PREDICATE NOMINALS AND RELATED CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE VAKH DIALECT OF KHANTY

. The paper deals with predicate nominals and related constructions in the Vakh dialect of Khanty. They include nominal predicates (which typically express proper inclusion and equation), predicate adjectives, predicate locatives, existentials, possessive, comparative constructions, as well as predicate comitatives and abessives. These constructions tend to be similar grammatically in lacking a semantically rich lexical verb. The following elements can be used in these clauses: the copula w ă s-’be’, the copula w ă l-’be, live’, the existential negative predicate ӛ ntím NEG . EX , the predicative suffix -iki PRD , the possessive verb t ă já-’have’ and a zero copula. The study was carried out on two diachronic layers and revealed the changes in the Vakh dialect of Khanty — a drift to the Russian models in some cases.


Introduction
Despite the fact that the documentation and analyses of the Khanty language have been given a lot of attention, its farthest Eastern dialects in the Vakh and Vasyugan regions have been studied relatively poorly.These dialects are also the most endangered ones.According to the data of the last six expeditions of the author, the number of the Vakh dialect speakers can be estimated as approximately 200-300 (including 150 fluent speakers), while there are probably 3 speakers of the Vasyugan dialect that have not been contacted so far.
The aims of the current study are to reveal the peculiarities of constructions that may be called predicate nominals and other related constructions from a diachronic perspective in the Vakh dialect of the Khanty language as well as to find out the characteristics of the linking elements and predicates in these constructions.Another focus of the study is symmetric and asymmetric negation.The research is primarily based on the Vakh dialect, because there are sufficient synchronic and diachronic data on it.
The materials of the study were selected from two corpora of the Vakh dialect.The first one consists of monologue texts based on spontaneous collo-quial speech and different elicitations collected by the author during the fieldwork trips to the villages of Lar Í jak, Čechlomej and Korliki in the Nižnevartovsk region of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area -Yugra in 2017-2019, 2022 (10 000 tokens in total).The second one consists mainly of spontaneous and translated monologue texts with some examples based on elicitations and dialogues recorded and published by Nikolai Terjoškin (Терешкин 1961 : 99-125) and János Gulya (Gulya 1966 : 67-68, 94-95, 111-113, 133-143, 153-165) in the same region in the middle of the 20th century (5230 tokens in total).This makes a significant diachronic depth, taking into account the fact that the earlier population of the area was not influenced by the Russian language as strongly as now.It is also important to note beforehand that nowadays middleaged native speakers can use prototypical as well as new strategies borrowed from Russian speech constructions, easily switching between them.At the same time elder speakers tend to use prototypical constructions, while children practically do not speak Khanty.
Lots of papers are devoted to general typological analysis of intransitive / nominal / nonverbal predication (e.g.Payne 1997;Stassen 1997;Dryer 2007), or to some particular topics, e.g.existential predication (Creissels 2014), predicative possession (Stassen 2009), comparative constructions (Stassen 2013).Some authors discuss the typology of non-verbal predicates in the Ugric and Samoyedic languages (Wagner-Nagy & Viola 2009) and negation in Eastern Khanty (on the basis of Vasjugan and Aleksandrovo varieties) that include the analysis of predicate nominals and related constructions (Filchenko 2015).Let's focus on some of them.
According to Thomas Payne, predicate nominals and related constructions can be subdivided into the following types (Payne 1997 : 111-128): 1) predicate nominals, i.e. constructions with proper inclusion, e.g. he is a teacher, and equation, e.g. he is my father; 2) predicate adjectives, e.g. he is strong; 3) predicate locatives, e.g. the book is on the table; 4) existentials, e.g.there is a cat under the bed; 5) possessive constructions, e.g.Estonian lapsel on piima 'the child has milk' (lit.: 'milk is at the child').All the construction types under discussion tend to be similar grammatically in that they lack a semantically rich lexical verb (Payne 1997 : 112).
Alternatively, in the study of Dryer (2007), these constructions (with nonverbal predicates) may be subdivided into three groups, because they are structurally similar in many respects: 1) nominal predicates that comprise proper inclusion and equation; 2) adjectival predicates (the same as predicate adjectives); 3) locative predicates which include predicate locatives, existentials and possessives.
Payne's classification is used as the basis for this paper.Comparative constructions that use copulas, e.g.'she is taller than you', and those that use predicative nouns in comitative, e.g.'he is with a wife', and abessive, e.g.'he is without a wife', have also been studied.Additionally, there are possessive constructions with a transitive predicate that make the following opposition to intransitive ones in Vakh Khanty e.g.'the child has milk' vs 'milk is at the child'.Their use and frequency are also traced in the study in order to analyze the distribution of two strategies.
While analysing different types of constructions attention is also paid to some relevant issues, such as: 1) the basic SOV or SV word order in Khanty and its possible pragmatic change; 2) discourse status (oldness and newness of information); 3) and perspectivisation that may be treated as conceptual placing of one's 'mental eyes' at the point within a scene to look out over the rest of the scene (Talmy 1983 : 254).
There is also a discussion of symmetry and asymmetry between affirmative and negative clauses when symmetric negatives show no structural differences with respect to affirmatives apart from the presence of the negative marker(s), whereas in asymmetric negatives further structural differences can be found (Miestamo 2017). 1  Before the discussion of different structural types of constructions under study one should overview linking elements and other verbs attested in these constructions and give their typological perspective.

