 Yes, I've been increasingly getting interested in future constructions Mostly because there's so much variation there and so I've been trying to Pinpoint where you find the variation and then since I'm particularly interested in Diacrony I've been trying to do sort of the first steps in Understanding the historical sources and developmental paths of future constructions and I've been limiting myself to the Northwestern or Formerly also called old cookie languages and even that Even though that's not that many languages. It's still a huge amount of Different constructions that we find So even though it's a rather small focus So right now I'm still at the stage of just sort of Collecting the information that we have and kind of sorting through it And I'm really just kind of at the stage that I'm able to sort of ask the relevant questions as you'll see Okay, I'll be showing you To I'll start with two constructions that are particularly widespread That's on the one hand a Construction that I just called the new knee future construction. So it's based on this for me that no doubt you'll recognize as the Equational Copula and the other type of construction consists of a form T or T which is actually the verb to say and There I'll go into a bit more detail because that's something I worked on from one thing in particular and Then we'll just go into sort of Jump into sort of the diversity and I'll just Want to expose you to a bunch of different forms just so you get an impression of how much variation there is Okay So the knee future constructions Are so this is I'm Just limiting myself to to the Northwestern Subbranches and the modern languages of the Northwestern sub-branch the knee future construction is only in negative only find a negative context I will make a case for Reconstructing it also as a construction that used to be used in affirmative context But the modern languages only have it in negative context That they are T future constructions are only occur in affirmative context So we have a bit of a complimentary distribution of these two types of constructions And then again, so this is just kind of how I will in which order I will talk about these constructions and All in all the overarching theme that will be you know becoming more and more clear is that negative future is a relatively conservative context where we don't have that much variation and Affirmative future is a Remarkably innovative context where we have just lots and lots of variation Will be you'll be seeing the parameters along which these innovations have occurred Okay, so As I just said affirmative future expressions are highly innovative We find a spectacular amount of non-paradigmaticity in the sense that you know if you try to elicit a conjugation paradigm You'll find that there are different constructions for different person forms sometimes even different constructions for intransitive versus transitive affirmative future and To a large degree the the functional basis of a lot of these innovations is that there seems to be just sort of a drive to kind of find new expressions to to particularly express Intentionality that's often sort of a starting point for constructions that then become full-fledged future constructions There seems to be sort of a particular concern with epistemic authority. That's kind of my story for how this direct speech construction becomes a future construction and then Typically also before like some future constructions Are in the first stage just in a spectral construction that express immediacy So something is about to happen. That isn't necessarily a future yet and we'll be seeing that also And then sort of I can grammaticalize to a more general ordinary future So that seems to be you know, just finding new ways of you know Particularly referring to something immediate or to intention that's sort of what drives sort of I think what sits You know a new construction sets it off to then you know possibly become more general future construction And then the negative future expressions, like I said, that's most that's a very conservative content relatively conservative context And the conjugation forms we find there is that usually we have a full conjugation paradigm That all looks the same like it's all based on the same marker and also the person indexes are fairly regular so we see a Pretty good difference here Okay, there's a bit of an exception because transitivity can can mess things up. So in Transitive Slash now analyze context which are often kind of go together there We may also find innovative constructions in negative future. That would be sort of the exception Okay, so here are our Northwestern languages and sort of grouped into four really just impressionistic groupings and I've I'll be showing you data from the languages in red and blue the I put biate in blue because it's really had very limited data, but it does fit sort of the pattern That sort of the construction that we also find other languages I could have also included Chote and tarau, but there's sort of more complicated stuff going on. So I kind of left that out for now Okay, so the basic knee construction As I said occurs in negative future paradigms Sort of formulae clear schematically it looks like What I have listed here under one So you have the lexical verb then the negative marker and then you have an inflected form of the this knee historically Equational Copula And sort of variation and two different types of negative markers you can have here and then what's under two? That's really just not good So not going is just a bit different from everybody else But so basically we'll be going with the structure in one and what this looks like you'll see here so this is mon song and See to go ma the negative and then you have this inflected form of knee It's the post-verbal set of person markers Which means that we have something truly post-verbal for first-person so in and and then this inclusive me and second-person there those are these forms that are Reconstructed to be originally pre-verbal within the post-verbal paradigm. Okay So this is a particularly Conservative paradigm, which we also know because of these day and meh pre-verbal forms within the post-verbal set So that also helps us to to recognize just kind of the how our create this type of conjugation is Okay, and this is mon song cheero looks Really similar. We just you know here We have see for first-person singular see ma ninh and here we have may know me