(17a) is a standard
transitive sentence with an indefinite subject. In (17b) we have an impersonal
sentence, where the subject of the verb saldu 'to sell' has
been taken out of the sentence. As a result, the auxiliary
becomes a form of 'be', and the only argument of the sentence is marked absolutive,
as it was in the transitive version.
2.1.4. Inchoatives. Inchoatives, or causative alternations
as they are also called, involve contrasts that are formally identical to the
one illustrated in (17).
Thus, consider a verb like apurtu 'to break', which has an
inchoative form (18a) and an unaccusative form (18b):
(18)
- umeak jostailua apurtu du
child-det-E toy-det broken has
'the
child has broken the toy'
- jostailua apurtu da
toy-det broken is
'the toy has broken'
As you can judge from the example given, there is no specific inchoative
morphology on the verb, and the pair involves simply the addition (or
subtraction, depending on your point of view) of one argument to the sentence.
2.1.5. Causatives.
Causative verbs are constructed by adding the causative verb
arazi 'to cause' to the root of base verb, as illustrated in
(19):
(19)
- arazo hau ikuserazi digute
problem this see-cause it-have-us-they
'they have made us see this problem'
- himnoa kantaerazten diete umeei
anthem-det sing-cause-hab
it-have-them-they child-detpl-D
'They make children sing the
anthem'
2.2. Synthetic and periphrastic. The distinction between
synthetic and periphrastic verbs has been briefly illustrated in examples (3) and
(4)
in the introductory section to this chapter. The distinction concerns the manner
in which verbs inflect:
(I) a synthetic verb is a verb that inflects without the
help of an auxiliary
verb
(II) a periphrastic verb is a verb that must inflect with
the help of an auxiliary
verb.
This said, it must be noted that the terms synthetic and
periphrastic are used ambiguously to refer either to:
(a)
verbs that can inflect synthetically, such as jakin 'to
know', versus verbs that can only inflect periphrastically, such as
tolostu 'to fold', or
(b)
particular verbal forms that are synthetic, such as dakizu
'it-know-you' (you know), versus particular verbal forms that are periphrastic,
such as jakin dezakezu 'know it-have-pot-you' (you can know).
We will start by considering the opposition in (a),
and will then focus on the opposition in (b),
which will become a natural introduction to the category aspect,
to be discussed in the next section.
(a) Verbs that can inflect synthetically: The number of verbs that can
inflect some of their forms synthetically is very small, compared to the entire
set of verbs in Euskara. The overwhelming majority of verbs can only inflect
with the help of an auxiliary verb. Older stages of the language had a much
larger set of synthetic verbs (see Lafon (1944)). The grammar of
the Royal Academy of Basque Language (EGLU)
estimates that in modern spoken Basque there are only about ten verbs where
synthetic form are used: egon 'stay', joan
'go', etorri 'arrive', ibili 'walk',
izan 'to be', jakin 'know',
eduki 'have', ekarri 'bring',
eraman 'take', ihardun 'engage'. Some other
verbs, like jarin 'to ooze, to flow', erabili
'to use', irudi 'to look like', esan 'to say'
are used synthetically only in a few forms, and finally there is a third set of
verbs, like atxeki 'attach', jarraiki
'follow', esan 'say', eman 'give' or
entzun 'hear', which are occasionally used in synthetic fashion
in literary language.
It is not at all clear what syntactic or semantic feature, if any, defines
the set of synthetic verbs; as far as modern Euskara is concerned, it appears to
be a lexical idiosyncracy of the verbs listed above. It must be noted, however,
that all synthetic verbs have the older participial endings (n,
I), not the nowadays productive one (tu),
which was borrowed from Latin. Hence, all synthetic verbs are 'old verbs' in
this sense, but not all the 'old verbs' belong in the synthetic class. In
general, both the number of verbs that can inflect synthetically, and the number
of forms that are used synthetically within the paradigms of those verbs appears
to be getting progressively smaller, some forms become more and more literary as
they are used less often in spoken language.
