ŠaniŠe 1973 § 527) and have no perfective counterpart. Their future, conditional, and future subjunctive is formed without a perfectivising preverb (v-i-muš-av-eb ‘I will work’, conditional v-i-muš-av-eb-d-i, subjunctive future v-i-muš-av-eb-d-e). These temporal categories and their meanings, then, are independent of the aspectual perfectivity opposition marked by a preverb. d.  The conditional is sometimes characterised as a “perfective imperfect”, but if we look at Table 1, this is only one of three possible perspectives, and it is restricted to those cases where the future is a perfectivised present form. The second interpretation in this “vertical perspective” is the more general specification of the conditional as a future of the imperfect. A third interpretation ensues from the horizontal dimension of the paradigm: the conditional is the past of the future, and this perspective is supported for instance by stem formation and suppletion (see the forms of ‘work’ above and the suppletive paradigm of ‘do’: present v-švr-eb-i ‘I am doing it’, imperfect v-švr-eb-od-i, present subjunctive v-švr-eb-od-e vs. future v-i-zam ‘I will do it’, conditional v-i-zam-d-i, future subjunctive v-i-zam-d-e). These interpretations are perfectly mirrored in the paradigmatic relations of the future subjunctive, which is (a) the perfectivised present subjunctive (of many verbs), (b) the future counterpart of the present subjunctive, and (c) the subjunctive of

 Winfried Boeder

the future. However, the first interpretation, quite apart from its restricted applicability (see above), is irrelevant in the present context: while the category of future is relevant for tense-mood assignment, there seems to be no mood assignment rule that refers to the concept of ­“perfectivity”. Take for instance the future i-t.ir-i-s sv-weep-ts-3sg.sbj ‘s/he will weep’ (which is not marked for perfectivity). There is an additional perfective future formation a-t.ir-d-eb-a prev-weep-inch-ts-3sg.sbj ‘s/he will burst in tears’, but the corresponding conditionals i-t.ir-od-a ‘s/he would weep’ and a-t.ir-d-eb-od-a ‘s/he would burst in tears’ in no way differ with regard to the specific meanings of the conditional. A categorial interpretation of the conditional as “perfective imperfect” is therefore misleading. In sum, the paradigmatic positions of the conditional and of the future subjunctive allow more than one perspective that, as in cases of visual illusion (Hockett 1954), can be triggered by ­different contexts which will be specified below (5.2). e. Although the dedicated forms of the future group (future, future subjunctive, conditional) are paradigmatically more or less dissociated from the present group (present, present subjunctive, imperfect) by suppletion, perfectivity, or difference of stem formation, they belong to the present tense series with regard to case alignment in Modern Georgian and very often share their thematic stem suffix with the present group. f. The pluperfect in its non-modal use (i.e. where it occurs in “indicative” environments) is a resultative of the past (Vogt 1971: 193 §2.166): cecxl-i e-nt-o fire-nom ev-kindle3sg.sbj ‘s/he had kindled a/the fire’. The modal use of the pluperfect, on the other hand (where a subjunctive would be expected in non-perfect series counterparts), is the result of neutralisation: the perfect series is marked in relation to the other series, and the subjunctive is a marked form in relation to the indicative; this cumulation of markedness is resolved by neutralising the opposition of moods. However, this neutralisation is not complete: the perfect subjunctive (see Table 1) survives in some specific contexts, for instance . in manner clauses with titkos ‘as if ’ (see (91) below; cp. Pap.iŠe 1979; Hewitt 1995: 572–573, 589–590; for a detailed discussion of the modal use of the pluperfect, the perfect subjunctive and its history see Kojima 2003). g. As for the other inflectional categories, v- is the 1st person subject marker. “3rd person singular” suffixes (-s, -a, -o etc.) and “3rd person plural” suffixes (-an, -en, -es etc.) vary according to tense, mood, and voice. The suffix -t is a 1st and 2nd person plural marker. The Georgian verb is polypersonal. Subject, direct and indirect object markers compete for the same morphological slot. Cp. mo-v-k. l-av prev-1sbj-kill-ts ‘I kill him/her/it’ with: mo-m-k. l-av prev-1obj-kill-ts ‘you kill me’. – According to one grammatical tradition, -d-/-od- in imperfect/conditional and subjunctive forms are called “extension markers” (EM). -i, -e in the past tenses and -o, -a, -e in subjunctives are called “paradigm markers” (PM) which assign verbal forms to the different tense-mood paradigms ­(Georgian term: mc. k. rivi, anglicized as ‘screeve’). The allomorphy of the subjunctive marker is controlled by series, voice or lexical information. h. Wherever the subparts of a tense-mood series show different stem shapes, the ­subjunctive is formed on the basis of the distinctive 3rd person past tense indicative form



Mood in Modern Georgian 

of the respective series (Tschenkéli 1958:  174; 522), i.e. it shares its root shape (including suppletion), its stem formation and its extension marker (if given). (For the concept of “past” see 3.1) below.) It is what after P. H. Matthews (1972) has come to be called a “Priscianic” formation. The rule says that the subjunctive is formed from the 3rd person form of the respective past tense minus person suffix: aorist indicative 1st person: mo-vk. al-i prev-1sbj-kill-pm ‘I killed him/her/it’, 3rd person mo-k. l-a prev-kill-3sg.sbj ‘s/he killed him/her/it’ → subjunctive (optative) 1st person mo-v-k. l-a prev-1sbj-kill-sbjv, 3rd person mo-k. l-a-s prev-kill-sbjv-3sbj (with the subjunctive allomorph -a-); cp. Table  1: imperfect tlid-a → present subjunctive tlid-e-s, conditional gatlid-a → future subjunctive gatlid-e-s; pluperfect gaetal-a → perfect subjunctive gaetal-o-s; for suppletion cp. present mi-di-s ‘s/he is walking’ (root di-), imperfect mi-di-od-a → present subjunctive mi-diod-e-s (extension marker -od-); future mi-va (root: val-), conditional mi-vid-od-a (root: vid-) → future subjunctive mi-vid-od-e-s. That this type of formation is not a purely formal idiosyncrasy appears from its neutralisation behaviour: with the exception of the prohibitive present and future (see 6.g.-i. below), the unmarked form in cases of neutralisation is the corresponding past indicative form: the pluperfect for the perfect subjunctive (see f. above) and the aorist for the optative (see 6.i. below).

3.  The patterns of tense-mood assignment In this section, we will consider the patterns of tense-mood assignment in clauses that can be said to “depend” on different predicate classes: verbs, modal particles and illocutionary forces. However, verbs and modal particles differ from each other with regard to their temporal and syntactic properties. A verb like ‘want’ is tensed, and its complement clause is subordinate, whereas a particle like ‘if only’ has no tense of its own and is a constituent of its dependent clause (see 3.1.g. below).

3.1  Preliminaries a.  The range of possible tense-moods varies with the classes of predicates on which they depend. For instance, a verb like ‘decide to’ occurs with a range of tense-moods that differs from the range occurring with ‘I don’t think that’. The distinctive patterns of tense-mood assignment specify the range of possible mood forms for each predicateclass. In addition, the patterns can, but need not, specify the event time associated with the tense-moods they permit to occur, and the tensed verbal members of the predicateclasses provide a reference time that can be used to specify further the event time of their dependent clauses. Specifically, the tensed verbs associated with pattern I and II add relational features to the respective event time specified by these patterns. For instance, a verb like ‘decide to’ specifies the event time of its complement clause by assigning to it a feature “posterior to the reference time (provided by the matrix clause)”: it is an essential

 Winfried Boeder

feature of a decision that its complement refers to a posterior state-of-affairs. For want of a better term I call the predicate-class exhibiting this property “future-oriented”. By contrast, the “modal” predicate class (which is a subclass of the “future-oriented” class) assigns the feature “non-anterior to the reference time”. The third, “attitudinal” predicate class (suggestive of the concept of “propositional attitude”), does not assign any relational feature: with this class, the event time does not hinge on the reference time provided by a tensed governing verb (if given). b.  While a verb like ‘decide to’ could be said to uniquely select a specific tense-mood pattern, the same does not hold true for all members of the predicate-class to which it belongs. For instance, the modal particle unda ‘it is/was/will be necessary’ selects several patterns, which assign different semantic readings to it: non-epistemic unda belongs to both the future-oriented and modal predicate classes. In the former case it occurs with the optative or the pluperfect, in the latter it occurs with the present subjunctive or the pluperfect, where the respective pluperfect is associated with different event time values: past in the former, past or future in the latter case. With epistemic unda, on the other hand, the pluperfect is associated with a past event time as with the future-oriented predicate-class. Thus, predicate classes are compatible with specific tense-mood patterns. In other words, there are many cases of multiple class membership. However, the selection of possible patterns is not unrestricted: as far as I can see, one and the same predicate can only occur with pattern I and either II or III. c.  The use of the subjunctive is “detachable” from the semantic conditions that typically underlie its use. Take e.g. a particle like lamis ‘almost’ (< Old Georgian lam-i-s wish-ts-3sg.s ‘wishes, intends’ > ‘tends to’ > ‘almost’, ŠarašeniŠe 2000): whereas it requires the optative, its synonym k. ina>am (< k. nin->a ‘little-only’) occurs with the indicative. The historical origin of lamis (a volitive verb governing the subjunctive) in (1) overrides its present-day semantic parallelism with k. ina>am in (2). In other words, this is a fossilized, lexically triggered use of the subjunctive, and semantic identity is not a sufficient basis for tense-mood selection: (1) lamis ga-v-giž-d-e almost prev-1sbj-madden-inch-sbjv ‘I almost went mad (optative)’ (2) k. ina>am ga-v-giž-d-i almost prev-1sbj-madden-inch-pm ‘id. (indicative)’

d.  Some governing predicates are associated with an implicative value of their complement when used according to a specific tense-mood pattern (see 3.3 below). For instance, minda ‘I want’, non-epistemic unda ‘it is necessary’, and net.avi ‘if only’ are negatively implicative in pattern II, sašualeba akvs ‘has the opportunity’ and nebas aŠlevs ‘allows’ are positively implicative in pattern II. Consider the implicative/non-implicative value in the following examples:



Mood in Modern Georgian 

(3) c. esrig-it šen unda axla uk. ve upro k. arg-ad rule-ins you nec now already more good-adc c. er-d-e Kartul-ad write-em-sbjv Georgian-adc ‘In principle, you should already write Georgian better now.’ (4) >irs-i [aris] i-xseni-eb-od-e-s worthy-nom [is] sv-commemorate-ts-em-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘He deserves to be commemorated.’