Okay, so we have some different verb and then no instead of ma for negation, but then again ninh dini and me So that's kind of the same as in mon song Now we move to so those were chandel languages chandel district now we have some languages here of So the Brock Valley area In southern Assam. So here is Cypherium, and it works the same way. Okay, say no ninh say no Nietzsche It's the same same basic idea Frankel works the same. Okay, there's a bit of variation especially in the second-person forms Just the the person markers for second person But otherwise it's all extremely similar history Looks really Again the same. Okay Saka chip Run long So the only variation you really see is and then the second and third person forms the first person forms are really Extremely similar and then here's also an example from be happy that again looks the same And Here's our lumpkang and as I said lumpkang is different from everybody else Somehow in lumpkang the position of the negative and the knee is switched But otherwise it's the same again. Okay, I Don't know exactly what the mechanism for lumpkang is how it kind of Switched like the obvious explanation would be it's a moment analogy to other types of conjugations, but I'm I'm not exactly sure so Now the question for this knee construction is whether We can reconstruct a source construction that would be sort of the Negative future knee construction at the level of proto Northwestern. Okay, does it really reconstruct to one single source? construction and then all the modern languages just have You know an inherited kind of form of it And the question whether we can really reconstruct a full source construction That hinges on whether the variation can be explained as just sort of Subsequent changes to one inherited form or not And kind of boils down to kind of how well we can account for the variation just in terms of sort of subsequent Developments And even though it really looks all extremely similar and certainly compared to the affirmative forms It's extremely similar. There actually is still quite a bit of variation So we have two different negative markers like we saw them up in the know The position and form of plural marking is different So we have the plural marker and this hey, hey, hi, whatever it is And that can either attach to the lexical verb or at the end of the whole string Then as I've been mentioning we have the position and form of the second person markers and the inclusive And Sort of it's still kind of so I'm I'm Like all these things would have to be checked sort of across the different conjugation paradigms And then we can decide okay in this language It's just always the case that the postverbal second person Form is j and okay, and so it's not particular to this construction So it can still be the case that we can reconstruct really a fixed source construction and you know the variation that we find is just kind of subsequent development But Anyways, it's it's not obvious that we can really reconstruct the whole construction or if it's instead something That You know so the opposite Are they the alternative hypothesis would be that it's a Construction that spread through language contact would sort of be the obvious alternative. Okay, so it's it's not It's not so clear which one it is at this point Okay, so the basic new construction By that I mean that There's no other marker other than me and as I said, this is the most common for negative future Affirmative future constructions generally are not based on me. There are fossils, but we can sort of ignore that for now and What I want to Discuss now Taking data from Monsang is that knee actually is a major Future construction that used to exist for both negative and affirmative contexts And we can do that based on just internal reconstruction within Monsang Okay, so in Monsang also I showed you the knee construction for negative future But we have a knee construction also in an affirmative context and there it's the imperfective Intrans of conjugation. I'll show you that in a second that provides evidence that This used to be a construction also used in affirmative context And then there's also evidence from subordinate clause and from a desider of construction the language So I'll briefly go over this here. So This is if you remember it looks extremely similar to what we had for negative future. So negative future was basically exactly these forms except with the negative ma, okay and Kind of the reason why this is not just the exact affirmative counterpart is a it's not future but imperfective more generally It's okay. So this would just be I'm going and I will go and so on And the other way in which it's different is that it's Only in transitive verbs that work that way. Okay, transitive verbs work differently Okay, so it's more for syntactically restricted only works for in transitive verbs and it's not the same function It's not future, but it's imperfective more generally. Okay, so it's kind of related in a way. Okay Okay, but this is exactly like I would reconstruct that this is exactly the form of the future Affirmative construction. So historically seeming would have been I will go Okay, and you could have had the equivalent for you could put a transitive verb in there as well So you saw to eat I could say signing it means I will eat. Okay, that's kind of the Proposed reconstruction that these forms are future constructions and they work both for in transitive and for transitive verbs Okay evidence for this comes from Subordinate clause the way sport and causes work. Okay, so here we have a transdiverbed to kill and you can indeed just say tending if you add this conditional if then you get You know I kill but obviously with this future sense because it's a condition Okay, so in Subordinate clauses, you can have Ning following a transitive verb, which you cannot and for a main clause rep So tending by itself is ungrammatical. It's unacceptable, but if it's in a subordinate clause tending be that's fine Okay, so in subordinate clauses, we still have the form that I would reconstruct with the future meaning in a sense And there's a deserter of construction the language that works this way signing at the nut means he wants to eat This is evidence that Ning is a first-person singular future form and the reason why this is evidence for reconstructing Ning as a first-person singular future form is because it is actually a construction that historically I Call a reported intentionality