Characteristics of linking elements and predicates
Predicate nominals and related constructions tend to use copulas, i.e. any morphemes such as verbs, pronouns, invariant particles or even derivational operations (Payne 1997 : 114-119).There also exist zero copulas in the present tense or predicates in negative constructions.Vakh Khanty has such copulas and predicates as wăs-'be', wăl-'be, live', ӛntím NEG.EX and a zero copula.The predicative suffix -iki PRD that is a part of some intransitive constructions and the predicate of transitive possessive constructions such as tăjá-'have' are also overviewed in this section.1) The copula wăs-(wəs-) 2 'be' can be found only in the present tense.
According to Gulya, the lexeme can be translated as 'be, exist, stay, take place, take a seat, live, dwell' (Gulya 1966 : 111-112).It is also a regular successor of the Proto-Finno-Ugric lexeme *wole-be, become' (Honti 2013 : 241).This morpheme has a wider distribution than the copula wăs-'be', can be clearly used as a copula in some cases (see ( 3)-( 6)), and as a lexical verb in others, denoting the living state of animate objects, (see ( 7)).Sometimes there is ambiguity in the interpretation of the cases -a copula vs a lexical verb (see ( 8)). 5 Sergei V. Kovylin

48
1 Initially Miestamo uses this term for standard affirmative and negative clauses, though in the present study it may be applied to all predicate nominals and related constructions.
3 All the field examples of the Vakh dialect are available at Lingvodoc 3.0: http:/ /lingvodoc.ispras.ru/dictionary/3021/71/perspective/3021/75/view. 4 Wăl-and wəl-(stressed wələ-) are two standard variants from different sources. 5Nevertheless, some speakers say that in cases like this the only possible way of reading the verb wăl-is as a full lexical verb.
( 6) There is a great number of examples with a zero copula, mostly in the modern data that may be the result of an increasing Russian influence.

Predicate Nominals and Related Constructions
In the current section different structural types of constructions under study are discussed as well as the types of predicates used in them.The succession of the elements in the schemes is given in connection with the basic Khanty word order where the predicate occupies the final position.Nevertheless, sometimes this succession can deviate due to pragmatic or other reasons.By and large, declarative clauses were analysed, though there are also interrogative and exclamatory clauses in the materials.Here are also presented the main elements in the schemes: COMP -comparee (which is compared); LOC -location; PE -possessee; PR -possessor; PRED.ADJ -predicate adjective; PRED.NOM -predicate nominal; STAND -standard (to what is compared); THEMEthe entity, the subject.Other abbreviations can be found at the end of the paper.

