perfects, a predilection of the possessive impersonal construction to be used with transitive verbs is apparent in Komi, at least with respect to the frequencies of transitive and intransitive verbs. With transitives, it is often difficult to decide whether the genitive should be interpreted purely as the possessor of an item, or as the agent responsible for the action; it can be both. P. Doronin, a prolific writer who began publishing in the 1930s used the construction with transitives, verbs both with and without an object. In all cases, the interpretation as an evidential is possible, since it often coincides with the basic meaning of the forms with
God-GEN maybe present-PERF3SG PRTCI-ACC great
«God must have given me a lot of strength <…>» [Doronin 1995: 68]; texts from the 1930s reprinted.
Another example shows the verb «work», which is certainly active, but hardly transitive:
appear-PRES3SG Mikol-GEN thus-ACC work-PERF3SG
«It seems that Mikol has worked in this way» [Doronin 1995: 87].
In the context, the father is inspecting the ploughing done on his field. Dissatisfied, he draws the conclusion that his son must have been at work. The adverb
there oven-iNESS daughter.in.law-POSS2SG-GEN curd cheese.pots
put-PERF-3SG
«There, your daughter-in-law has put curd cheese pots in the oven» [Doronin 1995:17].
In the following example, the construction can hardly be interpreted as evidential, conjecture or hearsay; it simply reports on the appearance of a person. The meaning of state becomes very clear due to
s/he-GEN was hair-ACCDEF shear-PERF-3SG
«He had had his hair cut <…>» [Doronin 1995:131].
In early fiction, there are some cases of the construction with intransitives:
mill-lNESS work-GERUND how.many.times he-GEN here
come-FREQ-PERF-3 SG was how.many.times sit-FREQ-PERF-3 SG this
very river.bank birch under
«When working in the mill, how many times he had come here, how many times sat under this very same birch on the river bank!» [Fedorov 1955:128].
The writer in question shows in his production a fairly strong influence of Russian, which is noticeable to Komi language specialists. Whether or not this possessive construction is connected with Russian dialects or not, Fedorov shows during his long career (from the 1930s to the 1990s) a growing predilection for its usage. In the early stories (1930—1950s, [Fedorov 1955], 282 pages) there are only four cases of the possessive impersonal, the one above included, whereas in the prose of the 1990s ([Fedorov 1989], 165 pages), there are 16 cases.
To native speakers, specialists in the Komi language, intransitive frequentative verbs with the suffix
I-GEN come-FREQ-PERF-3 SG already you to
«I have already been to your place!» [Juskov 1988: 75].
The context concerns the time after the revolution: a kulak asks a neighbour to come and see whether he really is a rich kulak, deserving punishment. The neighbour, who thinks that the speaker is an exploiter, gives the above answer. According to informants, he expresses his opinion that he had already visited the formerly wealthy man quite often enough. The common factor with the previous example is the finality of the situation: there will be no continuation. In this sense, the logically clearer resultativity inherent in the transitive constructions can be extended to intransitives. Figuratively speaking, the extent of the events is completed, the subject is not involved any more, and his past is an unchanging state now left behind.
Another case from modern prose shows an intransitive verb without the frequentative suffix. So far, only two cases of such constructions have been found, and one of them is rather doubtful. The first comes from the prose of G. Juskov, the most eminent living writer in Komi:
we-GEN this upon PTL come.out-PERF-3SG flash-PST-3SG eyes-INSTR
Bashlykov destroy-INF occupiers-ACCDEF
«This is why we are here! — Baslykov's eyes flashed. — In order to destroy the occupiers!» [Juskov 1988:220].
The second example comes from the 1990s and actually represents a translation of a Russian text of a local Komi writer:
father-GEN somewhere-to go-PERF-3SG
«The father had gone somewhere» [Gabova 1997:40].
In the context, the relevant passage is concerned with the absence of the parents who had left a child alone at home. Out of seven informants, four have so far rejected this construction as a mistake, saying that the nominative form should be used instead:
