365bet娱乐

Summary of article contents:

Introduction

The text discusses the presence of the "present" and "present-future" construction in the Northwestern and Middle Asian Turkic languages. This phenomenon, represented by the suffix -A combined with personal markers, is a significant topic that remains unresolved within Turkology. The author, Lars Johanson, outlines several complex issues pertaining to this construction and the various interpretations regarding its historical development, its morphological characteristics, and the diversity of its semantic function across different Turkic languages.

The Role of the Auxiliary Verb "turur"

One critical concept addressed is the auxiliary verb "turur," which is seen as a morphological precursor to the present tense forms. Johanson notes two primary theories surrounding its relationship with the suffix -A: the more common viewpoint suggests that -A turur is foundational to the emergence of the present tense, leading to morphological variants, while an alternative perspective posits that the simpler -A form emerged first, with "turur" being added subsequently to form a new paradigm. The importance lies in how these differing theories highlight an ongoing debate regarding the origins of the present tense in Turkic languages.

Morphological Simplification and Variants

Another key topic is the morphological simplification seen in the evolution of the -A forms, particularly in the context of certain Turkic languages like Chuvash and Uzbek. Johanson discusses the transition from a variable vocalic system to a standardized vocalization (-A) and how this simplification has impacted the distinction between present forms and aorist forms. In languages such as Uzbek, where uniformity has been achieved in present tense markers, this has led to some confusion and overlap when distinguishing between actions regarded as present and those termed as future or habitual.

Tense Development and Function

A third significant concept is the process through which the present tense evolved in response to functional needs within various Turkic languages. Johanson argues that the establishment of the present tense did not merely stem from phonetic adjustments of earlier forms but instead required a thorough morphosyntactic innovation. This development necessitated an adjustment towards a more functional and coherent present indicative, as evidenced in the way present forms are utilized differently across languages like Tatar and Uzbek. Such contrasts underline the diversity within the Turkic family and the dynamic nature of language evolution.

Competition Between Simple and Complex Forms

Additionally, the author examines the competition between simple present forms and more complex constructions in languages like New Uighur. He highlights how these two forms have coexisted, with various degrees of interchangeably and functional overlap. The complexity of this relationship suggests that the traditional development from one form to another is not straightforward and may instead indicate a pattern of adaptive strategies employed by speakers to create distinctions when faced with phonetic similarities and functional redundancies in tense forms.

Conclusion

In summary, Lars Johanson鈥檚 exploration of the present and present-future structures within Northwestern and Middle Asian Turkic languages reveals a multifaceted problem rooted in historical, morphological, and functional aspects. The discussion points to a rich tapestry of language evolution, where varying interpretations of the role of auxiliary verbs, morphological simplifications, and distinctive linguistic functions shape our understanding of Turkic verb forms. Ultimately, this examination showcases the intricate processes underlying language development and the ongoing scholarly dialogue that seeks to untangle these complexities.