(Tschenkéli 1958: 178)

. . (PapiŠe 1984: 92)

(5) sašualeba a-kv-s (rom) universit.et.-ši sc. avl-ob-d-e-s means.nom nv-have-3sg.sbj (sub) university-in learn-ts-em-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘S/He has the possibility to study at the university.’ (6) sašualeba h-kon-d-a (rom) universit.et.-ši e-sc. avl-a means.nom 3io-have-em-3sg.sbj (sub) university-in ev-learn-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘S/He had (imperfect) the possibility to study (pluperfect) at the university.’ (7) sašualeba a-kv-s (rom) universit.et.-ši i-sc. avl-o-s means.nom nv-have-3sg.sbj (sub) university-in sv-learn-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘S/He has the possibility to study (optative) at the university.’ . . (8) man gada-c. qvit.-a čamo-sul-iqo s/he.erg prev-decide-3sg.sbj prev-go-pp-he.was ‘S/He decided to dismount (pluperfect).’ . (9) man unda čamo-sul-iqo s/he.erg nec prev-go.pp-he.was ‘It was necessary that s/he dismounted (pluperfect).’

(3) means that in fact you don’t write Georgian better (e.g. considering the long time you have already spent on learning it). In (5) s/he does study at the university; (6) is the past counterpart of (5). The implicative value depends on: (a) the illocutionary modality, (b) the semantic class of the governing predicate and (c) the tense-mood assigment pattern: (a) The implicational value occurs in non-interrogative, non-counterfactual, non-negative sentences. (b) While (3) has an implicative value, (4) has not, because >irs- ‘worth’ does not belong to the semantic class that is associated with an implicative value. (c) (5) follows one pattern (II) that is associated with an implicative value, but a different pattern (I) is not: (7) is neutral with regard to the realisation of its complement clause proposition; (7) simply means that s/he could study at the university (e.g. because s/he has passed the entrance exam), but it is an open question, if s/he will. Similarly, the same form, the pluperfect, can be neutral in one pattern and have an implicative value in the other. E.g., ‘decide’ (8) belongs to only one pattern (I), but with the necessity particle unda the pattern is semantically differential: (9) can mean either: ‘s/he was forced to dismount [i.e. s/he did]’ (pattern I) or: ‘It was necessary that s/he dismounted [but s/he didn’t]’ (pattern II).

 Winfried Boeder

The association between pattern and negative implicative value can be described by the following rule: irreality in dependent clauses → pattern II

I.e. irreal modality requires the tense-mood assignment of pattern II. (The reverse is not true: (4) belongs to pattern II, but has no irreality meaning). This implicative value does not seem to be an entailment. Rather, it is a cancellable implicature; e.g. the implicative value of (9) can be cancelled by adding an appropriate context: ‘it was necessary that s/he dismounted, but I don’t know if s/he did’ is not contradictory. The implicatures seem to be connected with the oddity of speaking about the necessity, desirability or possibility of something which I know is, was or will be the case at a time when it is, was or will be necessary, desirable or possible. e.  In expressions of epistemic possibility and of volition, backshift is sometimes used as a means of weakening the probability of the fulfilment of their complement proposition. It has often been noted that this use is based on some pragmatic property of past tenses, e.g. that the threat of imposing something is softened by coding it as no longer obtaining (Palmer 2001: 220). (10) še-i-Šl-eb-a gušin es mankana e-t.ar-eb-in-a prev-sv-can-ts-3sg.sbj yesterday this.nom car.nom ev-lead-ts-caus-3sg.sbj ‘S/He may (present) have driven (pluperfect) this car yesterday.’ (11) še-i-Šl-eb-od-a gušin es mankana e-t.ar-eb-in-a prev-sv-can-ts-em-3sg.sbj yesterday this.nom car.nom ev-lead-ts-caus-3sg.sbj ‘S/He might (imperfect) have driven (pluperfect) this car yesterday.’

šeiŠleba ‘can’ in (10) and (11) has an epistemic meaning. In (10), the pluperfect is used according to pattern III. It could not represent the past event time of pattern I (which must be posterior to its reference time) nor of pattern II (which cannot be anterior to its reference time). (11) is a weaker variant of (10). The rule is: Use backshift (assigning the feature “past”) in governing modal predicates as an expression of weakening.

Note that in spite of its pragmatic function, backshift is not just a morphological transposition of tense, but a syntactically active phenomenon with regard to tense-mood assignment, and its result behaves like any other past form. While the present tense form šeiŠleba occurs with both the present subjunctive and the pluperfect, as in (10), the past tense form šeiŠleboda can only occur with the pluperfect, as in (11). f. From the point of view of reference time, Georgian tense-moods are either past or non-past (present/future). The past tenses are: imperfect, conditional, aorist and pluperfect. Note that irrespective of its paradigmatic position in the future group, the conditional



Mood in Modern Georgian

is a past tense, and that the optative is not, although it is paradigmatically the subjunctive counterpart of the aorist. Consider: (12) s-txov-a, rom k. arg-ad e-sc. avl-a / i-sc. avl-o-s 3io-ask-3sg.sbj, sub good-adc ev-learn-3sg.sbj / sv-learn-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘S/He asked (Aorist) him/her to learn (pluperfect, i.e. in the past) / (optative, i.e. in the future) well.’ (13) unda s-txov-o-s, rom k. arg-ad nec 3io-ask-sbjv-3sg.sbj, sub good-adc *e-sc. avl-a / i-sc. avl-o-s ev-learn-3sg.sbj / sv-learn-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘S/He must s/he ask (optative) him/her to learn (*pluperfect, i.e. in the past)/ (optative, i.e. in the future) well.’

If the optative s-txov-o-s in (13) were a past form, the pluperfect should be possible in its complement clause according to the appropriate tense-mood assignment pattern (see 3.2 below), as with the aorist in (12). However, only the optative as a non-past form is permitted in the dependent clause. It is this distribution-based concept of past and nonpast tenses that the term “reference time” refers to in the present context, and not to the paradigmatic position of tense forms (e.g. the paradigmatic correlation between aorist and aorist subjunctive (optative)). g. The uninflected modal particles do not provide the reference time presupposed by a tense-mood assignment pattern, and their inherent temporal specification can even be at variance with the presupposed reference time. Consider unda ‘it is/was/will be necessary’ (cp. Harris 1995) and net.avi ‘if only, would that’. unda is unmarked for time reference, but net.avi is lexically marked as a present-time expression of the speaker’s wish (‘I wish’). However, it can occur with a tense-mood pattern that presupposes either a non-past (present, future) or a past time reference. . (14) u-nd-a ga-qid-o-s/ net.avi ga-q.id-o-s 3io.ov-want-3sg.sbj prev-sell-sbjv-3sg.sbj/ if_only prev-sell-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘S/He wants (present) to sell (optative) it/if only (particle) s/he sells (optative) it.’ . . (15) u-nd-od-a ga-e-qid-a/ net.avi ga-e-qid-a 3io.ov-want-em-3sg.sbj prev-ev-sell-3sg.sbj/ if_only prev-ev-sell-3sg.sbj ‘S/He wanted (imperfect) to sell (pluperfect) it/if only (particle) s/he had sold (pluperfect) it’ or ‘if only (particle) s/he would sell (pluperfect) it.’

(14) belongs to a tense-mood assignment pattern I which presupposes a reference time that is anterior to the non-past event time of ‘sell’. And indeed, ‘wants’ conforms to this pattern, since it is a present tense verb, and in a sense the same applies to ‘if only’, since it is semantically specified for a present event time. By contrast, one of the interpretations of (15) is that





Winfried Boeder

it belongs to a tense-mood assignment pattern II which presupposes a past reference time in ‘wanted’ and permits a past or a future event time interpretation of its dependent clause (e.g. ‘s/he wanted to sell it [yesterday/tomorrow, but s/he didn’t/will not]’), and the same interpretation occurs with ‘if only’ (‘if only s/he had sold it [yesterday, but s/he didn’t]’ or ‘if only s/he would sell it [tomorrow, but s/he will not]’ with its meaning of irreality, see above). Whatever the contextual source of “pastness” is in this case (e.g. ‘he told me he decided to sell his car tomorrow’), the past reference time presupposed by the tense-mood assignment pattern is at variance with the inherent present event time of ‘if only’. The possibility of this divergence of temporal properties arises from the fact that the particle is unmarked for tense and is thus compatible with a tense-mood pattern that specifies a specific reference time, without touching the lexically fixed event time of the modal particle. Tense-mood assignment patterns specify compatibility conditions. Particles are not marked for tense, and do not provide a reference time of their own. They are ­transparent to the temporal properties of a governing finite verb. Consider: . gada-c. qvet.-s, rom unda i-muša-o-s prev-decide-3sg.sbj, sub nec sv-work-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘S/He will decide that s/he must work (optative).’ . b. *gada-c. qvet.-s, rom unda e-mušav-a prev-decide-3sg.sbj, sub nec ev-work-3sg.sbj (pluperfect) (16) a.