(b) Synthetically inflected forms: synthetic forms have the same
morphological markers as periphrastic forms with one exception: they contain no
visible aspect
marker. Let us see this by comparing a periphrastic and a synthetic form of the
verb ekarri 'to bring':
(20)
- Mikelek katakume bat ekarri du
Mikel-E kitten one bring-prf has
'Mikel has brought a kitten'
- Mikelek katakume bat dakar
Mikel-E kitten one brings
'Mikel
brings a kitten'
Let us first consider the morphology of the two verb forms. In (20a), the root of the
verb, ekar takes a perfective
aspectual morpheme i and forms the perfective participial.
Following it we find the auxiliary verb du, which contains a
morpheme d,
which appears in present tense forms when the absolutive phrase is third person,
and a morpheme u, the root of the verb ukan.
Lack of any other visible specification entails that the ergative phrase is
third person singular. In (20b), the only morphemes
missing are the perfective
marker i and the root of the auxiliary
u. Thus, the form dakar contains the root of
the verb, kar, and the morpheme d for present
tense and third person absolutive. Comparing the perfective participle in (20a) and the synthetic
form in (20b), you have
probably noticed that the initial e in (20a) is also missing in (20b). This initial vowel
does not appear to be a morpheme, but rather, a superficial phonological
addition to the root.
Thus, the relevant differences between (20a) and (20b) are the perfective
marker, and the root of the auxiliary.
The very name of 'auxiliary' indicates that these types of verbs are thought to
appear when for some reason the verb is not capable of carrying the verbal
morphology on itself. Put differently, it is probably the case that the
auxiliary is contingent on the presence of the perfective marker, a consequence
of it. If this is the case, then the only relevant difference between (20a) and (20b) is the presence of
the perfective marker in (20a), and its absence in
(20b).
Considering the meaning of the examples, whereas (20a) has a perfective
meaning (it talks about a completed event of bringing), (20b) does not. The meaning
of (20b), is that 'Mikel
is now bringing a kitten'. Hence, the sentence talks about an imperfective
event, one that is talked about as it is happening. Put more technically, (20b) has a punctual
aspect.
Synthetic forms are only possible when the aspectual specification is
punctual. Synthetic forms can be specified for either present (20b) or past tense (21a). They can also be
specified for modality
(21b) (even though this usage is almost exclusively literary), and they can
carry as many agreement
morphemes as periphrastic
forms do (21c):
(21)
- Mikelek katakume bat zekarren
Mikel-E kitten one brought
'Mikel
was bringing a kitten'
- Mikelek katakume bat dakarke
Mikel-E kitten one bring-can
'Mikel
can bring a kitten'
- Zuek ni nakarzue
You-E I me-bring-you
'You(guys) (are)
bring(ing) me'
Once a given verb belongs to the synthetic group, the relevant issue that
determines whether it will display a synthetic or a periphrastic form is verbal
aspect.
Synthetic forms can never convey perfective,
habitual
or future
events. These distinctions depend crucially on the aspectual category in
Euskara. The place of aspect in the verbal morphology of Euskara is discussed in
the next section.
3. Aspect.
Many different phenomena are classified under the name tag 'aspect' in
linguistics, and everyone agrees that this is a still rather poorly understood
area of human language. In order to clarify matters in this description, we will
approach the discussion on aspect from a strictly formal pont of view. That is,
the criteria that guides this section rests on the morphological distinctions
found in Euskara, and the various phenomena they give raise to. The expert on
aspect will find that many issues related to aspect in a broader sense, are not
touched upon here.
We group under the category 'aspect' the morphemes that appear attached to
the verbal root in periphrastic
forms. These are basically three:
It must be noted that no overt aspect marker surfaces when the inflected
auxiliary is a potential
form, involving the modal morpheme ke. In those cases, the root
of the verb is used, as shown in the
examples provided when discussing those forms.
3.1. The perfective. The perfective morpheme can have three
forms, depending on the verb: tu, i,
n. The morpheme tu is the most frequent one.