Proper inclusion and equation
The predication of these constructions is embodied in a noun where in proper inclusion a specific entity is asserted to be among the class of items specified in the nominal predicate and in equatives a particular entity is identical to the entity specified in the predicate nominal (Payne 1997 : 111, 114).Being alike in Vakh Khanty, they are not treated separately here.In the present tense in such clauses the copula wăs-'be' or a zero copula are used.In the past tense the copula wăl-'be, live' is used.
[THEME+PRED.NOM+COP(wăs-'be' -1, 2 In all the instances of negative constructions with proper inclusion and equation constituent negation is prototypically observed.

Predicate adjectives
Predicate adjectives are clauses in which the main semantic content is expressed by an adjective (Payne 1997 : 111).In the present tense these constructions can contain the copula wăs-'be', the special predicative suffix -iki PRD or be marked by a zero copula.In the past tense the copula wăl-'be, live' is used.

Existential, locative and possessive constructions
Despite the fact that existential, locative and possessive constructions are alike in many respects in the Vakh dialect of Khanty (they require a locative phrase and a copula), there are some significant differences between them.In existential constructions the known element is the place (LOCATION) and the reported one is an indefinite and discourse-new nominal element (THEME), while in locative constructions it is vice versa: the starting point of the message is usually the known definite element and the reported one is the location of this element (Payne 1997;Dryer 2007;Borschev & Partee 2008;Wagner-Nagy 2011 : 171-176).What is more, in possessive constructions of this type the location is usually animate, while in existential and locative ones it is inanimate.

Existentials
Existential constructions predicate the existence of some entity, usually in a specified location (Payne 1997 : 112).The location is prototypically inanimate.Different linking elements can be used in this type of clauses.In affirmative constructions in the present tense the copula wăl-'be, live' can occur, in negative ones -the existential negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX, that sometimes is marked by the predicative suffix -iki PRD and number markers.Also, a zero copula can occur in the present tense.In affirmative constructions in the past tense the copula wăl-'be, live' also appears, while in negative ones -the existential negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX accompanied by the auxiliary verb wăl-'be, live', that indicates the past tense.
Schematically these constructions can be represented as: The following examples demonstrate the present tense existentials with the copula wăl-'be, live'.If the Theme is animate, interpretation can be ambiguous -there is possible existential and non-existential reading of the same clause as well as copulative and lexical reading of the verb wăl-'be, live' (see ( 54)). 10evertheless, in this study both types of interpretation are treated within the frame of existential constructions.If the Theme is inanimate, then only existential reading is possible (see ( 55)).
In affirmative and negative existential constructions in present tense, structural symmetry is not observed: in affirmatives, the copula wăl-'be, live' or a zero copula is used, while in negatives the existential negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX.
[LOC+THEME+NEG.(60) émtӛr-nӛ qul ӛntím-ӛki (61) tim qărá-nă n j É ӛŋӛqj é -t ӛntím-ӛki big.lake-LOC fish NEG.EX-PRD this village-LOC child-PL NEG.EX-PRD 'There is no fish in the lake' 'There are no people in this village' There is also no symmetry in affirmative and negative past tense existentials, where in affirmatives the copula wăl-'be, live' is used and in negatives the negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX is accompanied by the auxiliary verb wăl-'be, live'.
forest inside-LOC berry NEG.EX be-PST3.3SG'There were no berries in the forest' In negative existentials sentential negation is observed.

Predicate locatives
Locational constructions predicate location (Payne 1997 : 112), which is prototypically inanimate.There are a lot of ways to express locative predication.In the present tense such copulas as wăs-'be' and wăl-'be, live' can be used, as well as the predicative suffix -iki PRD that marks the location in the third person and a zero copula.In the affirmative constructions in the past tense the copula wăl-'be, live' is used.In the third person present tense in negative constructions the existential negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX is used, which is sometimes marked by the predicative suffix -iki PRD and number markers, while in the first and second persons the auxiliary verb wăs-'be' is added to ӛntím NEG.EX.
In the past tense ӛntím'NEG.EX is accompanied by the auxiliary verb wăl-'be, live'.Schematically, these constructions can be represented as: The following examples demonstrate the present tense locatives with the copula wăs-'be'.
[THEME+LOC+NEG.(Gulya 1966 : 94) In affirmative and negative present tense locatives in the first and second persons structural similarity is also not observed when in affirmative clauses the copula wăs-'be' or a zero copula are used and in negative ones the predicate ӛntím NEG.EX accompanied by the auxiliary wăs-'be'.
[THEME+LOC+NEG.EX+AUX(wăs-'be' -1, 2 There are also differences between the affirmative past tense locatives with the copula wăl-'be, live' and the negative past tense locatives with the negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX accompanied by the auxiliary verb wăl-'be, live'.

