The study of the Meadow Mari (Cheremis) language has a lengthy tradition: since 1775, many linguists have produced thorough descriptions of both Hill and Meadow Mari (Sebeok, Raun 1956). Those descriptive grammars, however, have been written in a strictly formal framework, with foundations in the Latin-Greek terminological tradition. In this paper, I examine two markers that code desire and intention, particularly the desiderative suffix -ne and the periphrastic construction with an allegedly very similar meaning -mE (+ Px) + šuaš ’to arrive’. The research investigates the distribution and usage of both. The hypothesis was that the speaker’s choice between the two markers in a given situation is motivated, and therefore one marker cannot at all times be substituted with the other. The pragmatic aim of the study is to grasp the semantic differences between the two markers.
Alhoniemi, A. 1985, Marin kielioppi, Helsinki (Apuneuvoja suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten opintoja varten X).
Alhoniemi, A. 1993, Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari), Hamburg.
Beke Ö. 1911, Cseremisz nyelvtan, Budapest (Finnugor füzetek 16).
Beke Ö. 1957, Mari szövegek I, Budapest.
Beke Ö. 1961, Mari szövegek III, Budapest.
Beke Ö. 1995, Mari szövegek (Tscheremissische Texte) 2, Savariae (Bibliotheca Ceremissica 1).
Bereczki, G. 1990, Chrestomathia Ceremissica, Budapest.
Bereczki G. 2002, A cseremisz nyelv történeti alaktana, Debrecen (Studies in Linguistics of the Volga-Region. Supplementum I).
Budenz J. 1864, Cseremisz tanulmányok. - NyK III, 397-470.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., Pagliuca, W. 1994, The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World, Chicago.
Castrén, M. A. 1845, Elementa Grammaticae Tscheremissae, Kuopio.
Goossens, L. 1985, Modality and the Modals. - Predicates and Terms in Functional Grammar, Dordrecht, 203-217.
Kugler N. 2008, Az igeragozás. — Magyar grammatika, Budapest, 104-122.
Landmann, A. 2014, Tatarische Kurzgrammatik, Wiesbaden.
Landmann, A. 2015, Tschuwaschische Kurzgrammatik, Wiesbaden.
Narrog, H.. 2005, Modality, Mood and Change of Modal Meanings: A New Perspective. - Cognitive Linguistics 16, 677-731.
https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.677
Nuyts, J. 2006, Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues. - The Expression of Modality, Berlin-New York (The Expression of Cognitive Categories. ECC 1), 1-26.
Palmer, F. R. 1979, Modality and the English Modals, London-New York.
Palmer, F. R. 1986, Mood and Modality, Cambridge.
Palmer, F. R. 2001, Mood and Modality, Cambridge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178
Pomozi, P. 1997, Satzwertige Partizipien auf -mE/-mAš/-∂????mE im Tscheremissischen: Problematik und Klassifikation, Szombathely (Bibliotheca Ceremissica 2).
Pomozi P. 2002, Cseremisz-magyar nyelvhasonlítás, Budapest (Budapesti Finnugor Füzetek 17).
Riese, T., Bradley, J., Yakimova, E., Krylova, G. 2017, Oҥай марий йылме. A Comprehensive Introduction to the Mari Language, Vienna.
Riese, T., Bradley, J., Schötschel, M., Yefremova, T., 2018, Mari (марий йылме). An Essential Grammar for International Learners. Manuscript, Vienna.
Sebeok, T. E., Ingemann, F. J. 1961, An Eastern Cheremis Manual, Bloomington (UAS 5. Studies in Cheremis 9).
Sebeok, T. E., Raun, A. 1956, The First Cheremis Grammar (1775). A Facsimile Edition with Introduction and Analysis by Thomas A. Sebeok and Alo Raun, Chicago.
The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, Oxford 2016.
Timár B. 2016, Hagyomány és innováció a mari conditionalis - desiderativusi szerkezetekben. MA Thesis, Budapest.
Wichmann, Y. 1978, Tscheremissische Sätze. Herausgegeben von Alho Alhoniemi und Sirkka Saarinen, Helsinki (MSFOu 163).
Wiedemann, F. J. 1847. Versuch einer Grammatik der tscheremissischen Sprache nach dem in der Evangelienübersetzung von 1821 gebrauchten Dialekte, Reval.
Василев В. М. 1958, Материалы по грамматике марийского языка, Йошкар-Ола.
Галкин И. С. 1964, Историческая грамматика марийского языка I. Морфология, Йошкар-Ола.
Якимова Е., Крылова Г. 1990, Марийский язык для всех, Йошкар-Ола.