It was borrowed from Latin (dictum). All verbs of new creation must take
this morpheme in their perfective form; that is, it is the unmarked one of the
set. After the sounds n and l, it becomes
du, for instance in lagundu 'to help'. The
morphemes i and n are the older perfective
markers. The perfective morpheme indicates a completed action, either in the
present (22a) or in the
past (22b):
(22)
- Olatz poztu da
Olatz rejoice-perf is
'Olatz has rejoiced'
- Olatz poztu zen
Olatz rejoice-prf was
'Olatz rejoiced'
In (22a), the
perfective participle poztu takes a present tense auxiliary
da 'is'. The result is a present tense perfective form. In (22b), the same participle
takes a past tense auxiliary zen 'was', and the result is a
past tense perfective form.Perfective forms must always carry an auxiliary
verb; they can never inflect synthetically.
As mentioned in the beginning of section
1 of this chapter, the perfective participle is the form used for naming
verbs. Regarding perfective participials in adjective function, see 3.1.1. of
chapter 2.
3.2. The imperfective. The imperfective morpheme is
tzen, sometimes surfacing as ten. In the case
of verbs that do not inflect synthetically,
the imperfective aspect marker is used both for denoting a punctual, ongoing
event, that is, something that is happening right now, and for denoting a
habitual event, that is, something that happens with a certain frequency.
Consider the examples in (23):
(23)
- Paulek liburua irakurtzen du
Paul-E book-det read-impf has
'Paul
reads the book'
- Olatz etxean gelditzen da
Olatz house-in stay-impf is
'Olatz
stays home'
The sentence in (23a) can be used to refer to an event that is taking place
as the sentence is uttered. What is meant to say is that Paul is reading the
book. The example can also refer to an event that takes place with a certain
frequency, for instance, if Paul were in the habit of reading the book every
morning. The same is true of (23b): it can refer to the event of Olatz staying
home right now, as the rest of us leave, for instance, or it can be a statement
about a habitual event.
In the case of synthetic
forms, as we pointed out above, matters are slightly different. A synthetic
form denotes a punctual aspect; in order to convey habituality, the marker
tzen and an auxiliary verb must be used. Consider the pair in
(24):
(24)
- Mikelek katakumea dakar
Mikel-E kitten-det brings
'Mikel
brings/is bringing the kitten'
- Mikelek katakumea ekartzen du
Mikel-E kitten-det bring-impf has
'Mikel brings the kitten'
In (24a), since ekarri 'to bring' is a synthetic verb,
punctuality is conveyed by means of the synthetic form. That is, (24a) means
that Mikel is bringing the kitten as we speak. The sentence in (24b), where the
verb ekarri takes the imperfective morpheme, yielding
ekartzen, denotes a habitual event. It could be used if, for
instance, Mikel brought the kitten every time we went on a hike to the
mountains, and we wanted to talk about his habit of his.
3.2.1. The progressive ari construction. There is a
progressive construction, used mostly in central varieties of the language. It
involves the aspectual verb ari, which is inserted between the
imperfective participle and the auxiliary, as illustrated in (25):
(25)
Josune aspertzen ari da
Josune bore-impf prog is
'Josune is
getting bored'
The progressive verb ari alters the case pattern of a
transitive sentence. The ergative Noun phrase surfaces in absolutive, and the
auxiliary becomes a form of izan 'to be', as if the sentence
were now intransitive. The object remains marked for absolutive as well. This is
illustrated in (26), which can be compared to (23a):
(26)
Paul liburua irakurtzen ari da
Paul book-det read-impf prog is
'Paul is reading the/a book'
There are a few exceptions to this change in the case pattern. In eastern
varieties, it is reported (EGLU)
that transitive sentences using the progressive ari may keep ergative
marking, but it is not clear under what conditions. In central varieties, weather
predicates constitute a clearer exception. In weather predicates,
ari is used to denote punctuality, with or without the help of
a participle. The auxiliary
remains a form of ukan 'to have'. Examples of weather
predicates constructed upon ari are provided in (27):
(27)
euria ari du orain
rain-det prog has now
'it is raining now'
Occasionally, the ari construction can also be used with
verbs that inflect synthetically as the examples in (28), (from EGLU
and Euskaltzaindia
(1993)) show:
(28)
- liburu honi kolorea joaten ari zaio
book this-D color-det go-impf
prog is-to it
'This book is losing its color'
(literally: 'to this
book color is leaving')
- jendea uholdeka etortzen ari da
people flooding-by come-impf prog is
'People are flooding in'
(literally: 'people are coming by
floodings')
In (28a), the synthetic verb joan 'to go, to leave' takes
the periphrastic progressive ari form, and denotes an event
that is taking place as we speak. It is probably the fact that the fading of the
color takes such a long period of time what makes the use of
ari better suited than the synthetic form of the verb. In
(28b), the verb etorri 'to come' is used in the
ari construction, despite it being a synthetic verb. In this
case, it is probably the fact that the event described is more episodic than
punctual what makes the use of a periphrastic form more adequate.