Possessive constructions
Possessive constructions predicate possession (Payne 1997 : 112).Prototypically they require the possessive 'transitive' verb tăjá-'have'.However, there are cases where these constructions can contain the copula wăl-'be, live' or be marked by a zero copula in the present tense.In negative constructions in the present tense the existential negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX can be used.It is sometimes marked by the predicative suffix -iki PRD and number markers, while in the past tense the existential negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX is used, accompanied by the auxiliary verb wăl-'be, live' that indicates the tense.
Possessive clauses with the verb tăjá-'have' are a common means of expressing predicative possession.They do not belong to the domain of intransitive predication, but form an opposition to intransitive possessive constructions.Affirmative (see (81)) and negative (see ( 82)) clauses are symmetrical -only the common negative operator əńtə NEG is added to the negated proposition.
Negative constructions are asymmetric to affirmative ones.In negative locative possessive constructions in the past tense the negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX accompanied by the auxiliary verb wăl-'be, live' is used, while in affirmative ones we have the copula wăl-'be, live'.Negative constructions are asymmetric to affirmative ones.In negative possessive intransitive constructions, we have mainly sentential negation, while in transitive ones constituent negation is preferred.

Comparative constructions
Comparative constructions encode two objects which are assigned to different positions on a predicative scale; they express the comparison of inequality (Stassen 2013).In such clauses the copula wăs-'be' and the special predicate suffix -iki PRD are used in the present tense.
Schematically these constructions can be represented as: In the following construction the Comparee is compared to the Standard by means of the special postposition n é ŋət COMP that modifies the Standard, an adjective and the copula wăs-'be' in the first and second persons present tense.
[COMP+STAND+PSTP+ADJ+COP(wăs-'be' -1, 2 PRS)] (93) mä әt j é -m n é ŋət óɣŏr wəś-əm 1SG elder.brother-POSS.1SG/1SGCOMP tall be-1SG.SUB 'I am taller that my elder brother' The next construction shows that the Comparee is compared to the Standard by means of the suffix -oɣ ABL that modifies the Standard, the adjective and the copula wăs-'be' in the first and second person present tense.The word order is changed due to pragmatic reasons -the adjective óɣŏr 'tall' and the copula wăs-'be' stand before the Standard qáqă-m-oɣ 'younger.brother-POSS.1SG/1SG-ABL' to probably stress the pragmatic value of the adjective in the context.This is the only confirmed case but, nevertheless, here and further I present the scheme that corresponds to the basic neutral order of the elements for more adequate perception of the constructions.

Predicate comitatives and abessives
There are two more types of intransitive predicative constructions where the main semantic content is expressed by a noun in comitative or abessive.They can be called predicate comitatives and abessives as they are semantically different, in a way, from the previously discussed intransitive clauses and ascribe presence or absence of a quality or an object to the subject.In the examples below the copula wăs-'be', the suffix -iki PRD and the zero copula are found in the present tense, while there are no clauses in the past tense or negative constructions in the corpora (they require additional analysis).Schematically, these constructions can be represented as: 1) [THEME+PRED.COM+COP(wăs-'be' The following construction demonstrates a predicate noun in abessive that describes the subject with no entity and is linked by the copula wăs-'be'. [THEME+PRED.COM+COP(wăs-'be' -1, 2 PRS)] (99) mä ní-lӛɣ wÉ əs-əm 1SG wife-ABESS be-1SG.SUB 'I am without wife' The next two clauses show predicative comitative (see.ex.100) and abessive (see.ex.101) that are linked to the subject by a zero copular.