The ungrammaticality of (16b) cannot be derived from the properties of unda: unda emušava ‘s/he should have worked (pluperfect)’ is correct, and the restriction on the clause depending from unda originates from the matrix clause verb, which is a future form that requires an optative form in its dependent clause. While governing verbs and particles specify the range of possible mood assignment patterns, reference time is provided either by a superordinate tensed verb or by a context (e.g. by the illocutionary force of the sentence, see 4. below). h.  The patterns presented below are not valid for stative verbs. Stative verbs have a simpler pattern: in accordance with their inherent “durative” meaning, they neutralise the contrast between the present and aorist series: in contexts where non-stative verbs require forms of either series (specifically: present subjunctive or optative), present series forms are invariably used with stative verbs. This may be interpreted as a case of markedness reversal, since it is the aorist series which is unmarked in other contexts. (As in many other domains of linguistic structure, markedness is context-dependent in verbal systems.) For the sake of simplicity, stative verbs will be disregarded in the rest of this paper. i.  The following description of tense-mood assignment is highly tentative and non­exhaustive. Examples will be taken from complement clause and modal particle structures, since these structures provide a basis for the interpretation of main clause structures. The lists of verbs belonging to the relevant predicate-classes as presented here are in no way complete, and their description is a task for the future. Suffice it to say that most items occurring with the subjunctive express volition, possibility, necessity and the like. However,



Mood in Modern Georgian

“volition” is an insufficient characterisation of the relevant class. For instance, in spite of its volitional semantics, an expression like ‘hope’ takes the indicative, a fact that certainly cannot be dismissed as idiosyncratic. In addition, a complete description would, for instance, have to account for the distribution of the verbal noun (masdar) as well. It is used anaphorically (17), and refers to (an instance of) a given concept (e.g. a habit) (cp. (18) vs. (19); similarly, in a sentence like: ‘In this apartment you can play the trumpet the whole day long’, a verbal noun is preferred over the subjunctive). . (17) ma-s da-a-vic. q-d-a e-tkv-a s/he-dat prev-nv-forget-inch-3sg.sbj ev-say-3sg.sbj . čem-tvis […] da-a-vic. q-d-a tkma (from a letter) me-for […] prev-nv-forget-inch-3sg.sbj saying.nom ‘He forgot (aorist) to tell (pluperfect) me [several intervening sentences] he forgot to tell (verbal noun).’ (18) ert-i minda mo-v-c. i-o one-nom I.want prev-1sbj-smoke-sbjv ‘I would like to smoke (optative) one cigarette [before I go to sleep].’ (19) moc. veva minda smoking.nom I.want ‘I feel like smoking (verbal noun).’

3.2  The future-oriented predicate-class pattern Verbs like ‘ask’ (12)–(13), ‘try’, ‘decide’ (8), (21)–(23), ‘force’, ‘forget’ (17), etc. occur exclusively with the future-oriented pattern, whereas stative expressions like deontic ‘be necessary’ (see (9)), ‘have the opportunity’ (see (7)), non-epistemic ‘be possible’ (24), ‘it is difficult’, ‘want’ (see (14)–(15), (18)), ‘fear [that something may happen]’, ‘be shy/reluctant (to do something)’, net.avi, mainc ‘if only’ (25)–(26) and other particles of ‘wishing’ (Vogt . 1971: 197, Pap.iŠe 1981: 174) and particles of possibility: egeb (ŠarašeniŠe 2001), ikneb(a) (with a nuance of wish; ŠarašeniŠe 1999a) occur with both pattern I and II. I

event time tense-mood assignment past pluperfect elsewhere optative additional event time specification: posterior to reference time

(20) deda kališvil-s xširad s-txov-s, rom mother.nom daughter-dat often 3io-ask-3sg.sbj, sub k. arg-ad i-sc. avl-o-s good-adc sv-learn-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘Her mother often asks (present) her daughter to study (optative) well.’





Winfried Boeder

. (21) gada-c. qvit.-es, rom tval-i e-devn-eb-in-a-t prev-decide-3pl.sbj sub eye-nom ev-follow-ts-caus-3sg.sbj-pl ‘They decided (aorist) that they would/to have an eye on him/her/them (pluperfect) [afterwards in the past].’ . (22) gada-c. qvit.-es, rom tval-i a-devn-o-n prev-decide-3pl.aor sub eye-nom nv-follow-sbjv-3pl.sbj ‘They decided that they would/to have an eye on him/her/them (optative) [from now on in the future].’ . (23) gada-c. qvet.-en, rom tval-i a-devn-o-n prev-decide-3pl.sbj that eye-nom nv-follow-sbjv-3pl.sbj ‘They (will) decide (future) that they will have/to have an eye on him/her/them (optative) [in the future].’ (24) še-i-Šl-eb-a aset-i mankana aset-ma prev-sv-can-ts-3sg.sbj such-nom car.nom such-erg vinme-m a-t.ar-o-s? somebody-erg nv-lead-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘Is it possible that such a person will drive (optative) such a car?’ (25) net.avi male ga-ten-d-e-s (Γ 67) would_that soon prev-dawn-em-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘If only it became day soon (optative).’ (26) da-m-e-c. er-a mainc (Kojima 2003: 34) prev-1obj-ev-write-3sg.sbj yet ‘If only I had written it.’ (German: wenn ich es doch bloß geschrieben hätte)

Note the opposition between (21) and (22)–(23): a past event time takes the pluperfect, a non-past event time the optative. The reference time difference between (22) and (23) is irrelevant for tense-mood assignment; both past and future reference time are compatible with the optative.

3.3  The modal predicate-class pattern a.  The modal predicate-class comprises stative expressions that, as noted above, also occur with pattern I: ‘be necessary’ (cp. (3), (9)), ‘have the possibility’ (cp. (5), (6)), ‘deserve’ (cp. (4)), non-epistemic ‘be possible’ (27), ‘be obliged’, ‘want’ (28), ‘allow’, particles of wish (‘if only’) (30)–(31) and possibility (32)–(35), etc. II

reference time tense-mood assignment present present subjunctive past pluperfect additional event time specification: non-anterior to reference time



Mood in Modern Georgian

(27) gana še-i-Šl-eb-a aset mankana-s aset-i ptl prev-sv-can-ts-3sg.sbj such car-dat such-nom vinme a-t.ar-eb-d-e-s? somebody.nom nv-lead-ts-pm-sbjv-3sg.sbj

. . (PapiŠe 1984: 107)

‘Can (present) such a person possibly drive such a car?’ (28) m-i-nd-a xširad g-xed-av-d-e 1io-ov-want-3sg.sbj often 2obj-see-ts-pm-sbj ‘I would like (present) to see (present subjunctive) you more often [but I don’t].’ (29) m-i-nd-od-a c. ign-i c. a-m-e-k. itx-a 1io-ov-want-em-3sg.sbj book-nom prev-1obj-ev-read-3sg.sbj ‘I wanted to read (pluperfect) a book.’ . . . (30) net.av i-qid-eb-od-e (folk poetry, PapiŠe 1984: 96) would_that sv-buy-ts-em-sbjv ‘Would that you were on sale (present subjunctive) [and I be your byer].’ (31) net.avi at.elie-ši e-mušav-a if_only studio-in ev-work-3sg.sbj ‘If only s/he worked/had worked (pluperfect) in her/his studio.’

(28) and (30) illustrate the negative implication noted above (see 3.1) above). The patterns I and II predict a temporal indeterminateness of the optative and the pluperfect, respectively. According to pattern I, the event time of the optative as such is inderminate, its only specification being “posterior to reference time”. For instance, the repeated action expressed in (20) provides a reference time that overlaps speech time and may precede it, and the event time of the complement clause is indeterminate between past and non-past (the mother could have begun to ask, and the daughter to have learned, before or after speech time). Similarly, the event time of the pluperfect in pattern II is indeterminate between past and future, whereas it is “past” in the case of pattern I. As a result, (29) has three different interpretations: (a) an interpretation deriving from pattern I with a past event time specification: ‘I wanted to read it [e.g. yesterday]’; (b) a past event time interpretation deriving from pattern II with the negative value associated with the past: ‘I wanted to read it [e.g. yesterday, but I didn’t]’; (c) a future event time interpretation deriving from pattern II: ‘I wanted to read it [e.g. tomorrow, but I will probably not be able to do so]’. And again, (31) can mean that it happened, or that it didn’t happen, or it can refer to the future (‘if only he was to work tomorrow, but I was told he won’t’). b.  There is a special use of the pluperfect forms that cannot be understood on the basis of pattern II alone. Consider: (32) ikneb es c. a-i-k. itx-o-t maybe this.nom prev-sv-read-sbjv-pl.sbj ‘Maybe you (polite plural) (will) read (optative) this.’

(Kojima 2003: 38)





Winfried Boeder

(33) ikneb es c. a-g-e-k. itx-a-t maybe this.nom prev-2io-ev-read-3sg.sbj-pl ‘Maybe you would (like to)/could read (pluperfect) this.’ (polite injunction) (34) ikneb mo-gv-e-nax-a vinme ‘maybe prev-1obj.pl-ev-see-3sg.sbj somebody.nom’ ‘Maybe we could visit (pluperfect) somebody.’ (polite hortative) . (35) egeb mo-s-ul-iqo ak  perhaps prev-go-pp-s/he.was here ‘Maybe s/he could come (pluperfect) here.’ (polite jussive)

(ib.)

