TURKISH CLAUSE LINKAGE 545If this construction is truly an instance of clausal juncture, we would
expect the dependent clause, though lacking in tense specification, to be
independent not only in terms of its core arguments but also as regards
modality. This appears to be the case:
(22) O işin-e gid-ebil-ince mutlu ol-acag-im.
PRO work-DAT go-ABIL in happy become-FUT-lsG
"When he's able to go to work, I'll be happy."The modality-independence of the -ince clause might be questioned on
account of the ungrammaticality of forms with -mEU:
(23) *0 işin- git-meli-nce, bulasik-lar-i yika-di-m.
PRO work-DAT go-OBLi-, dish-PL-Acc wash-PT-lsG
"When he had to go to work, I washed the dishes."
Since F&VV suggest that modality includes such notions as obligation of
the subject (23) may seem to suggest that the -ince clause does not have an
independent core operator. However, as Karl Zimmer has pointed out
(p.c.), -ince occurs only after V roots and the voice suffixes (causative,
reciprocal and reflexive). In (22) bil is treated as if it were a verb root (see
comments above). This is an example of how the origin of -Ebil from a verb
root skews its behavior as a modality suffix vis-a-viz -mEU. Thus the
ungrammatical sentence (23), though at first glance appearing to provide a
counterexample to the claims explored here, is ruled out by an independent
constraint.
The following examples demonstrate that the dependent clause in the
-ince construction carries no illocutionary force:
(24) Ev-e gel-ince yat-ma-ya git-ti mi?
home-DAT come-in sleep-vN-DAT go-ρτ INT
"Having come did he go to sleep?"
(25) Kiş gel-ince kay-ag-a git- ist-iyor-um.
winter -in ski-NOM-DAT go-iNF want-IMPF-lsG
"When it is winter, I want to go skiing."
As discussed in Van Valin (1986) it is frequently the case that dependent
clauses are presupposed and thus not within the scope of the illocutionary
force operator. (See "Synopsis", sect. 6.6.) This is the case with the depen
dent clauses in both (24) and (25).