Da as a tense operator

Recall that Giannakidou argued that the Greek subjunctive marker na should be analyzed as a type of tense operator, which syntactically binds the dependent t variable contained within the subjunctive-related PNP verb. This allowed the author to account for the grammaticality contrasts of the type observed below in (162-163):

(162) Thelo na kerdisi o Janis.

want1.sg. SUBJ win3.sg.PNP the John

‘I want John to win.’

(163) * Kerdisi o Janis.

win3.sg.PNP the John

120

The clause in (163) was argued to be ungrammatical because there is no separate tense operator in the structure that can bind the dependent t variable associated with PNP in such cases, whereas the subjunctive complement in (162) is fine because the subjunctive particle na functions as a tense operator that can bind the said variable. In the following paragraphs, I will show that the same type of observations can be maintained in the context of Bulgarian as well.

Note, first of all, the examples in (164-165), where we can see that Bulgarian exhibits the same type of aspectual input in the context of mood distributions as the one that we observed earlier on in Greek:

(164) a. Mislja che toi pishe pismo.

think1.sg. IND he write3.sg.IMPERF letter

‘I think that he is writing a letter.’

b. Iskam toi da napishe pismo.

want1.sg. he SUBJ write3.sg.PERF letter

‘I want him to write a letter.’

(165) a. Mislja che toi chete kniga.

think1.sg. IND he read3.sg.IMPERF book

‘I think that he is reading a book.’

b. Iskam toi da prochete kniga.

want1.sg. he SUBJ read3.sg.PERF book

‘I want him to read a book.’

While indicative complements such as those in (164-165a) typically introduce verbs associated with the imperfective aspect, subjunctives (164-165b) introduce perfective verbs.⁵⁸

Moreover, the perfective-present verb forms of the type exemplified in (164-165b) appear to exhibit the same type of deficient temporal properties as those we observed with their Greek PNP counterparts. Authors such as Maslov (1959) or Fielder (1993) noted that present-tense verbs appearing in simple matrix clauses in Bulgarian are typically associated with imperfective, not the perfective aspect.⁵⁹ Hence the grammaticality contrasts below:

58 The latter types of verbs are usually referred to as present-perfectives in Bulgarian literature, as opposed to non-past (Fielder, 1993; Maslov, 1959 a.o.), which is why I will not be using the PNP label in this context.

59 The only exception in this context is the so-called ‘historical present’ (see Fielder, 1993: 32).

121

(166) a. Az cheta kniga.

I read1.sg.IMPERF book b. * Az procheta kniga.

I read1.sg.PERF book

‘I read a book.’

(167) a. Az pisha pismo.

I write1.sg.IMPERF letter b. * Az napisha pismo.

I write1.sg.PERF letter

‘I write a letter.’

The same type of contrast is observed in the context of indicative complementation as well, because present-tense verbs appearing in indicatives introduced under the Comp che must be associated with the imperfective, not the perfective aspect (which once again reflects the situation we observed earlier on in Greek- see (152), for instance):

(168) a. Toi kazva, che Ivan pishe pismo.

he says IND John write3.sg.IMPERF letter

‘He says that John is writing a letter.’

b. * Toi kazva, che Ivan napishe pismo.

he says IND John write3.sg.PERF letter

The ungrammatical nature of the examples in (166-168b) can thus be seen as the first indication that Bulgarian perfective-present verbs could be viewed through the prism of the same type of temporal analysis as the one that was proposed by Giannakidou in the context of their Greek counterparts, i.e. as temporally deficient verb forms, which cannot define clausal tense on their own, but require the presence of some separate tense operator.

Such an analysis becomes even more plausible if we look at the types of syntactic environments where perfective verb forms such as those in (166-168b) become grammatically acceptable. This is yet another area where Bulgarian situation mirrors the one we observed earlier on in Greek: the use of perfective-present verbs becomes grammatical if the latter are accompanied by a separate temporal operator, such as the future marker shte. In such cases,

122

these verb forms can be used both in matrix clauses as well as in embedded indicative complements:

(169) a. Toi shte prochete kniga.

he FUT read3.sg.PERF book

‘He will read a book.’

b. Az mislja che toi shte napishe pismo.

I think IND he FUT write3.sg.PERF letter

‘I think that he will write a letter.’

Once again, the same situation obtains in Greek as well:

(170) a. *(Tha) kerdisi o Janis.

FUT win3.sg.PNP the John

‘John will win.’

b. Nomizo oti *(tha) kerdisi o Janis.

think1.sg. IND (FUT) win3.sg.PNP the John

‘I think that John will win.’

Given all the data we just observed in (166-170), the conclusion must be that perfective-present verbs in Bulgarian can be analyzed on a par with their Greek PNP counterparts when it comes to their temporal properties: all of these verb forms should be seen as associated with a dependent t-variable, which needs to be bound by some separate tense operator in syntax, such as the Greek tha or the Bulgarian shte, in order to render the structure grammatical and to enable the verb to receive a precise temporal interpretation.

The crucial observation when it comes to my analysis of the Bulgarian subjunctive in particular is that the subjunctive particle da patterns with a tense operator such as shte in this context, in that they both render the perfective verbs appearing in their c-command domain syntactically acceptable (the relevant examples that allow us to observe this are reproduced below).

123

(171) a. Toi shte prochete kniga.

he FUT read3.sg.PERF book

‘He will read a book.’

b. Iskam toi da prochete kniga.

want1.sg. he SUBJ read3.sg.PERF book

‘I want him to read a book.’

The data in (171), once again, mirror the situation we observed in Greek earlier on, because the Greek subjunctive marker na was shown to establish the same type of temporal relation with the PNP verb as the one that obtains with its Bulgarian counterpart in (171b). As a result, just like the Greek na, the Bulgarian subjunctive particle da should also be analyzed as a tense operator, which syntactically binds the dependent t variable contained within perfective verbs, and provides the semantic temporal anchor for the interval within which such verbs can be interpreted (the anchor in question corresponding to the reference time of the matrix predicate in this context).

As I already explained earlier on, the way in which I will propose to syntactically account for these tense-related properties associated with the Bulgarian subjunctive particle da is by claiming that the latter is inserted under the temporal T-head position (as opposed to some higher modal head or C-head). In addition to explaining the temporal properties of the Bulgarian subjunctive marker, this analysis will also allow me to account for the fact that this item can appear in non-modalized semantic environments, such as the one we observed earlier on in (160). Now that I have accounted for the basic syntax of the Bulgarian subjunctive particle da, I will expand my focus in order to look at the syntactic derivation of Bulgarian subjunctive clauses from a broader perspective.