Discussion of some essential issues
This section contains a discussion of some examples whose semantics is connected with the change of word order, pragmatic and discourse status.
Posture verbs in existentials and locatives and other interesting cases are also discussed.The Khanty word order plays an important role in demarcation of existential and locative constructions.In existentials, as it has been already mentioned, the known element is the place (LOCATION) and the reported one is an indefinite and discourse-new entity (THEME) (see ( 104)), while in locative constructions it is vice versa (see ( 105)).Nevertheless, there are some cases where in structurally locative constructions like [THEME+LOC+COP/NEG.EX] the Theme is indefinite (see ( 106)) and such constructions may also be considered as existentials (they are treated as locatives in this study).
(104) tom j É ŏɣ-nӛ É ärki wéli that hill-LOC a.lot.ofdeer 'There are a lot of deer on that hill' (105) mä än j i-m joq-ən ӛntím-ӛki 1SG sister-POSS.1SG/SGhome-LOC NEG.EX-PRD 'My sister is not at home' (Gulya 1966 : 95) (106) wäsili, qojә-qәm tot utən?(Терешкин 1961 : 107) Vasilii who-INDEF there ?in.the.forest'Vasilii, is there somebody in the forest?' In the following example the structure of the clause is [LOC+THEME+ COP/NEG.EX], but the definiteness of the Theme prevents us from treating this construction as an existential.The Theme was mentioned in the previous discourse and the Location appears in the first place due to pragmatic reasons.So, this may be considered as a locative construction with inversion.
(107) jӛpivänkä peḷӛk ur -nə t u l äŋkӛwsӛ (Терешкин 1961 : 102) Epivanka side old.river.bed-LOCthis cemetry 'This cemetery is in Epivanka down old river bed' There is a great deal of cases where existential and locative clauses appear without an overt Location, so one can talk about some presupposed covert Location where some entities are located.If the entity is indefinite and discoursenew, then the clause is existential (see ( 108)-( 110)).If the entity is definite, discourse-old or if the perspective of the speaker focuses on it, then the clause might be considered as a locative one (see ( 111), ( 112)).
(113) ăp é -m, ӛŋkí-m, ími-m, father-POSS.1SG/SGmother-POSS.1SG/SGgrandmother-POSS.1SG/SGn j ləɣ n j ӛŋi-qj wəl-ɣál eight child be-PST1.3SG'There were/lived my father, mother and eight children' (114) wÉ əl-wəl-t t j ímint  k m wóntə-ŋ jaɣ be-PRS-3PL.SUB such little forest.inside-ADJpeople 'There are/live/exist such little forest people' All speakers of Vakh Khanty are bilingual with predominance of Russian in their everyday communication in most cases.Despite this fact, many prefer to speak only Vakh Khanty when they stay in the forest for a long time or live in their rangelands (according to their own words).The Russian language influences Vakh Khanty speakers to a greater or lesser degree and some of them tend to use the Russian word order SVO where the predicate occupies the position right after the subject instead of the SOV Khanty word order.The following two examples demonstrate probably the Russian basic word order and not the deviation of the Khanty word order for pragmatic reasons.Nevertheless, this drift arises the questions of ambiguity in interpretation of the sentence information structure in Vakh Khanty.

