Documentation

Linglib.Studies.GokselKerslake2005

Göksel & Kerslake 2005: Turkish Evidential TAM #

[GK05] [Cum26]

Bridge between Turkish TAM data and [Cum26]'s (S, A, T) evidential framework. The key prediction: Turkish -DI and -mIş differ in their evidential perspective constraint (EPCondition), not primarily in their temporal (UPCondition) constraint.

The -DI / -mIş contrast #

Both share the same utterance perspective: past (T < S). The evidential dimension is what distinguishes them — a prediction from the (S, A, T) framework applied to Turkish.

Turkish -DI (witnessed past): contemporaneous evidence acquisition. The speaker was present at the time of the event.

Equations
Instances For

    Turkish -mIş (indirect/reportative): strictly downstream evidence. The speaker learned about the event after it occurred.

    Equations
    Instances For

      -DI and -mIş share temporal constraint but differ in evidential perspective.

      theorem GokselKerslake2005.di_miş_same_slot :
      have di := (List.filter (fun (x : Turkish.TAM.TAMEntry) => x.category == Turkish.TAM.TAMCategory.pastDef) Turkish.TAM.entries).head!; (have miş := (List.filter (fun (x : Turkish.TAM.TAMEntry) => x.category == Turkish.TAM.TAMCategory.evidential) Turkish.TAM.entries).head!; di.category != miş.category) = true

      Both -DI and -mIş occupy the TAM slot in the Turkish suffix template. They are in complementary distribution: you cannot have both.

      -DI is the only category with contemporaneous EP (direct witness).

      -mIş EP is strictly downstream — evidence comes after the event.