Mermaid Construction in Tatar
Chihiro Taguchi
Nara Institute of Science and Technology
taguchi.chihiro.td0@is.naist.jp
Abstract
This study reports the presence of the Mermaid Construction (MMC) in Tatar (< Kipchak < Turkic).
MMC, ﬁrst coined by Tsunoda (2011) [4], is a mono-clausal compound-predicate construction that superﬁcially appears to contain two clauses. The compound predicate consists of a predicate, a noun, and a copula,of which the noun has undergone grammaticalization to some extent and has lost or is partially losing its
meaning or nominal function. The ﬁrst comprehensive study on the cross-linguistic distribution of the MMC
was conducted in Tsunoda (2020a) [5], in which 27 languages are reported to have the MMC. Although
Tatar is not mentioned in the work [5], it is shown in this study that Tatar has the MMC. In addition, theTatar MMCs can be categorized into two types in terms of their syntactic behavior. The grammaticalization
occurring in the Tatar MMCs suggests new paths of grammaticalization regarding the MMC’s emergence.

1 Introduction
1.1 Mermaid Construction
According to Tsunoda (2020b), the Mermaid Construction (MMC) is a compound-predicate construction thattypically consists of a predicate, a noun, and a copula [6]. Though the construction superﬁcially looks as though
it comprises two clauses, its syntactic function shows a mono-clausal behavior. Sentence (1) is an example ofthe MMC in Modern Standard Japanese (MSJ), which is reportedly the language having the most nouns that
can trigger the MMC [6] (LT stands for a literal translation, and FT for a free translation). At a ﬁrst glance,(1) seems to contain two clauses, the ﬁrst of which is an adnominal clause Hanako=ga ik-u that modiﬁes thematrix nominal predicate yotee=da. However, this intuitive analysis turns out to fail when the nominal predicate
with a copula yotee=da is used independently, because (2) is a non-sensical sentence, albeit not syntacticallyungrammatical.
(1) [Hanako=ga ik-u]
yotee=da.
Hanako-NOM go-NPST plan-COP. NPST
LT: “[Hanako goes] a plan is.”FT: “Hanako plans to go.”(2) ? yotee=da.
plan-COP. NPST“(It is) a plan.”

Therefore, Tsunoda analyzed the construction as a mono-clausal structure with a compound predicate ik-u
yotee=da, rather than a bi-clausal structure with an adnominal clause expressed in (1).
From empirical observations across languages worldwide, Tsunoda (2020b) lists up ﬁve common characteristics prototypical of the MMC [6]. Along with this, he also mentions a geographical and typological tendency
that the MMC is more observed in languages of East Asia and SOV languages. These properties are useful as achecklist for determining an MMC, but, as Tsunoda (2020b) notes, they are a tentative list and several peripheral variations of MMCs (also called “quasi-MMC”) that do not necessarily conform with all of these ﬁve arealso reported [4]. Languages having marginal or nonconforming features to the MMC include, for example,
Thai [3], an SVO language using a nominalizer morpheme instead of a Noun slot, and Tagalog, a VSO/VOS
language without a copula.
(3) a. The structure is [Clause]1 Noun Copula, superﬁcially at least.
b. The Noun is an independent word (not a clitic) that is a noun.
c. The subject of the Clause and the Noun are non-coreferential.
d. The Clause can be used as a sentence by itself.
e. The Clause is not the subject of the “Noun + Copula”.
1

Note that this capitalized Clause does not mean that it comprises a single independent clause, and that it is merely a term for its
superﬁcial appearance. Tsunoda (2020) paraphrases it as [predicate] Noun Copula, which is combined into a compound predicate.

