In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 6 Conclusion This chapter has three goals. First, it summarizes the arguments that have been made in the preceding chapters and gives a complete account of the Macedonian indicative system. Second, it gives a brief overview of how the most salient verbal categories of Macedonian can be compared to those in other Balkan languages, including Turkish, Romani, and Judezmo.1 The third goal of this chapter is to provide the reader with references to subsequent relevant work. As it has turned out, in the course of the decades following the publication of the first edition of this book, many of the problems adduced in this chapter as requiring further research became the focus of my subsequent research. Rather than attempting to completely rewrite the chapter, however, I have chosen instead to provide references to subsequent research. In this way, the current chapter provides both a guide to the answers to many of the questions raised here, but it also gives the reader a sense of how the field has changed in the course of the past three or four decades. 1 Although Sandfeld (1930: 3) excluded both Romani and Judezmo from consideration as Balkan languages, in addition to treating Turkish as an adstrate rather than partici­ pant, current approaches recognize these all these languages as being part of Balkan linguistics proper (Friedman 2006c). Beginning with Kostov 1963, 1973, Uhlik 1973, and Friedman 1985b, the Balkan linguistic nature of the dialects of Romani spoken in the Balkans is now well established. See now also Friedman 2006a as well as Boretzky and Igla 1999, 2004, Bochmann 1999, Matras 1994, 2002, and Elšík and Matras 2006. Moreover, the participation of Balkan Turkish dialects, especially the West Rumelian dialects, is also now well established. See especially Friedman 2003a, 2006b and Matras and Tufan 2007. With regard to Judezmo, much work remains to be done. Most studies of Judezmo examine it either as a Romance language or as a Jewish language rather than examining the specific developments in those dialects spoken in the Balkans . In his now classic work, Joseph (1983: 252–53) examined Judezmo infinitives and found little evidence of Balkanization. Later research, however, has revealed that even here Balkan Judezmo replaces infinitives in some constructions where non-Balkan dialects would not (Friedman 2006c, Symeonides 2002). See also Varol 2001 on evidentials and Friedman 2008 on object reduplication. For general considerations, see Friedman and Joseph 2014. 102 6. Conclusion 6.1. The Macedonian Indicative The semantic structure of the Macedonian indicative system can be summed up in the distinctive feature matrix and represented graphically by the diagram in Table 10 on p. 103 and Figure 2 on p. 104. As can be seen, the categories of resultativity, tense, and reference are most important for the system. Resultativity sets the ima series apart from all the other tense forms. This would appear to be consistent with the fact that the ima series is the latest addition to the system and that it is the series which plays a major role in differentiating Macedonian from the neighboring Slavic languages. As was observed in chapter 4, positive marking for resultativity makes positive marking for tense redundant; thus, while tense is the next differentiating factor for the nonresultative forms, reference is the next category for the resultatives. Since reference is found only in marked resultative forms, performing essentially the same distinguishing function as tense for the nonresultatives , the two catgories may be treated together as they are in the matrix and diagram. For both the resultatives and non-resultatives, those forms positively marked for tense/reference are also marked for status and/or taxis, while those forms not so marked do not enter into any further oppositions. The resultative past forms have only the further opposition of status, while the nonresultative past forms are differentiated by taxis, and those negatively marked for taxis are then differentiated by status. Aspect is at the bottom of the hierarchy, and all nonresultative past forms enter into that opposition. It would seem appropriate that aspect occupies this position in the hierarchy, since the category does occur elsewhere in the verbal system. Regardless of the realtionship of the opposition perfective/imperfective aspect to questions of inflection, derivation, and lexicon, the fact remains that there are at least two kinds of aspect, perfective/imperfective and aorist/imperfect, affecting the verbal system, and one manner of keeping them distinct would be their placement at opposite ends of the hierarchy. A review of the...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.