(Ž>ent.i 2004: 80)

(ib.)

(32) belongs to pattern I, but its meaning requires an additional pragmatic interpretation of ikneb ‘perhaps, maybe’. This is a “redressed’ variant of a request; the use of ikneb is a “pessimistic” strategy in the sense of politeness theory (presenting the requested act as a mere possibility). The pluperfect in (33) adds a further element of politeness: Kojima (2003) rightly points out that the past form (the pluperfect) is an expression of politeness as in English (could you tell me vs. can you tell me). This backshift rule is well established by independent evidence (3.1.e.). However, it is not clear in what sense the pluperfect could be a past form of the optative. Whereas, for instance, the conditional is indeed a paradigmatic past form of the future (see 2.d.) above), the same does not hold for the relation between optative and pluperfect. An alternative interpretation could be based on the modal backshift rule, where weakening would be an expression of (a higher degree of negative) politeness. Like net.avi ‘if only’ (see 3.1.g.), ikneb has a lexically fixed present event time (‘I consider it possible’). The backshift rule establishes a past reference time while keeping the event time of ikneb intact. However, there is a problem with the event time interpretation of the pluperfect, which permits a past or future event time interpretation predicted by its temporal indeterminateness in pattern II: in (33)–(35), the past event time option is ruled out. The difference between net.avi and ikneb is that the latter is used in a proposal. One propositional content condition of this speech act is futurity, which constrains the temporal interpretation of the clause that depends on ikneb, and the pluperfect provides a form whose event time can be in the future. The present subjunctive option and the past time interpretation of the pluperfect are ruled out. This exclusion of options provided by the tense-mood patterns is the result of an interaction between grammatical features and illocutionary force: the illocutionary force of proposals filters out the present subjunctive and past event time options because it can only refer to the future.

3.4  The attitudinal predicate-class pattern The attitudinal class pattern occurs for instance with všišob, mešinia ‘I fear [that something is . the case]’ in (36)–(37), epistemic unda (Pap.iŠe 1984: 102; ŠarašeniŠe 1999b: 53) in (38)–(39), epistemic šeiŠleba ‘it is possible, perhaps’ (cp. (10), (40)) and ara mgonia ‘I don’t think’ (45). This pattern determines the past event time of the pluperfect in (37), as in pattern I, thus



Mood in Modern Georgian

differing from pattern II. It also differs from both pattern I and II by its lack of an additional direct or indirect event time specification: reference time is irrelevant (cp. (36) vs. (37)). III event time tense-mood assignment present present subjunctive past pluperfect additional event time specification: none (36) v-šiš-ob bevr-s ar svam-d-e-s 1sbj-fear-ts much-dat neg drink-em-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘I fear he drinks too much.’ (37) v-šiš-ob bevr-i ar da-e-li-a 1sbj-fear-ts much-nom neg prev-ev-drink-3sg.sbj ‘I fear he drank (pluperfect) too much.’ (38) es ambav-i ra>aca-s unda this.nom news-nom something-dat nec nišn-av-d-e-s signify-ts-em-sbjv-3sg.sbj

. . (PapiŠe 1984: 102)

‘This news must mean something.’ . (39) Giorgi unda c. a-s-ul-iqo Giorgi.nom nec prev-go-pp-he.was (pluperfect)

The pluperfect in (39) has four different interpretations: (a) deontic meaning according to pattern I: ‘Giorgi was forced to leave [we apologise that he isn’t here]’; (b) deontic meaning according to pattern II: ‘Giorgi should have left [but he didn’t]’; (c) deontic meaning according to pattern II: ‘Giorgi was supposed to leave [in the future]’; (d) epistemic meaning according to pattern III: ‘Giorgi must have left [it is necessary to conclude that he left]’. Note that (39) cannot mean: ‘Giorgi will probably leave’, since with pattern III, epistemic ‘it is necessary’ requires a past reference time for the pluperfect. (40) še-i-Šl-eb-a am mankana-s a-t.ar-eb-d-e-s prev-sv-can-ts-3sg-sbj this.obl car-dat nv-lead-ts-pm-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘He may (present) be driving this car [now].’

Similarly, (40) is ambiguous: with pattern II it has a non-epistemic meaning (the car is such that, e.g. even an invalid can drive it), but with pattern III, it is epistemic (‘it is conceivable that such a person is driving such a car’, cp. (41)). Epistemic ikneb ‘maybe’ and šeiŠleba (id.) both can occur with the indicative. However, there might be a slight difference between (41) and (42): (41) is perhaps “more hypothetic” than (42). On the other hand, there is a partial complementary distribution between ­negation + subjunctive and the subordinator rom + indicative: (36)–(37) and (43)–(44) seem to be synonymous:





Winfried Boeder

(41) mxat.var-i še-i-Šl-eb-a uk. ve painter-nom prev-sm-can-ts-3sg.sbj already xat.-av-d-e-s k. idec mat surat-s paint-ts-pm-sbjv-3sg.sbj even their picture-dat

. . (PapiŠe 1984: 106)

‘The painter may (present) even already be painting their picture.’ (42) mxat.var-i še-i-Šl-eb-a uk. ve xat.-av-s painter-nom prev-sv-can-ts-3sg.sbj already paint-ts-3sg-sbj k. idec mat surat-s (ib.) even their picture-dat ‘The painter may (present) even already be painting (present indicative) their picture.’ (43) v-šiš-ob rom bevr-s svam-s 1sbj-fear-ts sub much-dat drink-3sg.sbj



‘I fear he drinks (present) too much.’

(44) v-šiš-ob rom bevr-i da-li-a 1sbj-fear-ts sub much-nom prev-drink-3sg.sbj ‘I fear he drank (aorist) too much.’

Kojima (2003: 37) points out that past time complement clauses of ‘I don’t think/believe’, ‘I doubt’ are in the pluperfect (45) (or the perfect subjunctive, see 2.f.), which codes the doubt of the speaker (“non-factuals”, Hewitt 1995 §5.2.3.2). By contrast, the non-first person counterpart ‘s/he doesn’t think/believe’ has the indicative, not the subjunctive, in its complement clause in (48). The same modal value occurs with the present (47). The nonreality meaning of the present subjunctive and the pluperfect is comparable to the irreality meaning of some subjunctives (see 3.1). Yet non-belief is not implied as in pattern II, but asserted. This is confirmed by the fact that ‘I don’t think’ occurs with the same meaning in the optative referring to the future in (46) which belongs to pattern I. Since however ‘I don’t think’ is a present tense form, it does not provide a basis for the selection of the pluperfect according to pattern I (which implies an event time posterior to the reference time). The exclusively past reference time of the pluperfect in (45) points to pattern III. In other words, ‘I don’t think’ belongs to pattern I and III. (45) ara m-gon-i-a (rom) ma-s ase neg 1obj-think-ts-3sg.sbj (sub) s/he-dat so e-tkv-a/ *man ase tkva ev-say-3sg.sbj/ s/he.erg so say-3sg.sbj

(Kojima 2003: 37)

‘I  don’t think that s/he (has) said (pluperfect/ *aorist) such a thing.’ (46) ara m-gon-i-a (rom) man ase tkv-a-s neg 1obj-think-ts-3sg.sbj (sub) s/he.erg so say-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘I don’t think that s/he will say (optative) such a thing.’



Mood in Modern Georgian

(47) ara mxec-i ara m-gon-i-a no beast-nom neg 1obj-think-ts-3sg.sbj . laparak. -ob-d-e-s speak-ts-pm-sbjv-3sg.sbj

. . (PapiŠe 1984: 107)

‘I don’t think that any beast can speak.’ (48) ara h-gon-i-a (rom) man ase tkv-a neg 3obj-think-ts-3sg.sbj (sub) s/he.erg so say-3sg.sbj ‘S/He doesn’t think that s/he said (aorist) such a thing.’

The speaker’s doubt is not restricted to overt expression. In the following example, ‘don’t think that X’ can only be a successful prohibition if it is connected with the preparatory condition that I don’t think that X, and this feature of the illocutionary act is a sufficient trigger of mood assignment: (49) nu g-e-gon-o-s, rom madl-s neg.imp 2obj-ev-think-sbjv-3sg.sbj, sub favour-dat g-i-švr-eb-od-e ra-s-me 2obj-ov-do-ts-pm-sbjv what-dat-ptl

. . (PapiŠe 1984: 103)

‘Don’t think that I am doing you some favour.’

3.5  The future subjunctive There is a very restricted pattern occurring with the particle net.avi, mainc ‘if only’ (which also occur with pattern I and II), in conditional clauses and with wishes (see 4.1.a. below), etc. As with pattern I, reference time is relevent for further event time specification. IV event time tense-mood assignment future future subjunctive additional event time specification: non-anterior to reference time

The future subjunctive expresses an unrealistic idea or improbability (“probably not”, as a future counterpart of the irreality meaning associated with the present subjunctive and the pluperfect; see 3.1.d.). (50) is an “intense”, unrealistic wish, a kind of “prayer” for something whose fulfilment is improbable, whereas the optative (25) is “categorical” and neutral in this regard:1 (50) net.av c. a-vid-od-e-s bur-i if_only prev-go-pm-sbjv-3sg.sbj haze-nom ‘If only the haze disappeared.’

.  These are comments by Š. ApridoniŠe, N. DoborŠˇ giniŠe and R. K.ik. naŠe.

