Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Obligatory Future In A Dene Language 1
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Obligatory Future In A Dene Language 1
Do you wish to request the book?
Obligatory Future In A Dene Language 1
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Obligatory Future In A Dene Language 1
2015
Overview
In Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì (Dogrib), spoken in the Northwest Territories, Canada, the periphrastic particle ı̨lè, which has been considered a past marker, is optional in the clause. As in other Dene (Athapaskan) languages, viewpoint aspect is encoded morphologically on the verb. These two facts can give the impression that aspect is the only obligatory temporal category in this language and that other temporal distinctions are peripheral. I argue, on the contrary, that a future/non-future distinction is a necessary element of well-formed clauses, that Future, rather than Past/Non-Past Tense or Aspect, serves as an anchor in the sense of Enç (1987), and that anchoring does not necessarily correlate with the prominence of a temporal category in the sense of Bhat (1999). I adduce evidence in support of these proposals from the contrasting obligatoriness of past and future marking in predicates, as well as from word order facts.
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Subject
