(^546) JAMES K. WATTERS
5.2 -ken
Another suffix which occurs in instances of clausal cosubordination is the
suffix -ken (< iken "while being"; Lewis 190). It often marks simultaneity:
(26) Ben oda-da otur-ur-ken, on-lar dişan-da
I room-Loc sit-AOR-Ken, PRO-PL outside-Loc
-uyor-lar-di.
talk-iMPF-PL-PT
"While I was sitting in the room, they were talking outside."
Note that the two clauses do not have to share an argument, evidence that
this is an instance of clausal rather than a core juncture. Similarly, that both
clauses have independent peripheries is suggested by the fact that they have
independent locatives — clausal arguments by F&VV's account. Assuming
the criterion discussed above for Turkish, this is apparently not an instance
of subordination as there is no postposition on the -ken clause. Note, how
ever, that the dependent clause is not independently specified for tense; the
tense operator of the main clause has the dependent clause within its scope.
This is even more striking when we see that -ecek, a suffix that is regularly
interpreted as "future tense" must be given a tense reading compatible with
the main clause if it is followed by -ken:
(27) Hayvan Mustafa-yi öldür-ecek-ken, Mustafa onu öldür-dü.
animal Mustafa-Ac kill-FUT-ken Mustafa it -
"When the animal was about to kill Mustafa, Mustafa killed it."
(Underhill 1976:402)
Thus, the -ken clause in (29), though carrying the future tense suffix, must
be interpreted as a sort of "future-in-the-past", since the -ken clause must
receive its tense reading from the main clause.
According to the relative scope of operators proposed by F&VV in
Figure 1, above, we would expect the -ken clause to be dependent on the
main clause for its evidential reading, as well. This is, in fact, the case:
(28) işi-ne git-miş-ken ben ev-de
PRO work-DAT go-miş[PERF]-ken I home-LOc
otur-uyor-uş-.
sit-IMPF-miş[EVID] -1SG
"(They say) while he's at work, I was staying home."
singke
(singke)
#1