Göksel & Kerslake 2005: Turkish Evidential TAM

@cite{goksel-kerslake-2005} @cite{cumming-2026}

Bridge between Turkish TAM data and @cite{cumming-2026}'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

• -DI (past definite): speaker directly witnessed the event. Evidence was acquired contemporaneously with the event (A overlaps T). EPCondition: contemporaneous.

• -mIş (evidential): speaker did not witness the event. Evidence was acquired strictly after the event (A > T). EPCondition: strictDownstream.

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.

def Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.diEP : Semantics.Tense.Evidential.EPCondition

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

Equations

• Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.diEP = Semantics.Tense.Evidential.EPCondition.contemporaneous

def Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.mişEP : Semantics.Tense.Evidential.EPCondition

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

Equations

• Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.mişEP = Semantics.Tense.Evidential.EPCondition.strictDownstream

def Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.diUP : Semantics.Tense.Evidential.UPCondition

Both -DI and -mIş are past tense: T < S.

Equations

• Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.diUP = Semantics.Tense.Evidential.UPCondition.past

def Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.mişUP : Semantics.Tense.Evidential.UPCondition

Equations

• Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.mişUP = Semantics.Tense.Evidential.UPCondition.past

theorem Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.same_tense_different_evidence : diUP = mişUP ∧ diEP ≠ mişEP

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

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

theorem Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.di_unique_direct : diEP = Semantics.Tense.Evidential.EPCondition.contemporaneous

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

theorem Phenomena.TenseAspect.Studies.GokselKerslake2005.miş_indirect : mişEP = Semantics.Tense.Evidential.EPCondition.strictDownstream

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