1.2 Tatar language
Tatar is a Kipchak language of the Turkic language family. It is an agglutinative language that employs sufﬁxes
for morphological case-marking and verbal inﬂection. Its canonical word order is SOV, and a modiﬁer precedes
its head. In colloquial or emotional speech, however, arguments of a sentence may be scrambled. Sentence(4) shows an example of a subject inverted after a main predicate, and sentence (5) shows an inversion of apossessive phrase.
(4) Nikter
söt produkt-lar-ı̈-nküp+itep satı̈p+al-a anı̈Näti-se.
somehow milk product-PL - POS .3- ACC manybuy-PRS .3 3 SG . POS father-POS .3“Somehow his (her) father buys many dairy products.”(5) Belemdäräžä-se šaqtı̈j tübän i-dešul bu klass-nı̈N.
knowledge level-POS .3 very low COP - PST.3 EMP this class-GEN“The level of study in this class was very low.”2

MMC in Tatar

This section discusses the conformity of the Tatar MMCs with the prototypical properties of MMCs listed in
the previous section. It will be demonstrated that the Tatar MMCs possess all the features in (3). First of all,a typical example of the Tatar MMC is shown in (6). The Clause slot of the general formula in (3)a is ﬁlled
by an inﬁnitival phrase, the Noun slot by isäp “counting, thought” or nijät ‘intention”, the Copula slot by azero copula2 . The superﬁcial prototypical structure of the Tatar MMC is given in (7). It is necessary to notethat the Tatar MMC contains an inﬁnitive verb, because the syntactic-semantic function of Tatar inﬁnitives
is polysemous and is understudied. In subsection 2.1, the semantics of Tatar inﬁnitives and their syntactic
behaviors are illustrated. Then, a detailed analysis of this construction will be given in subsection 2.2.
(6) Öj-gä
qajt-ı̈rGa isäp / nijät∅.
house-DAT return-INF counting / intention COP
LT: “[To go home] the intention is.”FT: “(One) plans to go home.”(7) Superﬁcial structure of the Tatar MMC[Inﬁnitival Clause] Noun (Copula)

2.1

Tatar Inﬁnitives

The inﬁnitive in Tatar is a non-ﬁnite form of the verb. It does not inﬂect for person, number, or tense. Morphologically, it is expressed by means of the sufﬁx -(I)rGA or -ArgA, whose negative forms are -mAsKA3 .
2.1.1 Independent inﬁnitive
Even though the Tatar inﬁnitive is non-ﬁnite, it can exceptionally appear by itself in a matrix clause to convey
a deontic modal meaning, as exempliﬁed in (8) and (9). In addition, when combined with a past tense copula,it expresses a speaker’s wish. These constructions with a bare inﬁnitive are restricted to present tense, and thesubject of the verb is not syntactically overt4 .
2

Tatar has a zero copula in present tense, which is unmarked. When the copula is in other tenses than present, an auxiliary i- or analternative copular verb bul- is used.
3
Letters in capital denote that they have one or more alternations due to vowel harmony. In Tatar, I is either ı̈ or e, A either a or ä,G either G or g, and K either q or k; the former candidate is employed when the vowel of the preceding syllable is back, and the latter
when it is front. The parentheses express that the phonemes in them appear in some cases; in Tatar, I is inserted when the verb stemends with consonant. -ArgA is used when the verb stem is monosyllabic with a short vowel and does not end with a rhotic (i.e., l or r).
4
For the bare-inﬁnitive structure with a deontic meaning, the subject can be expressed as a dative argument. Whether this is a dative
subject or an oblique argument remains unclear.

(8) Tı̈rı̈š-ı̈puqı̈-rGa.
endeavor-CVB study-INF“Study hard.” (imperative, deontic modality)(9) nišlä-rgä?
do:what-INF“What to do?” (deontic modality)(10) Öj-gä
qajt-ı̈rGa i-de.
house-DAT return-INF COP - PST“(I) would like to go home.”
2.1.2 Inﬁnitive as a modiﬁer
An inﬁnitival clause serves as an adverbial clause that modiﬁes a verbal predicate to express intent or purpose(e.g., (11))5 . For a limited number of verbal predicates, it may carry a modal (permission; e.g., jara- “may”)
or aspectual (inchoative; e.g., totı̈n-, kereš- “to start”) meaning. It can also modify an adjectival predicate;when it modiﬁes a non-modal adjective, it provides a degree of comparison for carrying out the action (e.g.,(12))6 . Modiﬁcation of modal adjectives is more common in use, and it adds a modality (possibility, obligation,necessity, permission) to the event described by the inﬁnitival phrase (e.g., (13)7 .
(11) Dust-ı̈bı̈z-nı̈
aeroport-qa qaršı̈+alı̈rGa bar-dı̈-q.
friend-POS .1 PL - ACC airport-DAT pick.up-INF go-PST-1 PL“We went to the airport to pick up our friend.”(12) Ul
Ginness kitab-ı̈n-a
ker-ergä lajı̈q.
3 SG . NOM Guinness book-POS .3- DAT enter-inf worth“He/She/It is worth being listed in Guinness World Records.”(13) Irtägä
tügel, ä bügen ük minkitärgä tiješ-men.
tomorrow not but today EMP 1 SG . NOM leave-INF obligatory-1 SG“Not tomorrow but today I have to leave.”
In general, Tatar inﬁnitives do not modify nouns directly without a verbal predicate; however, they seem tomodify a noun when the noun is abstract and is the subject of an existential predicate bar “there is/are” or its
negative counterpart yuq “there is/are not”, as shown in (14), (15)8 and (16). The structure of the Tatar MMC
also ﬁts in this category.
(14) Äjt-ergä xaq-ı̈mbar.
say-INF right-POS .1 SG exist“I have a right to say.”(15) Äjt-ergä nigez-em
bar.
say-INF base-POS .1 SG exist“I have a reason to say.”(16) Tizdän Qazan-Ga taGı̈n kil-ergä isäb-em
bar.
soon Kazan-DAT again come-INF counting-POS .1 SG exist“I am going to come to Kazan again soon.”

2.2

Contrastive analysis

In this subsection, we look in depth at the behavior of the Tatar MMC in (6) from a contrastive point of view
based on the ﬁve properties given by Tsunoda (2020b), as well as its mono-clausal structure possibly caused bygrammaticalization [6].
5This function is widely observed. Common collocation verbs are jarat- “to love”, tı̈rı̈š- “to try”, telä- “to want”, etc.
As for non-modal adjectives, the inﬁnitive cooccurs with a rather smaller set of adjectives. Observed collocations are xaqlı̈ “having
a right, deserving”, äzer “ready”, sälätle “talented, able”, etc.
7This construction is frequently observed. Modal adjectival predicates that often cooccur with inﬁnitives are kiräk “necessary, must”
and mömkin “possible, can”.
8nigez means “basis, fundamental” as a concrete noun, but it changes to an abstract meaning “reason, rationale” in the inﬁnitival
construction.
6

