40 лет Санкт-Петербургской типологической школе - [83]

No menym okotamunny vorsny, köt'i mamölön s'etöm

but I-DAT desire go-lNF play-iNF although mother-GEN give-PRTC

urkövöjys ez ešty

task-NOMDEF NEG-PST-3SG end

«But I want to go and play, although the task given by my mother was not finished» [Syijänische Texte 1995:192].

In other non-finite verbal constructions as well, as in gerundials, the genitive may express the agent of the action [Fedjunjova 1998].

With certain verbs, the genitive expresses the non-active subject, as with the verbs byrny «to be finished», vunny «to be forgotten»: menam vunöma I-GEN forget-PERF-3SG «I have forgotten» [Fedina 1997:10]. All these usages may have served as analogical basis for the possessive impersonal with — öma. |

The bare impersonal form without any expression of the agent is nowadays very common, possibly influenced by the literary Russian past passive predicates with — no/-to [M. S. Fedina, paper presented at the International Congress of MAPRIJAL, June 1998, Syktyvkar].

The newness of the Komi possessive impersonal construction can only be presumed, since there is no mention of them in old grammars and descriptions. Perhaps accidentally, there seem to be no examples in the folkloric texts available, which represent the state of the language at the beginning of the XXth century. In the Komi prose of the 1930s, the construction becomes more common in the texts of individual writers. Earlier grammars written by native linguists do not mention it, except the grammar of 1949 by D. V. Bubrih. He gives examples of the 2nd past (=perfect) transitive and reflexive verbs and translates them by using the north Russian impersonal constructions with passive participial predicates:

Murtsa abu kuvs'öma

almost not die-REFL-PERF-3 SG

«(I) almost died».

«Edva ne bylo umerto».

Menam omöl'ys' abu polöma

I-GEN evil-ELAT not fear-PERF-3SG

«I was not afraid of evil».

«U menja dumogo ne boeno».

Mens'ym vokös viöma

I-ELAT brother-ACCPOSS 1 SG kill-PERF-3SG

«My brother was killed».

«Moego brata ubito».

Jegorlön abun'in etša c'ukörtöma embursö

Iegor-GEN not already little gather-PERF-3SG riches-ACC

«U Egora uže ne malo sobrano dobra».

«Yegor has already gathered not a little riches» [Bubrih 1949:124–125].

The new Komi grammar lists the uses of the genitive agent as follows:

1) a real active subject:

a) in an attributive construction with the participial form:

<…> jenmyslön s'etöm mic'a da söstöm vör-va

God-NOMDEF-GEN give-PRTC beautiful and clean nature

«the beautiful and clean nature given by God».

b) with the perfect:

Ö'itortö kykys' šuny Jakovlön abu

one-ACCDEF twice say-lNF Jakov-GEN not

velalöma…

get-accustomed-PERF-3SG

«Yakov was not used to saying one thing twice».

2) a passive subject: someone does something because of being told to do so, or someone is in a state:

a) with verbs of passive meaning (vunny «be-forgotten», byrny «be finished», mynny «pass (about time)», artmyny «come out (of state)», vošny «vanish, be lost» etc.

No tajo istog vylo On'dlon vosi stav nad'ejays

but this match upon Andrej-GEN be-lost-PST-3SG all hope-NOMDEF «But Andrei lost all hope for this match»;

b) with the reflexive suffix — s':

Stariklön s'ojs's žö n'in

old.man-GEN eat-REFL-PST-3 SG PTL already

«The old man has finished eating already»;

Virin'ejalön ez na c'ec'c'yss'y

Virineja-GEN NEG-PST-3SG yet get.up-REFL-PST-3SG

«Virineja did not feel like getting up / could not get up»;

c) with modal predicates:

Povodd'ayslön kolö n'in vežs'yny

weather-DEF-GEN must already change-INF

«The weather must change»;

d) the subject of certain phraseological predicates indicating non-voluntary state (vež petö «to want something», lit. «desire comes out») [Fedjunjova 2000: 66].

4. Degrees of subject demotion

To illustrate the difference between the possessive impersonal construction and the impersonal construction expressing involuntary action with the reflexive suffix, some citations and an excerpt from the history is in order. The eminent Komi linguist, V. I. Lytkin (Illa Vas'), was arrested in 1930 and accused of national bourgeois tendencies and espionage. He had just returned from Hungary, and, occupied as he was with studying, writing poems and publishing them he had no idea about what was going on at home. On returning to the USSR, he was publicly criticized, and he made a full «confession», explaining his motives with all the possibilities of subject demotion available in the language.

First, he wrote that he had answered the critics, but the text had not been published:

Menam kuz'a gižs'öma da «Ordym» žurnalyn

I-GEN long write-REFL-PERF-3SG and Ordym joumal-lNESS

ez pet

NEG-PST-3SG appear

«I had written (unintentionally, apparently) extensively, and (it) did not appear in the magazine Ordym» [IllaVas' 1994(1931): 91].

Lytkin continues to excuse himself by thanking the critics who had opened his eyes to many blemishes in his text Munflny: it was neither a poem or a poema, but something in between, and it would not produce any great ideas.

Sess'a bara žö gižöma völi zev termas'ömön

then again PTL write-PERF-3SG COP-PST very hurriedly