. . (PapiŠe 1983: 75)



 Winfried Boeder

4.  Bare subjunctives in main clauses The main purpose of this section is to show that specific modal functions, i.e. implied modals, consistently follow the same tense-mood pattern as the corresponding overt predicates. In other words, bare subjunctives match their synonymous augmented counterparts. For instance: ‘had I worked in Gagra!’ in (53) formally and semantically parallels ‘if only I had worked in Gagra!’. The same is true for illocutionary modal functions. For instance, the tense-mood pattern of the imperative parallels the expression ‘I order you to X’ (6.).

4.1  Subjunctives of wish and of possibility a.  Bare subjunctives expressing wishes can always be be augmented by net.avi (pattern I, II and IV). They share its distributional properties, including the implicative value of pattern II in (52)–(53) (cp. 3.1.d.) and the very specific use of the future subjunctive in (54) (see 3.5). (51) erti da-v-a->c. i-o-t tav-i sazarel one prev-1sbj-nv-attain-sbjv-pl.sbj head-nom terrible bečavoba-s da v-i-cxovr-o adamianur-ad misery-dat and 1sbj-sv-live-sbjv human-adc

(Γ 68)

‘Would that we once reach (optative) an end of the terrible misery and that I live (optative) a human life.’ (52) uŠilo mat.l-i s-č.am-d-e-s sleepless.nom worm-nom 3io-eat-em-sbjv-3sg.sbj [mt.er-s] ˇŠoŠˇ oxet-ši [enemy-dat] hell-in

. . (PapiŠe 1984: 96)

‘Would that a sleepless worm were eating [my enemy] in hell [but it doesn’t]!’ (53) m-e-mušav-a ama-s-tan Gagra-ši da 1obj-ev-work-3sg.sbj this-dat-at Gagra-in and . m-e-qid-a lak. -is t.upl-eb-i 1obj-ev-buy-3sg.sbj lacquer-gen shoe-pl-nom

(Kojima 2003: 34)

‘If only I had worked (pluperfect) with him in Gagra and bought (pluperfect) patent leather shoes [but I didn’t].’ (54) gamocda kargad ča-i-vl-i-d-e-s exam.nom well prev-sv-go-ts-em-sbjv ‘If only the exam went (subjunctive future) well [I want nothing else].’

Note that a third person counterpart of (53) would be ambiguous: ‘would that he has worked with him … [I don’t know if he has]’ (pattern I) or ‘if only he had worked with him… [but he hasn’t]’ (pattern II). The unambiguousness of (53) has a pragmatic basis: it is improbable that I don’t know about my own work in the past. As with evidential forms, a



Mood in Modern Georgian

first person pattern II form would be possible if, for instance, I worked in a state of unconsciousness or the like. b.  Similarly, subjunctives expressing epistemic possibility share the distribution of epistemic šeiŠleba ‘it is possible’ (cp. (41)), which could easily be supplied in (55) and (57). (55) and (56) are synonymous: (55) ak, bevri-bevri at-i meksk. avat.ore here, many-many ten-nom excavator.nom muša-ob-d-e-s at-i atas-i work-ts-em-sbjv-3sg.sbj ten-nom thousand-obl šopr-is gverd-it driver-gen side-ins

. . (PapiŠe 1984: 104)

‘At best, ten excavators could work here together with ten thousand drivers.’ (56) ak, bevri-bevri, at-i meksk. avat.ore here, many-many ten-nom excavator.nom še-i-Šl-eb-a muša-ob-d-e-s prev-sv-can-ts-3sg.sbj work-ts-em-sbjv-3sg.sbj (57) ak, bevri-bevri meksk. avat.ore-s e-mušav-a here, many-many excavator.dat ev-work-3sg.sbj ‘At best, an excavator could have worked (pluperfect) here.’

4.2  Subjunctives in interrogative clauses The use of “dubitative” or “deliberative” subjunctives, as in (58), and of subjunctives in rhetorical questions like (59) can be interpreted as deriving from a necessity (obligative) meaning following pattern I and II: in all instances, non-epistemic unda ‘it is necessary’ could be added in Georgian: (58) ra v-kn-a? what.nom 1sbj-make-sbjv ‘What shall I do (optative)?’ (59) met.-i ra->a m-e-kn-a? more-nom what.nom-only 1obj-ev-make-3sg.sbj ‘What more should I have done (pluperfect), I wonder?’

(Γ 64)

Note that the pluperfect has the usual irreality meaning and shows the indeterminateness of event time: ‘what should I have done yesterday/tomorrow?’ There is one type of deliberative subjunctive which has a special, pragmatically ­conditioned use, namely the use as a proposal. In this context, it is šeiŠleba ‘it is possible (present)’ that can be used to augment the bare subjunctive: ‘how about our doing X?’ is



 Winfried Boeder

coded as: ‘[is it possible] that we do X?’. In this case, the subjunctive can be used as a polite hortative expression (Kojima 2003: 38–40; Ž>ent.i 2004: 80–81): . (60) qava da-v-li-o-t? coffee.nom prev-1sbj-drink-sbjv-pl.sbj ‘Shall we drink (optative) coffee?’ . (61) qava ar da-v-li-o-t? coffee.nom neg prev-1sbj-drink-sbjv-pl.sbj ‘Shan’t we drink (optative) coffee?’ . (62) qava xom ar da-v-li-o-t? coffee.nom ptl neg prev-1sbj-drink-sbjv-pl.sbj ‘You won’t like to drink (optative) coffee with me, will you?’

(60) is the simple deliberative use. (61) is a “redressed” variant (with the negation as a “pessimistic” strategy, see 3.3.b.) (62) is even milder by the use of the conducive particle xom. (63) and (64) are instances of polite backshift (see 3.1.e. with its divergence of event time and reference time (see 3.3.b.), and the appropriate form to augment (63) and (64) would be šeiŠleboda ‘it was possible (imperfect)’ (cp. (11)). . (63) qava xom ar da-gv-e-li-a? coffee.nom ptl neg prev-1obj.pl-ev-drink-3sg.sbj ‘You wouldn’t like to drink (pluperfect) coffee, would you?’ (64) me-c xom ar m-e-kn-a rame? I-too ptl neg 1obj-ev-do-3sg.sbj ‘Couldn’t I do (pluperfect) something, too?’

As in the case of ikneb + pluperfect (see 3.3.b.), the fact calls for an explanation that, in spite of the temporal indeterminateness of the pluperfect, the event time must be in the future. Again, futurity is a speech act condition for proposals and deliberations, and the present subjunctive and past event time options are filtered out.

5.  The modal uses of the indicative in main clauses 5.1  Indicatives expressing wishes There is a rather idiomatised use of the indicative in imprecations (Vogt 1971: 197, Tuite; to appear): the aorist indicative in (65a) is equivalent to the optative in (65b), which is a case of mood neutralisation. The “underlying” optative follows pattern I after verbs of the type ‘I want’, ‘I pray …’, ‘may God grant that…’, depending on the illocutionary act appropriate



Mood in Modern Georgian 

in a specific context. That the aorist indicative in these examples is an equivalent of the optative is supported by the fact that it occurs with net.avi ‘if only’ in (66), which otherwise requires a subjunctive. (65) a.

ga-g-i-xm-a eg ena prev-2obj-ov-dry-3sg.sbj this tongue.nom ‘May your tongue dry (aorist passive)!’

. . (a curse, PapiŠe 1981: 169)

b. ga-g-i-xm-e-s eg ena prev-2obj-ov-dry-sbjv-3sg.sbj this tongue.nom ‘id. (optative passive)’ (66) net.a mo-m-c-a cot.a pul-i would.that prev-1obj-give-3sg.sbj little.nom money-nom ‘If only I were given/if only I got (aorist indicative) some money.’

(Vogt 1971: 197)

5.2  Future and conditional a.  Morphologically, the conditional is the past form of the future (see 2.d.) above), but from the point of view of its contextual reference time, it is either a future of the past (“future with regard to the past”, GegučaŠe 2005: 96), or a past form of the future (“backshifting”). The first perspective seems to be appropriate with the “habitual” or “customary” meaning of the conditional as in (67), where the parallel use of the imperfect and the conditional shows their similarity, though not identity, in meaning: the imperfect can denote habitual actions in the past (“repetitive”, Vogt 1971: 182 § 2.148), and the conditional can be said to inherit this meaning from the imperfect as its basis. The future, on the other hand, adds the “prospective” (“prospectif passé”, Lazard 1975) or “consecutive” (ŠaniŠe 1973 § 257a) meaning which is also found in simple future forms (68), which are prospective counterparts of the present and often occur with the particle xolme ‘usually’ (GegučaŠe 1980: 75). The conditional in the second half of sentence (67) is a prospective counterpart of the imperfect in its first part. . (67) Pavle gvian brun-d-eb-od-a, axla ezo-ši Paul.nom late return-inch-ts-em-3sg.sbj, now courtyard-in . . mo-t.rial-d-eb-od-a (PapiŠe 1988: 166) prev-turn-inch-ts-em-3sg.sbj ‘Paul used to come (imperfect) home late, then he would walk (conditional) around in the courtyard.’ . (68) ert-or-Šer c. a-h-qep-en xolme (GegučaŠe 2005: 92) one-two-time prev-3io-bark-3pl.sbj ptl ‘[As soon as the dogs convince themselves that no enemy is around,] they will briefly bark (future) at him once or twice.’