2.2.1 Five cross-linguistic properties of MMC
The Tatar MMCs satisfy all the ﬁve prototypical conditions as illustrated below.
a. Superﬁcial structure: [Clause] Noun Copula.
In (6), Öj-gä qajt-ı̈rGa (“to go home”) is an inﬁnitival clause. Since the copula in the present tense is usuallyzero, (6) superﬁcially has the structure of [Clause] Noun Copula (cf. (3)a).
b. The Noun is an independent word.
This property is conﬁrmed by the fact that the Noun slot is ﬁlled by either isäp (“thought, intention”) or nijät(“intention”), both of which are independent nouns.
c. The subject of the Clause and the Noun are non-coreferential.
We cannot observe the subject of the Clause since there is no overt subject in Tatar inﬁnitival clauses. However,
the intender can be expressed by adding a personal possessive sufﬁx to the Noun as in (17). If we assume
a covert PRO as the subject of the Clause in (17), it is non-coreferential with the Noun in the sense that theintender is not the intention itself.
(17) [Öj-gä
qajt-ı̈rGa] isäb-em / nijät-em∅.
house-DAT return-INF counting-POS .1 SG / intention-POS .1 SG COP
LT: “[To go home] my intention is.”FT: “(One) plans to go home.”d. The Clause can be used as a sentence by itself.
Tatar MMCs also ﬁt the fourth diagnostic, as the inﬁnitive clause can be independently used with a modal
meaning as shown in (18). Furthermore, the Clause slot can also be ﬁlled by an inﬁnitival structure with ide
like (10), as expressed in (19).
(18) [Öj-gä
qajt-ı̈rGa].
house-DAT return-INF
LT: “To go home.”
FT: “(It is in the cards that one) goes home.”(19) [Öj-gä
qajt-ı̈rGa i-de]isäp / nijät.
house-DAT return-INF COP - PST intention
LT: “[(One) would like to go home] the plan is.”FT: “(One) plans to go home.”e. The Clause is not the subject of the “Noun + Copula”.
The ﬁfth property (3)e also applies to Tatar MMCs. Inﬁnitival clauses in Tatar do not have a function as anominal phrase, and therefore they are never the subject of the “Noun + Copula”.
2.2.2 Grammaticalization and mono-clausality
The mono-clausality of the Tatar MMCs is supported by the fact that deleting the Clause as in sentence (20)merely results in a non-sensical sentence.
This evidence supports that the structure [INF + isäp / nijät (Copula)] is a mono-clausal MMC. As Tsunoda(2020) notes, MMCs show (at least) a weak degree of grammaticalization [6]. This is true of Tatar, too, as the
Noun slot is highly selective, and other semantic synonyms, for instance plan as in (21), cannot be used in theslot. From a contrastive viewpoint, the Tatar MMC [INF + isäp / nijät (Copula)] has the meaning of intention
or plan, and it is the most typical meaning commonly shared among MMCs listed by Tsunoda (2020) [6].
(20) ? Isäp / Nijät i-de.
intention COP - PST“It was the intention.”

(21) *[Öj-gä qajt-ı̈rGa] plan.
house-DAT return-INF plan
Intended: “(One) plans to go home.”
In addition, the Tatar MMC typically allows present tense, and the acceptability MMCs in past tense varies
among speakers. The restrictiveness of tense in some MMCs is also found in other languages. Sentence (22) isan example in Japanese, which has roughly the same meaning as (8), and its past tense counterpart in (23) does
not make sense.
(22) Seezee benkyoosuru koto=da.
hard study.NPST thing=COP“Study hard.”, or “You should study hard.”(23) * Seezee benkyoosuru koto=datta.
hard study.NPST thing=COP. PSTIntended: “You should have studied hard.”

2.3 Other nouns that allow the MMC
There are two more nouns that are found in the Noun slot of the MMC prototype: waqı̈t “time” and röxsät“permission”, which, as opposed to the previous MMCs with no overt subject, can have (apparently) a subject
in dative.
(24) Jarar, miñajoqla-rGa waqı̈t.
well 1 SG . DAT sleep-INF time
“Well, it’s time for me to sleep.”(25) Añajeget bülmä-se-nä
ker-ergä röxsät.
3 SG . DAT boy room-POS .3- DAT enter-INF permission“He/she is allowed to enter the boy’s room.”
However, these MMCs select a different position for a verb-modifying enclitic to be attached to. For
example, while the yes-no interrogative enclitic =mI succeeds the noun in (26) and (27), it is ﬁxed to theinﬁnitive verb for the cases of isäp and nijät, as described in (28) and (29). Similarly, the enclitic =TIr that adds
an irrealis (presumptive) modality meaning appears in the same position as exempliﬁed in sentence (30).
(26) Joqla-rGa waqı̈t=mı̈?
sleep-INF time=Q“Is it time for sleep?”(27) Ker-ergä röxsät=me?
enter-INF permission=Q“Is it allowed to enter?”(28) Öj-gä
qajt-ı̈rGa=mı̈ isäp?
house-DAT return-INF = Q counting“Are you planning to go home?”(29) * Öj-gä
qajt-ı̈rGa isäp=mı̈?
house-DAT return-INF counting-Q
Intended: “Are you planning to go home?”(30) Šunda qunaqxanä-dä jäšäp
tor-ı̈rGa=dı̈r isäb-e.
in there hotel-LOC
live-CVB stay-INF = IRR counting-POS .3“He/She is going to stay in the hotel there (maybe).”This discrepancy in the distribution provides evidence that these two types of MMCs have a different
syntactic structure. The details are discussed in the next section.