construction reported intentionality is a construction where you use Reported speech. Okay, so this is the construction We'll be talking about more detail later this is a construction that is has ambiguous Kind of yeah an ambiguous translation so it can either be He says I will eat or he says he will eat or he thinks I will eat or he thinks he will eat Or he wants to eat. Okay, so it reports the intention of somebody to do something and here sort of in the Synchronic report intentionality construction. We have Sakite, which is a type of first-person singular future form and Samin started out like a reported intentionality construction, but then grammaticalized to be specifically only Marking deserterative. Okay, so it was sort of the ambiguous type of construction that we see on top But now narrowed down to be specifically only Expressing deserterative. Okay, he wants to eat and This type of reported intentionality construction that can have these different translations That's actually cross-linguistically Reported to always have the same form that it's reported speech and what is reported is a verb form that is first-person singular future Okay, so all this to say just that this name here Can be argued very well to be a first-person singular future form. Okay Used here in an affirmative context Okay, so we have basically this Form that used to be a reported intentionality construction now being just the deserterative and sort of a new construction becoming reported intentionality, okay Okay, so This was a bit sort of a nitty-gritty of Monsang morphosyntax, but basically this shows that even though in Monsang Synchronically we don't have any Sort of as the general affirmative future construction we can reconstruct it for Monsang actually okay based on these three pieces of evidence I just showed you across three different morphosyntactic domains and it's actually not unexpected that the That in affirmative main clauses That the meaning would have shifted from future to imperfective and that it's restricted to intransitives because main clauses are the main morphosyntactic domain where innovations happen and subordinate clauses as It's a true subordinate clauses or this deserter of construction where it's inside reported speech That would actually be expected to be conservative or where we would expect to find fossils because those kind of contexts often preserve original forms so this kind of fits actually so in Monsang Just based on internal reconstruction just based on what we find within Monsang It's really possible to make a case that the new construction is the original just basic future construction of the language that was used both both in affirmative and negative contexts and Basically now it's restricted to negative context because affirmative context have been innovated okay The next question based on that is how whether we can extrapolate from Monsang to all Northwestern languages, so Is it the case that we can reconstruct? Me also as the main future construction for Northwestern in general And I would say kind of maybe sort of at first It makes sense that you know if we look at pre modern Monsang You know and kind of assume that Northwestern isn't you know doesn't go back to such a great time depth than pre modern Monsang Could sort of we could sort of intuitively assume that that's kind of the same time depth as per the Northwestern But sort of you know in second thought it's it's probably not the case Kind of first because You'll be seeing lots of variation in affirmative context So you know to say that now all of these languages have different affirmative future constructions But you know at the stage of proto-northwestern there was really just one construction doesn't really make sense Right like if there was that much variation around today You would assume that that's just you know that these languages are just happy to innovate Future especially future affirmative constructions So you I would be happier to reconstruct also variation Kind of and make the you know assume that the proto-language was similar to the modern languages And then the other reason is that the new construction is actually unlikely to be that old that it's really the future construction of Northwestern because we still have The grammaticalization source of knee the Equational Copula is still around right and that's kind of a general sort of Rule that if you still find the source of the Grammaticalized construction around then presumably it's not actually that old right So Okay, so probably not it's probably not that easy kind of But just to show this also we have knee as the affirmative future construction just plain that in Northeastern actually so bite it has You know for both intransitive intransitive verbs has just this Inflicted knee as the future construction For first person and second person, okay, like all persons It's kind of important because first person mean can kind of go off in different ways So it's it's also the case for other person forms Okay and then this already mentioned so the knee construction presumably is our would be reconstructed as Being based on the Equational Copula that we find everywhere also in Northeastern for example in Chiro But also in other languages and again the fact that it's still a copula in all these languages or lots of languages suggests that Knee as a future markers not that old Okay, so that would go against them the whole reconstruction of me as the main future marker at the level of proto-northwestern this source construction is likely to be an obligation or predestination construction so in the cross-linguistic study on 10 suspect mood systems By by be at all they discuss Equational Copula based constructions to my future as the third most common source for future in their sample of you know, really like cross-linguistic And so something like that can indeed be sort of literally translated into English as I am to go now So that type of a predestination construction would be the likely way this grammatical eyes So first to an intention construction and then sort of a more general future construction Okay, that was me and now they are T constructions So I already showed you the desider of construction and said that this is linked to or originates in a report intentionality Construction that's really based on reported speech nowadays if you know you sit down with a native speaker and show them this construction They just say Ning means want and they is