 Winfried Boeder

b.  However in (69)–(70), the conditional is not based on an imperfect and does not share its “habitual” meaning. Rather, it is a backshifted future: (69) male da-brun-d-eb-od-a soon prev-return-inch-ts-em-3sg.sbj ‘S/He would return soon.’ (< ‘[s/he thought:] s/he will return soon’)  (free indirect speech) . . . (70) še-m-pir-d-a, rom mo-vid-od-a (PapiŠe 1988: 167) prev-1obj-promise-inch-3sg.sbj sub prev-go-em-3sg.sbj ‘S/He promised (aorist) me that s/he would come.’ (< ‘… promised: I will come.’)

c  The conditional is also a result of polite backshifting (see 3.1.e.; 3.3.b. above): the form momc. erdit ‘you would write me’ in (71) is more polite than its future counterpart mo-m-c. er-t ‘you will write me’. It expresses “tentativeness” or “conditionality” (Palmer 2001: 13–15, 32), and it behaves like the apodosis of a conditional clause. Note that backshift is again a syntactically active phenomenon: in (72) the verb of volition counts as a past form (in spite of its present event time): it governs a pluperfect. Note that in addition to its (contextually appropriate) future event time interpretation, the pluperfect also permits a past event time interpretation: ‘we wished we had seen you in Germany [but we didn’t]’, because ‘wish’ follows pattern II where event time is indeterminate between past and future. . (71) tkven-i romel-i misamart-i gamo-v-i-qen-o, your-nom which-nom address-nom prev-1sbj-sv-apply-sbjv, xom ver mo-m-c. er-d-i-t? ptl neg prev-1obj-write-em-pm-pl.sbj

(from a letter)

‘You couldn’t write (conditional) me which of your addresses I shall use (optative), could you?’ (72) v-i-surv-eb-d-i-t male k. vlav 1sbj-sv-wish-ts-em-pm-pl.sbj soon again gv-e-nax-e-t Germania-ši 1sbj.pl-ev-see-pm-pl.sbj Germany

(from a letter)

‘We would wish (conditional) we could see you (pluperfect) in Germany again soon.’

d.  Future indicatives of stative verbs can have an epistemic meaning (cp. GegučaŠe 1980: 74): . (73) saxl-ši i-Šˇ d-eb-a da qurmil-s ar i->-eb-s house-in sv-sit-ts-3sg.sbj and receiver-dat neg sv-take-ts-3sg.sbj ‘He will sit (future) at home and does not pick up (present) the receiver.’

Cp. ecodineba ‘s/he will know it’, imušavebs ‘he will be working’ (= ‘he is probably working’). This future has the conditional as its backshifted counterpart. Cp. (74) with (75): (74) es kal-i ormoc-i c. l-isa ikneb-a this.nom woman-nom forty-obl year-gen will.be-3sg.sbj ‘This woman will be (future) forty years old.’



Mood in Modern Georgian

(75) es kal-i ormoc-i c. l-isa ikneb-od-a this.nom woman-nom forty-obl year-gen will.be-em-3sg.sbj ‘This woman would be (conditional) forty years old.’

e. However, the opposition between stative and non-stative verbs seems to be neutralised in the conditional, since it can have the epistemic (“assumptive”, Palmer 2001: 28; “suppositional”, Ž>ent.i 1996: 173) meaning of (75) without having an epistemic future counterpart. While (75) is the past counterpart of (74), (76)–(77) have no epistemic future counterpart: the simple future counterpart of (76) c. a-a-sc. r-eb-s does not mean: ‘s/he will probably catch it’ but simply: ‘s/he will catch it’. (76) vinme kurd-s c. a-a-sc. r-eb-d-a somebody.nom thief-dat prev-nv-reach-ts-em-3sg.sbj ‘Somebody will have caught the thief [at stealing].’ (77) am saxl-ši, romel-sa-c ma-s this.obl house-in, which-dat-rel he-dat da-u-cl-i-d-nen, isev prev-3io.ov-remove-ts-em-3pl.sbj again imdenive še-vid-od-nen as.many.nom prev-go-em-3pl.sbj

(GegučaŠe 2005: 95, simplified)

The ambiguity of (77) (GegučaŠe ib.) shows the distinctiveness of the different meanings of the conditional: ‘this house, which they would evacuate for him, as many people would enter again’ (prospective-habitual ‘they would repeatedly …’ as in (67), or backshifted thought: ‘[somebody thought:] They will evacuate…’ as in (69), or again: ‘this house, which they will have evacuated for him, as many people will have entered again’ (assumptive meaning as in (76)). To sum up: by its paradigmatic position, the conditional is not a mood, but it shares the modal use of its non-past counterpart, the future. In addition however, it has an independent modal meaning whose relationship with the rich evidential system of Kartvelian remains to be explored.

6.  Imperatives, prohibitives and subjunctives Imperatives, prohibitives and subjunctives are systematically related to each other and are interpretable within the framework of the tense-mood patterns outlined above. a. As we saw above (see 3.1.h. above), the contrast between the present and aorist series is neutralised with stative verbs. As a consequence, the morphological imperative (i.e. aorist) of non-stative verbs (78) is in complementary distribution with the present subjunctive of stative verbs (79): (78) ga-čum-d-i! prev-be.silent-inch-pm ‘Be silent (imperative aorist form)!’



 Winfried Boeder

(79) i-c-od-e! sv-know-em-sbjv ‘Know (present subjunctive)!’ (i.e. ‘I want you to know [that…]’)

The 3rd person jussive subjunctive shares this distribution in that the present subjunctive is used with stative verbs where non-stative verbs would require the optative: (80) mis-i k. udianob-is šenistana dedak. ac-eb-s his-nom slyness-gen like_you woman-pl-dat e-šin-od-e-s ev-fear-em-sbjv-3sg.sbj

. . (PapiŠe 1984: 97)

‘Women like you should fear (present subjunctive) his slyness.’

b.  Imperatives have a main clause privilege. In embedded reported speech, their transposed counterparts are subjunctives (as in many languages): (81) utxra, (rom) gamo-vid-e-s (< utxra: gamo-di!) s/he.told.him, (sub) prev-go-sbjv-3sg.sbj s/he.told.him prev-go!’ ‘S/He told him to come out (optative).’ (< ‘s/he told him: Come out (imperative)!’)

c.  Bare 2nd person optatives are not normally used in standard Modern Georgian main clauses, imperatives being used instead. Thus in formulaic wishes, imperatives, as in (82), are the second person counterparts of 3rd person optatives, as in (83): (82) i-cocxl-e sv-be.alive-pm ‘May you live long!’ (lit. ‘be alive (imperative)!’, said to someone sneezing) (83)

>mert-ma i-neb-o-s tkven-i sicocxle God-erg sv-will-sbjv-3sg.sbj your-nom life.nom (from a traditional table song) ‘May it please God to keep you alive (optative)!’

“Imperative”, then, is a formal category that is not restricted to the expression of commands. It expresses any volitional speech act: commands, wishes etc. For instance, the interpretation of an imperative as either a directive or a wish depends on different preparatory conditions such as controllability which belong to the lexical meaning of the verb (e.g. ‘live’ (82) and ‘know’ (79) are not under the control of the addressee and cannot be used as directives). d.  As 3rd person counterparts of imperatives, optatives are used in orders (jussives) (84) and permissions (85): . (84) sit.qva-m “revolucia” ar še-g-a-šin-o-s word-erg revolution neg prev-2obj-nv-fear-sbjv-3sg-s ‘Let the word “revolution” not frighten you!’

. . (PapiŠe 1981: 148)

. . (85) acale, da-i-sven-o-s (PapiŠe 1981: 148) discharge.him, prev-sv-recover-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘Let him be (2nd person singular imperative), let him take a rest (3rd person optative)!’



Mood in Modern Georgian 

e.  Inclusive 1st person plural optatives (ŠaniŠe 1973 § 251) can have a hortative meaning: (86) c. a-vid-e-t prev-go-sbjv-pl ‘Let us go!’

f.  Prohibitives are the negated 2nd person present and future indicative forms of the present tense-mood series. The future can be used as a “weaker” variant of the present with a “nuance of request” (Pa>ava 1985: 645), which is related to the uncertainty meaning of the future subjunctive (see 3.5): (87) nu muša(v)-ob amden xan-s neg.imp work-ts so_much time-dat ‘Don’t work/ stop working so much (present)!’ (88) nu i-mušav-eb amden xan-s neg.imp sv-work-ts so_much time-dat ‘Don’t work so much (future)!’

g.  The imperative or prohibitive indicative is the counterpart of the negative “requesting” optative. Consider the parallel use of the imperative and the negative optative in: (89) ar ga-u-šv-a-t, e-srol-e-t! neg prev-ov-let_go-sbjv-pl, ev-shoot-pm-pl ‘Don’t let him go (optative), shoot him (imperative)!’

