556 JAMES K. WATTERS
(61) Otur-up -uyor-lar.
sit-Ip talk-PROG-3pL
"They are sitting and talking."
(62) Ara-yιp bul-ma-di.
seek-Ip find-NEG-PT
"X didn't seek and find."
(63) Iç-ip yi-yeceg-iz.
drink Ip eat-FUT-lpL
"We shall drink and eat."
(64) Gid-ip gör-meli-yiz
go-Ip see-oBLiG-lpL
"We ought to go and see."
In (61) the dependent clause receives the present tense^4 reading from the
main clause; in (62) the core-level negative^5 has scope over both clauses; in
(63) the dependent clause receives the future tense reading from the main
clause; and in (64), both clauses share the modality operator, -mElL The
nature of this construction as core cosubordination is suggested by the fol
lowing example which demonstrates that there is a coreference requirement
only for the subject argument of the two clauses:
(65) Raki iç-ip köfte yi-yeceg-iz.
raki drink-Ip meat.dish eat-FUT-lpL
"We'll drink raki and eat meat rissole."
There is a major problem with the -Ip forms for the claims in F&VV,
however. The -//? clause, though it cannot be marked for tense directly, can
have an independent temporal constituent:
(66) Dün bütün gün lfş-ιρ şimdi kendi-mi yorgun
yesterday all day work-IP now self-lsG tired
hissed-iyor-um.
feel-PROG-lsG
"Working all day yesterday, I'm tired now."
Though the -//? clause in (66) cannot be marked for tense, it is clearly
understood as past due to the presence of dün "yesterday". Examples like
this show why temporal arguments are considered a part of the periphery in
the framework of F&W: they can serve a function very similar to true
tense. The problem (66) presents, however, is that the suffix -Ip, generally
associated with core juncture, has a peripheral constituent.