3 Flows of grammaticalization
Tsunoda (2020), though tentatively, mentions four possibilities that account for the emergence of the MMC: (i)adnominal clauses; (ii) noun-predicate sentences whose subject is a complement clause; (iii) cleft sentences;(iv) language contact [6]. In this section, a possible path of grammaticalization that caused the MMC in Tatar is
proposed. The grammaticalization process ﬁrst starts with the extension of the inﬁnitive’s usage ([ INF ] + Noun+ Existential ), and then is followed by dropping of an existential predicate ([ INF ] + Noun (+ Copula)). The
adjacent combination of the inﬁnitival predicate and the noun forms a compound predicate that has acquired an
abstract meaning related to tense–aspect–modality (TAM). In addition, I mention another possibility that thegrammaticalization may be caused by subject inversion. These explanations of the MMC’s emergence in termsof ellipsis and subject inversion are new possibilities that are not argued in Tsunoda (2020b) [6].

3.1 Extension of inﬁnitival modiﬁcation
As observed in subsection 2.1, the Tatar inﬁnitive shows a syntactically and semantically limited distribution
when it is used as an adnominal modiﬁer. Modiﬁcation of verbal and adjectival predicates is fairly ﬂexible, but
modiﬁcation of a noun is usually possible when the noun is abstract and the noun is the subject of an existential
predicate. Presumably, this is an extended usage from the former to the latter; however, at this point, this ismerely a speculation that lacks a further diachronic analysis.

3.2 Ellipsis of an existential predicate
As the next step of grammaticalization after the extension of inﬁnitival modiﬁcation, there is assumed to be an
ellipsis of the existential predicate for a limited number of nouns. This argument is inspired by a comment uponelicitation from native speakers that the MMC in (6) is a “shorter way” of saying (31). A piece of supporting
evidence for this claim is that realization of the MMC in Tatar is restricted to present tense. Sentence (18) does
not allow its past tense counterpart (32), and instead it has to be expressed in a full form as in (33). I thus
propose an ellipsis as a grammaticalization process that a limited number of nouns (isäp, nijät, waqı̈t, röxsät)
underwent.
(31) Öj-gä
qajt-ı̈rGa isäp / nijätbar.
house-DAT return-INF counting / intention EXIST“I am planning to go home.”(32) * Öj-gä
qajt-ı̈rGa isäp / nijät
i-de.
house-DAT return-INF counting / intention COP - PST.3
Intended: “I was planning to go home.”(33) Öj-gä
qajt-ı̈rGa isäp / nijätbar i-de.
house-DAT return-INF counting / intention exist COP - PST.3“I was planning to go home.”