Analysis
This section presents the three tables which show different types of predicate nominals and related constructions, linking elements and predicates used in them, their frequency and distribution as well as symmetry and asymmetry between affirmative and negative constructions.Predicate comitatives and abessives are not discussed here.
Table 1 shows different structural types of constructions, linking elements and predicates as well as their frequency in the corpora.I do not take into account the differences in the structure connected with the different order of the constituent elements of the clauses, if they do not influence the types of predicate nominals and related constructions, and they are restricted to the schemes in Table 1.I also consider the principles of discourse-newness/ discourse-oldness, definiteness/indefiniteness and perspectivisation.Two corpora were used for this purpose: 1) the modern one collected in 2017-2019, 2022 (10000 tokens in total); 2) and the 'old' one -the corpus of texts and examples recorded and published by Tereshkin (Терешкин 1961 : 99-125) and Table 1 Types of Predicate Nominals and Related Constructions Gulya (1966 : 67-68, 94-95, 111-113, 133-143, 153-165) in the middle of the 20th century (5230 tokens in total).
The discussion of Table 1 is presented below.1) In both corpora predicate nominals are represented by the following constructions [THEME+PRED.NOM+COP(wăs-'be' -1, 2 PRS)/ZERO.COP -PRS]; in the new corpus -[THEME+PRED.NOM+COP(wăl-'be, live' -PST)].In both corpora linking elements can be expressed by the copula wăs-'be' and a zero copula in the present tense.In the new corpus the use of the copula wăl-'be, live' in the past tense is also registered.The most frequent means of coding predicativity in the old corpus is the copula wăs-'be', in the new one -a zero copula that can be considered as a marker of a growing influence of the Russian syntax on Khanty.
2) In both corpora predicate adjectives can be expressed with constructions like [THEME+PRED.ADJ+COP -PRS/PST] and [THEME+PRED.ADJ-PRD -3 PRS]; in the new corpus -[THEME+PRED.ADJ+ZERO.COP -PRS].Such linking elements as wăs-'be' in the present, wăl-'be, live' in the past and the predicative suffix -iki PRD in the present were registered for both types of data; a zero copula can be found in the new data.The most frequent means of coding predicativity in both corpora is marking the adjectives in question by the suffix -iki PRD.
3) In both corpora the parallel use of existential constructions like [(LOC)+ THEME+COP/ZERO.COP -PRS/PST] and [(LOC)+THEME+NEG.EX -3 PRS] was registered, as well as in the new corpus -[(LOC)+THEME+NEG.EX+AUX(wăl-'be, live' -PST)].The linking element wăl-'be, live', which is the most frequent means of coding predicativity, can be used both in the present and past tenses; a zero copula and the existential negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX in the present tense can also be found in both corpora.An analytical form representing existential negation in the past was registered in the new data ӛntím NEG.EX + wăl-'be, live'.
The analysis shows that both corpora employ the strategy of using a zero copula in the present tense.In theory, as is also true for Uralic languages, it is quite acceptable to use a zero copula in such types of constructions.Nevertheless, a serious growth of its occurrence in the new data might be connected with the strong influence of the Russian language, where this is a common phenomenon.Also, in the new corpus there is a great growth of possessive constructions with a possessor in the locative case and different types of existential predicates that might be the case of Russian influence, while the prototypic strategy involves the possessive verb tăjá-'have'.In the new corpus there are 89 instances with tăjá-'have' vs 63 instances of intransitive possession, while in the old one 7 instances with tăjá-'have' vs 1 instance of intransitive possession (that may be due to poor translation -not a transparent example).
Table 2 reveals different types of linking elements and predicates as well as their frequency in predicate nominals and related constructions in two corpora.Not all possible types were found, but the perspective of their use can be seen from the table.
The discussion of Table 2 is presented below.1) The copula wăs-'be' is found only in the first and second person present tense in all types of constructions except for existential and possessive ones, which is a structural constraint.The Theme in existential and possessive constructions is hardly ever first or second person, since the latter are present in the speech situation and are, therefore, definite (from a discourse-pragmatic understanding of definiteness).The discussion of Table 3 is presented below.1) According to the data provided there is observed symmetry in negation in predicate nominals, adjectives and also in predicative possessive constructions with the verb tăjá-'have' -the negative particle É əntə is only added (constituent negation).2) In existentials, locatives and other types of possessive constructions asymmetry is revealed either in the present or in the past tense affirmative and negative constructions.In the use of copulas in present tense affirmative clauses, a zero copula or the predicative suffix -iki PRD are used, while negative clauses have the existential negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX or analytical construction ӛntím NEG + wăs-'be'.In the past tense affirmative clauses, the use of the copula wăl-'be, live' was registered, while negative analytical constructions have ӛntím NEG.EX + wăl-'be, live' (sentential negation in all cases).
3) Comparative constructions as well as predicate comitatives and abessives are not included in Table 3, as there are no negative examples of this case, though they should follow the symmetric principles of negation existing for predicate nominals and adjectives.

Conclusion
This study revealed different types of predicate nominals and related constructions as well as linking elements and predicates used in them.It has also detected some diachronic changes in the Vakh dialect within the last 60 years.
The following linking elements and predicates are used in these types of constructions: 1) the copula wăs-'be' (only in the first and second persons present tense); 2) the copula wăl-'be, live' has the full paradigm of the subjective conjugation, and can also carry time, aktionsart and mood markers; 3) the predicative suffix -iki PRD that might be reduplicated for pragmatic reasons -iki-iki PRD-PRD and its variants -iki-ɣӛn PRD-DU, -iki-jät PRD-PL and is only used in the third person present tense; 4) the existential negative predicate ӛntím 'NEG.EX' that can be marked by -iki PRD or -iki-iki PRD-PRD and its variants -iki-ɣӛn PRD-DU, -iki-jät PRD-PL when it is used in the third person present tense; can be marked by number suffixes and used in analytical constructions with such auxiliary verbs as wăs-'be' and wăl-'be, live'; 5) the possessive verb tăjá-'have', which is a prototypic predicate in possessive predicative constructions, can carry inflectional and, probably, derivational markers; 6) a zero copula.
• Predicate nominals use such copulas as wăs-'be' / wăl-'be, live' and a zero copula in the present and past tenses.Negative and affirmative constructions show symmetry in negation.
• Predicate adjectives use copulas wăs-'be' / wăl-'be, live', a zero copula and the predicative suffix -iki PRD in the present and past tenses.Negative and affirmative constructions show symmetry in negation.• Existentials, locatives and possessives use an animate or inanimate location accompanied by the copula wăl-'be, live' and a zero copula in the present affirmatives, the copula wăl-'be, live' in the past affirmatives, the existential negative predicate ӛntím NEG.EX in the third person present negatives, the analytical construction ӛntím NEG.EX + wăs-'be' in the first and second persons present negatives and the analytical construction ӛntím NEG.EX + wăl-'be, live' in the past negatives.Predicate locatives also present the copula wăs-'be' in the present affirmatives.Possessive clauses use the predicative suffix -iki PRD in present affirmatives.Negative and affirmative constructions show asymmetry in negation either in the present or past tenses.• Possessive transitive clauses with the verb tăjá-'have' show symmetry in affirmatives and negatives.
• Only affirmative comparative constructions can be found in the corpora.
They use the copula wăs-'be' and the predicative suffix -iki PRD in the present tense.• Predicate comitatives and abessives use copula wăs-'be', the suffix -iki PRD and a zero copula in the present tense.This type of constructions requires further research.In both corpora there are cases of a zero copula in the present tense.However, a serious growth of its use in the new data may be connected with the influence of the Russian language.In the new corpus there is also a great number of cases with animate locatives and linking elements (wăl-'be, live', a zero copula, ӛntím'NEG.EX and ӛntím NEG.EX + wăl-'be, live'), while they are practically absent in the old corpus (only one not transparent example was found).That is also the case of increasing Russian influence, though generally more information is required to prove this statement, e.g.examples from additional older texts and cross-dialectal studies, as there may be such factors as the retainment of the Pre-Khanty structure, independent parallel development of this feature or even individual bilingualism at some stages.There are also many cases where a predicate occupies the position right after the subject.This might not be considered as inversion but, sooner, as the influence of the Russian word order.

[
now money NEG.EX-PRD 'I have no money now'
PST)].(79) t j u j É ӛlӛw nípik mŭnqá pӛs É än óɣtə-nə ӛntím wəl-ɣás this new book PTCL table up-LOC NEG.EX be-PST3.3SG'This new book was not on the table' 1SG elder.sister-POSS.1SG/1SGhome-LOC NEG.EX be-PST3.3SG'My elder sister was not at home' The following constructions demonstrate the Comparee compared to the Standard by means of the special postposition n é ŋət COMP, that modifies the Standard, and an adjective with the predicate suffix -iki PRD in the third person Finally, there are clauses where the Comparee is compared to the Standard by means of the suffix -oɣ ABL, that modifies the Standard, and an adjective with the suffix -iki PRD in the third person present tense.