(Γ56)

The modern use of the unmarked negation ar(a) + optative is considered to be more polite than the prohibitive indicative present use (Hewitt 1995: 569–570). Comparing the pragmatic properties of the present (87), future (88), and optative (89), the future seems to be the “mildest” form of the prohibitive, whereas the optative is a more or less conventionalised use, which may again be due to a form of “redressing” by means of a non-direct request form. The optative can perhaps be explained in the vein of politeness theory, where indirectness is a form of (negative) politeness: while the imperative is a “direct” expression of volition, the subjunctive does not necessarily require the speaker to be the addresser of an imposing request. In fact, the subjunctive often expresses a mediated imperative or . obligation (cf. Pap.iŠe 1981: 147): (90)

c. amal-i da-li-o-s medicine.nom drink-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘Let him/ her drink (optative) a medicine’ = ‘s/he shall drink a medicine’ = ‘tell him/her: Drink a medicine!’

h.  The formal and semantic distribution of imperatives, prohibitives and bare subjunctives can now be described in a comprehensive way: imperatives and prohibitives belong to the same class of forms as the subjunctives occurring with volitional predicates and accordingly follow the patterns I and II (‘order’, ‘want’ etc.) and I, II, IV (‘if only’). However, the

 Winfried Boeder

speech act conditions are selective with regard to possible event time: whereas overt volitional predicates like ‘want’ can occur in the past and with past event time complements, volitional speech acts behave like present-tense predicates. Accordingly, directives cannot occur with the pluperfect, since future event time is one of their speech act conditions; neither pattern I nor pattern II allow a pluperfect with a present reference time and a past event time. Within these limits, where specific speech act conditions “filter out” certain tense-mood options, “imperatives”, prohibitives and bare subjunctives are in complementary distribution: in volitional speech acts, the unmarked indicative is used with 2nd person subjects, the subjunctive is used elsewhere (cp. (85)). The indicative form of imperatives and prohibitives are a further case of mood neutralisation (see 2.f.). On this background, the aorist form of the imperative and the present/future form of the prohibitive make sense on the basis of patterns I and II: the imperative is a neutralised indicative counterpart of the optative according to pattern I, and the prohibitive present indicative form is a neutralised counterpart of the present subjunctive according to pattern II, including its modal implicative value: ‘stop doing it’ implies that you do it.2 Now consider the use of the preventive future in (88) above. If our analysis is correct, it should be a neutralised indicative counterpart of the future subjunctive. The specific semantics of this form noted above would follow from the fact that the future subjunctive does not occur with volitive predicates of the ‘order’ type, but only with an expression of wish (‘if only’, pattern IV), which is “weaker” than ‘order’ (because it does not necessarily presuppose an addressee on which the desired action is imposed).

7.  The subjunctive in adverbial clauses The subjunctive in adverbial clauses can only be hinted at. (For a survey see Hewitt 1987, 1995: 574–634 § 5.2.). Consider the following examples:

.  It remains to be investigated, if or under what conditions the present form can be used with a preventive meaning: ‘Don’t do it (in the future)!’ (‘do not (begin to) do it!’). However, the normal usage seems to be that preventives are either futures or optatives (see (88) and (89) above): am gasa>eb-s nu da-k. arg-av! this.obl key-dat neg.imp prev-lose-ts/es gasa>eb-i ar da-k. arg-o this key-nom neg prev-lose-opt ‘don’t lose this key!’ It is not clear to me if a formal distinction can be made between “prohibitive” (‘stop doing it!’) and “preventive”. Schmidt (1969: 228) considers a correlation between prohibitive and imperfective and between preventive and perfective aspect. Frequent though this correlation is, it does not seem to hold true for Georgian, since although both (87) and (88) are “aspectless” forms (see 2.c.), they show the same contrast as: nu a-Šlev t.k. bileul-s ‘don’t keep giving him sweets (imperfective present)’ vs. nu mi-s-cem t.k. bileul-s ‘don’t give him sweets (perfective future)’ (with root suppletion of ‘give’).



Mood in Modern Georgian 

. (91) ise u-pasux-a […], titkos mtel-i mis-i so 3io.ov-answer-3sg.sbj […], as_if whole-nom his-nom

. . cxovreba […] k. osmos-ši ga-e-t.ar-eb-in-o-s (PapiŠe 2005: 193) life.nom […] cosmos-in prev-ev-spend-ts-caus-sbjv-3sg.sbj ‘He answered as if he had spent (perfect subjunctive) all his life in the universe.’ . (92) da-v-mal-av rom aravin ar i-pov-o-s prev-1sbj-hide-ts sub nobody.erg neg sv-find-sbjv-3sg.sbj (Vogt 1971: 207) ‘I will hide (future) him in order that nobody can find (optative) him.’ (93) v-e-Š-eb-d-i k. ac-s, bina rom 1sbj-ev-seek-ts-em-pm man-dat, appartment-nom sub da-e-suptav-eb-in-a prev-ev-clean-ts-caus-3sg.sbj ‘I was looking for a man who would clean (pluperfect) my appartment’ (94) tu e-Šin-o-s, ga-a->viŠ-e-t. if ev-sleep-sbjv, prev-nv-wake.up-pm-pl.sbj  (Vogt 1971: 209: “s’approche du sens hypothétique”) ‘Should he sleep (optative), wake him up (imperative).’ (95) čit.-is rŠe rom i-nat.r-o, čvenianeb-i bird-gen milk.nom sub sv-wish-sbjv, our_people-nom ima-sa-c ar mo-g-a-k. l-eb-en (Γ 236) that-dat-too neg prev-2obj-nv-diminish-ts-3pl.sbj ‘In case you should wish (optative) for some bird milk, our people will not fail to provide it, too.’ (96) vin-c marŠˇ n-it c. a-vid-e-s, who-rel right-ins prev-go-sbjv-3sg.sbj, xelmc. ipe ga-xd-e-s king.nom prev-become-sbjv-3sg.sbj

(fairy tale)

‘Whoever goes (optative) to the right side shall become (optative) the king.’ (97) moc. ape rom k. arg-ad sc. avl-ob-d-e-s, pupil.nom sub good-adc learn-ts-em-sbjv-3sg.sbj, nišan-sa-c k. arg-s da-u-c. er-d-nen mark-dat-too good-dat prev-3io.ov-write-em-3pl.sbj

. . (PapiŠe 1988: 191)

‘If the pupil learned (present subjunctive) well, they would also give (conditional) him a good mark.’

 Winfried Boeder

(98) moc. ape rom k. arg-ad i-sc. avl-i-d-e-s, pupil.nom sub good-adc sv-learn-ts-em-sbjv-3pl.sbj nišan-sa-c k. arg-s da-u-c. er-d-nen (ib.) mark-dat-too good-dat prev-3io.ov-write-em-3pl.sbj ‘If the pupil learned (future subjunctive) well, they would also give (conditional) him a good mark.’ (99) moc. ape-s rom k. arg-ad e-sc. avl-a, nišan-i-c pupil.dat sub good-adc ev-learn-3sg.sbj, mark-nom-too k. arg-i unda da-e-c. er-a-t good-nom nec prev-ev-write-3pl.sbj ‘If the pupil had learned (pluperfect) well, they would also have been obliged to give (pluperfect) him a good mark.’

Most uses can be related to the details of their distribution in complement and main clause constructions. For instance, clauses of pretence show the irreality meaning of pattern II in (91), purpose clauses follow pattern I in (92). The same holds true for (93), which is a translation equivalent of a relative clause (but unambiguous relative clauses with the inflected relative pronoun romel- have the indicative mood). Potential conditional clauses as in (94) belong to expressions of non-epistemic possibility according to pattern I. Contingency seems to be related to free choice, i.e. to volition (95)–(96). The counterfactual conditional shows the irreality/ improbability meaning of the patterns II and IV in (97)–(98). Similar to many other languages (see Lazard 1975, 1998), the conditional occurs in its apodosis, where all temporal contrasts are neutralised, but are projectable from its protasis. That the tense of the protasis provides the reference time for the apodosis appears from (99), where unda is transparent to the relevant reference time (see 3.1.g.), and where the pluperfect of the apodosis is triggered by the past tense form of the protasis. The use of the conditional is related to the prospective/ consecutive meaning of the future (see 5.2.a): the only thing that needs to be specified in the apodosis is the non-anteriority to its reference time (as in pattern II and IV).

8.  Conclusion This outline of the Georgian mood system is tentative in its theoretical assumptions and limited in its coverage of data. It tries to understand the relevant paradigmatic units (optative, present subjunctive, future subjunctive, pluperfect, conditional etc.) by positing a limited number of tense-mood assignment patterns that seem systematically to account for many semantic distinctions which go unnoticed in a type of research that considers the meaning of each unit separately. What remains to be done is to examine the validity, theoretical status and completeness of these patterns, to determine the membership of large classes of predicates that are associated with them, and to investigate the distribution



Mood in Modern Georgian

of alternative forms occurring in the same environment (e.g. subjunctive vs. verbal noun (masdar) and (rarely) subjunctive vs. indicative etc.). In addition, the functional load of mood deserves a closer inspection, both structurally and statistically. (My impression is that a majority of tokens occur with particles like unda and in main clauses, i.e. in contexts without overt intrasentential triggers of a specific tense-mood assignment.) Finally, there is a vast field of other desiderata that could not be touched on here: the many specific convergences which Georgian shares with its neighbouring languages (Armenian, Greek, Iranian etc.) and the historical elaboration (rather than decline) of the mood system in Georgian and in particular in its sister languages Svan and Megrelian.