The aspectual element ari can be used without a participle
if there is a locational
phrase that denotes an activity:
(29)
- lanean ari naiz
work-in prog am
'I am working'
- bertsotan ari gara
verses-in prog are-we
'we are making verses'
Finally, ari itself can be inflected for aspect, which
indicates that it is probably best thought of as a verb, whose meaning is akin
to 'to engage'.
(30)
- gaur goizean umeak jolasean aritu dira
today morning-in
child-detpl play-in engage-perf are
'Today in the morning the
children have been playing'
- bihar goizean umeak jolasean arituko dira
tomorrow morning-in
child-detpl play-in engage-irr are
'tomorrow morning the
children will be playing'
3.3. The unrealized. The third aspectual morpheme is
tuko, iko or ngo, depending
on the participial form. That is, verbs that make participials with the ending
tu will make the unrealized as tuko, whereas
verbs that make participials in i make the unrealized as
iko, and verbs whose participials end in n
make their unrealized forms as ngo. The unrealized is built by
adding the morpheme ko to the perfective participial form. In
eastern
varieties, the morpheme added to the participial form is en
instead of ko.
In most descriptive grammars, this aspect is commonly referred to as a
'future' marker, but here we will take it to be an aspectual marker indicating
that an event has not started happening. As we will see, the marker
tuko can yield verbal forms that are not future, even if the
future is one of the verbal forms it may yield. The unrealized morpheme will be
glossed as irr, for the grammatical term 'irrealis'. Let us
consider a few examples in (31):
(31)
- idazle honek eleberri bi idatziko ditu
writer this-E novel two
write-irr has
'This writer will write two novels'
- hegoak ebaki banizkio, nirea izango zen
wing-detpl cut
if-had-I, I-gen-det be-irr was
'If I cut its wings, it would be mine'
In (31a), we can see
a future verbal form. It is built by combining a main verb with the unrealized
aspect marker, in this case idatziko, and an auxiliary
in present tense, in this case ditu a form of
ukan 'to have'. Thus, the future requires an auxiliary in
present tense and the unrealized aspect marker. In (31b), we see another use
of the unrealized aspect morpheme, which does not yield a future tense. In this
case, we have a conditional sentence, 'if I cut its wings', followed by the
consequence, which is the one we focus on. It combines the main verb
izan 'to be', to which the unrealized aspect has been attached,
izango, and this main verb combines now with a past tense
auxiliary verb, zen, a form of the auxiliary
izan, 'to be'.
These examples illustrate the two main uses of this aspectual marker: with
present tense forms it yields the future, and with past tense or modal forms it
yields conditionals. A few more forms are given in (32), now using other kinds
of conditionals:
(32)
- Miren etorriko balitz, Mikel joango litzateke
Miren come-irr
if-were, Mikel leave-irr would
'If Miren came, Mikel would leave'
- Miren etorri balitz, Mikel joango zatekeen
Miren come if-were, Mikel
leave-irr would-have
'Had Miren come, Mikel would have left'
As we can see in the examples, the unrealized aspect marker is used in the
first part of the conditional in (32a), and in the consequence as well. In this
example, the verbal form of the consequence, litzateke,
includes a modal marker ke. If you consider (32b), which
illustrates a counterfactual conditional, the unrealized aspect marker surfaces
only in the consequence, joango.