3.3

Formation of a compound predicate: noun vs. quasi-particle noun

As we have seen in subsection 2.3, there is a difference in the syntactic distribution of isäp, nijät and waqı̈t,röxsät. The syntactic behavior of the former type is similar to that of particles modifying the verb phrase. For
example, =inde “already” in sentence (34) is a particle functioning as a modiﬁer to the verb phrase qajttı̈N. In
this case, the interrogative enclitic -mI, which is normally attached to the sentence-ﬁnal word, is not attachedafter the particle inde, but after the verb phrase qajttı̈N.
(34) qajt-tı̈-N=mı̈
inde?
return-PST-2. SG = Q already“Are you back already?”(35) * qajt-tı̈-N
inde=me?
return-PST-2. SG already=Q
Intended: “Are you back already?”This syntactic restriction resembles that of isäp and nijät. Therefore, I posit that, in the MMC, these
two nouns have lost their canonical nominal status, and instead have a particle-like — yet subject to nominal
morphology — function that plays a role of adding TAM information (namely, intention, future, irrealis, etc.).
As for waqı̈t and röxsät, they form a compound predicate in the MMC maintaining the syntactic nominal
properties.

3.4 Another possibility: subject inversion
It is worth noting that we can assume another scenario as to how the MMCs of isäp and nijät were formed;that is, the noun-ending structure of the MMCs with isäp and nijät might come from the subject inversion. As
mentioned in subsection 1.2, a subject is sometimes inverted after a main verb in a sentence. Even with thetransposed subject, the particle remains in its own position, as contrasted in (36) and (37). From this fact, it ispossible to hypothesize another way of grammaticalization described in (38). However, this is theoretically lessplausible than that proposed in subsection 3.2, because Tatar inﬁnitives do not have a nominal function and,
therefore, the hypothetical structure in (38) is ungrammatical.
(36) minTatarča döres söjlim=me?
1 SG . NOM in Tatar correct speak:PRS .1 SG = Q“Am I speaking correctly in Tatar?”(37) Tatarča döres söjlim=memin?
in Tatar correct speak:PRS .1 SG = Q 1 SG . NOM“Am I speaking correctly in Tatar?”(38) Hypothetical structure: * [isäp [INF COP]] → Subject inversion: [[INF COP] isäp]

4 Conclusion
This study reported the presence of the MMCs in Tatar, and analyzed their cross-linguistic uniqueness throughthe comparison with the ﬁve properties of the MMC proposed in Tsunoda (2020b) [6]. It was demonstrated
that there are at least four nouns that can be used in the Tatar MMCs: isäp “counting”, nijät “intention”, waqı̈t“time”, and röxsät “permission”. These nouns can be categorized in two groups in terms of their syntactic
behavior in the MMCs. The ﬁrst two nouns in the compound predicate of the MMC show an idiosyncratic
behavior which syntactically rather resembles modal particles. In contrast, the latter two form a compound
predicate with an inﬁnitive verb, while maintaining a property of a nominal predicate. Considering thesedifferences, this study provided two new possible explanations for the grammaticalization of the MMC.
Abbreviations 1, 2, 3 – ﬁrst, second, third person; COP – copula; CVB – converb; DAT – dative; EMP – emphatic
particle; GEN – genitive; INF – inﬁnitive; IRR – irrealis; NEG – negative; NOM – nominative; NPST – non-past;
PL – plural; POS – possessive sufﬁx; PRS – present; PST – past; Q – yes-no question clitic; SG – singular.

References[1] Ebata, Fuyuki. (2020). Sakha (Yakut). In T. Tsunoda (ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate
construction with biclausal appearance. De Gruyter, pp. 363–85.
[2] Katagiri, Masumi. (2020). Tagalog. In T. Tsunoda (ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate
construction with biclausal appearance. De Gruyter, pp. 781–816.
[3] Takahashi, Kiyoko. (2020). Thai. In T. Tsunoda (ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate construction with biclausal appearance. De Gruyter, pp. 737–80.
[4] Tsunoda, Tasaku. (2011). Mermaid Construction: A contribution from Japanese linguistics to general linguistics [in Japanese]. NINJAL research papers (1). National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, pp. 53–75.
[5] Tsunoda, Tasaku. (2020a). Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate construction with biclausal appearance. De Gruyter.
[6] Tsunoda, Tasaku. (2020b). Mermaid Construction: Introduction and summary. In T. Tsunoda (ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate construction with biclausal appearance. De Gruyter, pp. 1–62.