550 JAMES K. WATTERS
(39) Odam-da yat-ιş uyu-yor-du-m.
room-LOc lie-mlş sleep-PROG-PT-lsG
"I was lying in my room sleeping."
(40) Odam-da yat- uyu-ya-mι-yor-du-m.
rOOm-LOC lie-mlş Sleep-ABIL-NEG-PROG-PT-ISG
"I was lying in my room unable to go to sleep."
Note that there is no special suffix that marks one of the clauses as depen
dent in any way. Yet, in each case, the first verb receives its interpretation
for subject and tense from the marking on the final verb. Note that the -mlş
forms in these examples are not instances of evidential marking. Rather,
these are instances of -mlş functioning as a perfect aspect, allowing the
achievement verbs yatmak and uzanmak to have a stative reading. Thus,
the two clauses are independently marked for aspect, as would be expected
in core juncture.
Notice also in (40) that the modal suffix on the final verb does not have
scope over the first clause. Thus the first clause, though receiving its tense
interpretation from the final verb, is independently specified for modality
as well as aspect. If the two clauses must share the same tense in such a con
struction we would also expect that it would not be possible to give them
independent evidential specification. This is, in fact, the case:
(41) Odam-da yat-ιyor- uyu-yor--.
room-Loc lie-PROG-mlş sleep-PROG-mlş-lsG
"(They say) I was lying in my room sleeping."
(42) Odam-da yat-ιyor -r--.
room-Loc lie-PROG sleep-PROG-mlş-lsG
"(They say) I was lying in my room sleeping."
(43) * Odam-da yat-iyor- uyu-yor-um.
room-Loc lie-PROG-mlş sleep-PROG-lsG
These examples show that the two clauses must agree in evidentiality, as
they do in tense. These are all instances of evidential -mlş since, unlike
(38)-(40), there is no tense marker to strip them of their evidential reading.
This - mIş may occur in both clauses, as in (41), or only on the final verb, as
in (42). In both cases they receive the same "hearsay" reading since the
- has scope over both clauses. (43) is ungrammatical since it would
require the first clause to have the "hearsay" reading while the second
would have the "first-hand" reading. The two clauses also share a third
clausal operator: status. Note the following:
