Based on data collected to determine the semantic meanings of the
resultative functions of Macedonian active constructions of the type
‘be’ plus agreeing *-n(-)/-t(-)*
participle, e.g., *dojden sum* ‘I am here
(literally: arrived),’ and ‘be’ plus agreeing
*l*-form, e.g., *sum došol*
‘I have arrived,’ I made the observation that Macedonian
‘be’ (henceforth *sum*) functions as an
auxiliary or as a matrix (finite) verb. This
distinction—*sum*-aux. and
*sum*-matrix—is seen in different syntactic
patterns and is dependent on the semantic function of *sum.* Korubin
(1974, 1976, and 1990) was the first to propose this distinction. He
shows that in the standard language in unmarked contexts
*sum*-matrix does not occur sentence initially while
*sum*-aux. does. In this work Korubin’s observation
will be expanded upon, predominately for the literary language as it
exists in Skopje, and it will be shown that distinctive syntactic
clausal patterns are found for *sum*-aux. and
*sum*-matrix. Some comparison will also be made to
syntactic patterns in certain Macedonian dialects.

In Macedonian *sum*-matrix is present in all
persons and numbers and functions as the matrix verb in, for example,
simplex clauses with nominal or adjectival predicates and in
resultative constructions of the type *jas sum jaden*
‘I have eaten’. *Sum*-aux., however, is
present only in 1st and 2nd persons singular and plural; it functions
as the auxiliary and only occurs in the unmarked past
*l*-form, e.g., *jas sum jadel*
‘I have eaten’. I will argue that clause initially
*sum*-aux. is proclitic and is distinguished from
*sum*-matrix which is enclitic when it occurs with
verbal adjectival, nominal, or adjectival predicates in neutral word
order in declarative indicative non-negated non-elliptical clauses
without nominal clitics. For example (NB.: all data are taken from
native sources and/or tested on native speakers, and though all
examples here are in 1st and 3rd persons singular the same patterns
are observed for all other persons and numbers; these will be included
in the paper):

(1) | a. | Jas | sum | došol. |

I | am-1sg.aux. | arrived-masc.sg.l-form | ||

I arrived/have arrived. | ||||

b. | Toj | došol. | ||

He | arrived-masc.sg.l-form | |||

He arrived/has arrived. | ||||

c. | Sum | došol. | ||

am-1sg.aux. | arrived-masc.sg.l-form | |||

d. | *Došol | sum. | ||

arrived-masc.sg.l-form | am-1sg.aux. | |||

e. | Došol. | |||

arrived-masc.sg.l-form |

(2) | a. | Jas | sum | dojden. |

I | am-1sg.matrix | arrived-masc.sg.part. | ||

I am here (literally: arrived). | ||||

b. | Toj | e | dojden. | |

He | is-3sg.matrix | arrived-masc.sg.part. | ||

He is here (literally: arrived). | ||||

c. | Dojden | sum. | ||

arrived-masc.sg.part. | am-1sg.matrix | |||

d. | Dojden | e. | ||

arrived-masc.sg.part. | is-3sg.matrix | |||

e. | *Sum | dojden. | ||

am-1sg.matrix | arrived-masc.sg.part. | |||

f. | *E | dojden. | ||

is-3sg.matrix | arrived-masc.sg.part. |

(3) | a. | Jas | sum | makedonec. |

I | am-1sg.matrix | Macedonian | ||

I am a Macedonian. | ||||

b. | Toj | e | makedonec. | |

He | is-3sg.matrix | Macedonian | ||

He is a Macedonian. | ||||

c. | Makedonec | sum. | ||

Macedonian | am-1sg.matrix | |||

d. | Makedonec | e. | ||

Macedonian | is-3sg.matrix | |||

e. | *Sum | makedonec. | ||

am-1sg.matrix | Macedonian | |||

f. | *E | makedonec. | ||

is-3sg.matrix | Macedonian |

This restrictive syntactic environment, i.e., declarative
indicative non-negated non-elliptical clauses without nominal clitics,
is chosen as a starting point because under such conditions the
distinction between *sum*-aux. and
*sum*-matrix is clearest. In other syntactic
environments both *sum*-aux. and
*sum*-matrix exhibit proclitic patterns; this may
explain why the distinction is often not realized (for example, cf.
1a and 2a). A brief discussion will also be included of Korubin’s and
Tomic’s (1997) examples with *sum*-matrix in clause
initial position. Time permitting, the syntactic patterns of
*sum*-auxiliary and *sum*-matrix in
certain other types of clauses will also be briefly examined.

Recent work on the syntax of Macedonian clitics categorizes all
instances of present tense *sum* as auxiliary (Tomic 1997) and does not
account for the distinction between *sum*-auxiliary
and *sum*-matrix copula in Macedonian observed by
Korubin (1974, 1976, and 1990). Baerman and Billings, in response to
Tomic, distinguish between auxiliary and matrix copula, but only in
third persons, i.e., *e* ‘is3sg,’and
*se* ‘are3pl,’ are matrix (finite)
copulas while the remaining persons—*sum*
‘am1sg.’, *si* ‘are2sg.,’
*sme* ‘are1pl.,’ *ste*
‘are2pl.’—are auxiliaries (1998:24). My work
expands upon Baerman and Billings by arguing that in all present tense
instances of *sum* followed by an
*l*-form *sum* functions as an
auxiliary, and elsewhere *sum* functions as a matrix
(finite) verb. Given the restrictive syntactic environment under
consideration in this paper, Baerman’s and Billings’ (1998) arguments
concerning the correlation of prosody and clitic placement will not be
treated at this time, though their support of Korubin’s observation
that *sum*-matrix need not be adjacent to verbal
adjectives will be maintained. This paper concentrates on the
different syntactic patterns of the Macedonian resultative
constructions *dojden sum* and *sum
došol* as evidence that in the *dojden
sum* construction *sum* functions as a
matrix (finite) verb while in the *sum došol*
construction *sum* functions as an auxiliary. This
observation, together with others such as position of temporal
reference (R), illustrate that the *dojden sum* types
of construction are (present) Resultatives, i.e., present states that
exist as a result of past events (Bybee et al. 1994:54), and are not
(present) perfects, i.e., past events whose results have present
relevance. Additionally, the conclusions argued for here illustrate
that re-analysis of the syntax of *sum* in Macedonian
is necessary.

References:

Baerman, Matthew and Loren Billings. (1998) “Macedonian
Clitics and the Trisyllabic Stress Window.” Mila
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Lars Hellan, Ivan Kasabov, and Ilyana
Krapova (eds.). *Papers from Second Conference on Formal
Approaches to South Slavic Languages Sofia September 1997*.
University of Trondheim, Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 31.
Norway. 13–32.

Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. (1994) *The
Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of
the World.* Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Korubin, Blagoja. (1974) “Mesto glagola
*sum* kak vspomogatel′nogo i kak svjazki v makedonskom
literaturnom jazyke.” *Grammatičeskoe opisanie
slavjanskix jazykov: koncepcii i metody.* Moskva: Nauka.
244–50.

—. (1976) “Glagolot *sum* kako
pomošen i kako vrska.” In Korubin, Blagoja.
*Jazikot naš denešen, kn. 2.* Biblioteka
Literaturen zbor, 4. Skopje: Biblioteka Literaturen zbor.
82–93.

—. (1990) “Mestoto na glagolot
*sum* kako pomošen i kako spona vo
makedonskiot literaturen jazik.” In Korubin, Blagoja.
*Na makedonsko gramatički temi. Posebni izdanija, kniga
18.* Skopje: Institut za makedonski jazik “Krste
Misirkov.” 292–97.

Tomic, Olga Misheska. (1997) “Non-First as a Default
Clitic Position.” *Journal of Slavic
Linguistics* 5(2):301–23.