Abbreviations adc nv prev em ov ts ev inch pm

adverbial case neutral version preverb extension marker objective version thematic suffix e-version inchoative paradigm marker

References Arabuli, A. 1999. Zmnis sau>lebel erteulta raodenobis sak. itxisatvis Kartulši. Enatmecnierebis sak. itxebi 1999(1): 42–53. Boeder, W. 2000. Evidentiality in Georgian. In Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, L. Johanson & B. Utas (eds), 275–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Boeder, W. 2005. The South Caucasian languages. Lingua 115: 5–89. . . GegučaŠe, L. 1980. Mqopadis mnišvnelobatatvis Kartulši (hipot.aksur k. onst.rukciata masalaze). In Nark. vevebi Iberiul-K.avk. asiur enata morpologiidan, EŠ>neba ak. ademik. os Varlam Topurias xsovnas, 71–77. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. GegučaŠe, L. 2005. Mc. k. rivta šesaŠlo šepardebisa da drota tanamimdevrobis sak. itxebi rtul k. onst.rukciebši. Tbilisi: Universali. Γlont.i, A. 1996. Kartuli c. inadadeba. SavarŠˇišo masala sint.aksši. Meotxe ševsebuli gamocema. Tbilisi: Ganatleba. Harris, A.C. 1995. Modal auxiliaries in Georgian. In Pilologiuri Šiebani, A. Gvaxaria (ed.), 195–207. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Hewitt, B.G. 1987. The Typology of Subordination in Georgian and Abkhaz. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hewitt, B.G. 1995. Georgian. A Structural Reference Grammar [London Oriental and African Language Library 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



 Winfried Boeder Hockett, C.F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10: 210–231. [Kojima, Y. ] KoŠˇ ima, I. 2003. II turmeobiti da k. ilos k. at.egoriia tanamedrove Kartulši. Enatmecnierebis sak. itxebi 2003/1: 29–56. K. ot.inovi, N. 1986. K.ilos k. at.egoria da sint.aksis zogierti sak. itxi Kartulši. Tbilisi: Ganatleba. Lazard, G. 1975. La catégorie de l’éventuel. In Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Emile Benveniste, 347–358. Paris: Société de linguistique de Paris. Lazard, G. 1998. L’expression de l’irréel: Essai de typologie. In Typology of Verbal Categories. Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, L. Kulikov & H. Vater (eds), 237–247. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Matthews, P.H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology. A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge: CUP. Pa>ava, M. 1985. nu nac. ilak. is zogi tavisebureba Kartulši. Sakartvelos mecnierebata ak. ademiis moambe 119/3: 645–648. Palmer, F.R. 2001. Mood and Modality [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics], 2nd edn. Cambridge: . . CUP. . PapiŠe, A. 1979. Mesame k. avširebiti tanamedrove Kartul salit.erat.uro enaši. Kartuli sit.qvis k. ult.uris . . sak. itxebi 2: 54–89. . PapiŠe, A. 1981. II k. avširebitis nak. tvis punkciebi da gamoqeneba tanamedrove salit.erat.uro Kartulši. . . . Kartuli sit.qvis k..ult.uris sak. itxebi 4: 146–182. . PapiŠe, A. 1983. Mqopadis k. avširebitis nak. vtisatvis Kartulši. Kartuli sit.qvis k. ult.uris sak. itxebi 5: . . 59–80. . . PapiŠe, A. 1984. Ac. mqos k. avširebitis punkciebtan dak. avširebuli zogi sak. itxi. Kartuli sit.qvis k. ult.uris . . sak. itxebi 6: 81–108. . . PapiŠe, A. 1988. Mqopadis xolmeobiti tanamedrove Kartulši. Kartuli sit.qvis k. ult.uris sak. itxebi 8: . . 161–195. PapiŠe, A. 2005b. titkos ___-o nac. ilak. ebiani k. onst.rukciis semant.ik. ur-gramat.ik. uli analizi taname. drove Kartulši. Tbilisis pedagogiuri universit.et.is Kartuli enis k. atedris šromebi 6: 187–201. Schmidt, K.H. 1969. Probleme des Prohibitivsatzes. Studia Classica et Orientalia Antonio Pagliaro oblata III: 223–232. ŠaniŠe, A. 1973. Kartuli enis gramat.ik. is sapuŠvlebi I: Morpologia. Tbilisi: TU gam-ba. ŠarašeniŠe, N. 1999a. ikneb nac. ilak. is ist.oriisatvis. Enatmecnierebis sak. itxebi 2: 87–92. ŠarašeniŠe, N. 1999b. unda modaluri pormis ist.oriisa da morposint.aksuri analizisatvis. Enatmecnierebis sak. itxebi 4: 49–56. ŠarašeniŠe, N. 2000. lamis nac. ilak. is ist.oriisatvis. Enatmecnierebis sak. itxebi 10: 89–93. ŠarašeniŠe, N. 2001. egeb nac. ilak. is ist.oriisatvis. Šveli Kartuli enis k. atedris šromebi 30: 143–151. Tschenkéli, K. 1958. Einführung in die georgische Sprache, I: Theoretischer Teil. Zürich: Amirani. Tuite, K. To appear. Agentless transitive verbs in Georgian. Vogt, H. 1971. Grammaire de la langue géorgienne, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. . Zˇ>ent.i, D. 1996. Mqopadis xolmeobitis punkciur-semant.ik. uri mnišvnelobani mart.iv c. inadadebaši. Macne 1996. 171–174. Zˇ>ent.i, D. 2004. C.arsuli drois mc. k. rivta semant.ik. a modalur nac. ilak. ebtan xmarebis dros. Enatmecnierebis sak. itxebi 2004(1): 78–81.

Mood in Basque Martin Haase Bamberg

1.  Different degrees of grammaticalization Linguistic typology is fundamentally an onomasiological approach to lang­uag­es, since it compares how different possibly grammatical concepts are ex­pres­sed and grammaticalized in different languages. The basis of com­pari­son is therefore conceptual. When it comes to mood and modality, the first question is how modality is expressed in a language. If modality plays a role in grammar and is not purely lexically encoded, we may have to do with a grammatical category usually called mood. Mood can therefore be re­gard­ed as strongly grammaticalized modality. Such a definition of mood is bas­ed on an examination of the forms, and therefore semasiological, i.e. start­ing from the forms and explaining their function or the concepts they en­code in particular. In Basque the situation gets more complicated, because there are se­ver­al strongly grammaticalized forms that can be subsumed under the term mood and other less grammaticalized forms, so called modal operators, that par­ti­cipate in the expression of modality. I will start with the strongly gram­ma­ti­calized categories of mood and treat the modal operators of Basque se­par­ately. Only very few synthetic verbs do not follow the bipartite verbal con­struc­tion that consists of a non-finite content verb form and an auxiliary that con­tains the personal inflection and information on tense and mood (cf. Haase 1994). The synthetic verbs are of no interest here, because in non-in­di­cative moods, all verbs are analytically inflected. Here are some typical ver­bal complexes – in the indicative, to begin with: (1) Lore-a ikus-te-n dut. flower-idv see-vn-in have.prs.3sg3sg ‘What did you want me to do?’ lit.: ‘What did you want that I should have done?’

Like the present subjunctive the past subjunctive is formed by replacing the stem of the finite auxiliary by -(e)di- in the intransitive or -(e)za- in the tran­si­tive.

2.1.2  Functions The Basque subjunctive form can be used as an imperative, if used in the se­cond person; in this case it is used without the subordinating ending -n: (6) Euskara-z mintza zaitez! Basque-ins speak be.prs.sbjv.2sg ‘Speak (in) Basque!’

This is not the only way to express the imperative. Very often the simple par­ticiple form is used: (7) Etorri hona! come.ptcp hither ‘Come here!’ (8) Lasai egon! calm.ptcp stay ‘Keep calm!’

The frequent verbs etorri ‘come’, joan ‘go’, and egon ‘be (in a place)’ can al­so make use of the simple synthetic verb form to express an imperative. In that case, the synthetic verb comes at the beginning of a clause (without a pre­fix): (9) Zoaz etxe-ra! go.prs.2sg house-dir ‘Go home!’



 Martin Haase

This is actually an indicative form, meaning literally: ‘You go home’. Nor­mal­ly, a clause cannot begin with an inflected verb without a prefix. So, the im­per­ative meaning comes up with the peculiar clause-initial position of the verb. This usage is restricted to the second person (singular, plural, and a spe­cial familiar form). It is not surprising that second person indicatives de­ve­lop an imperative meaning, because factual statements about what the ad­dres­see is doing are less frequent than about the first or third person. Alternatively, it is possible to use the participle or the analytic sub­junc­tive form to express an order: (10) Joan etxe-ra! / Joan zaitez etxe-ra! go house-dir go be.prs.sbjv.2sg house-dir ‘Go home!’

The most frequent trivalent verbs (i.e. verbs inflected with an ergative, da­ti­ve and absolutive person marker) are inflected synthetically with the person mar­kers directly grafted to the stem: (11) Ema-i-da-zu! give-dat-1sg-2sg ‘Give it to me!’

It is believed that this is a short form for the analytic subjunctive con­struc­tion (Patrick & Zubiri 2001: 209); thus the above example is explained by the fol­lowing less common, but possible construction: (12) Ema i-eza-da-zu! give dat-have.prs.sbjv-1sg-2sg ‘Give it to me!’

(ib.)

There is no clear historic or dialectal evidence that supports the idea that forms like emaidazu! are contracted subjunctives. It is equally possible to exp ­ lain them by a simple addition of person markers to a verb stem (not un­us­ual with imperatives in other languages). The latter explanation is very tem­p­ting in view of Schuchardt’s (1893) reconstruction of the target marker *ki-: The target (e.g. the first person singular) is attached to the verb stem and thus allows for the addition of an ergative personal suffix: (13) *ema + ki + da + zu

In the first person plural the Basque subjunctive form is a hortative, i.e. an im­per­ative for the first person plural (again without the subordinating end­ing -n): (14) Euskara-z mintza gaitez! Basque-ins speak be.prs.sbjv.1pl ‘Let’s speak (in) Basque!’

In the third person the subjunctive expresses an order to a referent (non-speak­er, nonaddressee); here the subordinating ending -n is obligatory. Such a form – traditionally called jussive – is, of course, difficult to translate in­to a language that lacks imperatives in the third person:



Mood in Basque 

(15) Euskara-z mintza bedin. Basque-ins speak be.prs.sbjv.3sg ‘(S)He is to speak (in) Basque.’

The subjunctive is usually used in subordinate sentences after verbs ex­pres­sing a wish or an order: (16) Opa diogu zeru-an goza dadi-la. wish have.dat.3sg.3sg