also just an auxiliary in this construction They don't recognize this to mean to say or think it's not reported speech anymore at all It's just the way you say I want to eat a stunning kid that it's you know, it's all fused and opaque for native speakers But this desider of construction is extremely similar to the basic future. So The way you say I will eat in one sign is savanky day. Okay, so you don't have this not at the end But that shouldn't bother us right now. So it basically works Analogously, okay, so bank it a I would And this theory said but just to kind of show it also So here we would understand it as an auxiliary, but it's very obvious that it comes from the word the verb to say Okay, which is also lexical verbs in one song. Okay, so this is just an example for a direct speech Okay, so they now again Said our work exists or we have work Okay, so this is just how you do direct speech in one song. Okay, so this day is really just the verb to say and This is the full future affirmative paradigm and modern one song Something Funny presumably fused going on and the inclusive and third-person forms But in first and second we can see very clearly that it's the lexical verb followed by one and then inflected form of there And so there is again to say one I assume at this point That it's a combination of Va and this is sort of hooks on the discussion of what we had that we had this morning because usually the Directionals are all pre-verbal so Here we would have to assume then that it's also possible for Directionals to occur in a post-verbal position The N at the end could be first-person singular The other option that I don't want to necessarily actually exclude is that it it could also be Some kind of non-final marking actually sort of there's this in Right of like marking adverbial verbs adverbial Yeah, sort of you know non-finite verbs can also be marked with in so it could actually also be that Okay, so again what I just said so wouldn't we expect a directional marker and pre-verbal position so actually this example I showed you before We have here this Va and that's sort of the in the set of pre-verbal directionals So I'm not sure but basically as David also reported this morning Post-verbal directionals are reported and are not that unusual either in the South Central so it's Possible that basically somehow you had a set of both and they kind of grammaticalize in different ways so that you would have sort of true Directionals in pre-verbal position and then in post-verbal position Somehow it's these things that grammaticalize to other functions like here the future marker maybe okay, so Monsang actually has kind of a proliferation of these step-based constructions So we have savankite which is sure I will eat then what I showed you earlier the sake that and I he says or things I will eat or he wants to eat this kind of more General ambiguous reported intentionality construction more or vague one then the true Desiderative that has grammaticalized from the reported intentionally. So stunning it did not I want to eat then there's also just sake that which is the reported part here in So this is actually two layers of reported intention to have reported direct speech for the speech So sake is sort of a cohort of a very immediate future. So let me eat or I'll eat right now And then we also have an immediate future sa ron ki tena. Okay, so there's really you know They really kind of made good use of this day in different kinds of constructions Okay, but we also find this tea elsewhere. So Frankel here has the full Paradigm of affirmative future based on tea. Okay We see here the lexical verb is not marked in any way So again and one time we would have the the vang here, but they just have The lexical verb, it's not clear like because in Monsang also these things already have started to fuse and kind of you don't often so what I So this is actually also originally pay bang But now it just gets fused to bank it a so you could kind of see that this You know over time just phonologically erode out of the thing. So maybe you know It's possible that there used to be something else on the lexical verb, but you cannot you know see it anymore here at anymore Not sure Same in Cypherium here. We see or however that in second person. We actually have a different construction that I will mention a bit later In Chore we see that for first person we still get remnants of potentially the same bang just here a villar nasal Okay, you can see it sing can't see and sing 80. Okay So this is again a Barak Valley language So here we also have some kind of marker on the lexical verb. Okay, so Maybe it's still possible to reconstruct marking of the lexical verb of the kind that we have in Monsang also And we see here again sort of this patchy paradigm where kind of different person forms follow or make use of different constructions okay, and Sometimes really like it's not always the same combination. So here we had second person being a different construction Whereas first and third make use of direct speech here We have you know first person singular and second person plural making use of a different construction. So it's You know, what's going on? I don't know it's also possible, you know in the end that it's just Epiphenomenal of that particular elicitation session with that particular speaker, which you know, I don't want to rule out at this point It's put on how kids data and you know, I don't know what the circumstances were of how we collected these forms So here in rung long we also have kind of a full set we see interesting double indexation here with both the Preverbal guy and the final guy says this form is used when somebody really wants to you know State very with high confidence the intention that they will go then you can you know, but the first person singular marker there twice And then be at the we again see the same construction again We're sort of this velour nasal remnant on the lexical verb Okay, so that does seem to be there here and there. So maybe it's really part of the original construction Okay, and in London I've now realized we actually probably have the same thing So this is the paradigm that you give me a paper and then the footnote here is for alternate forms and the alternate forms are So if near if Nick D. Yeah, and Nikan or Nikan D if now it might be and Andy. Okay, so that D sure looks suspicious and Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so yeah, so Realizing it's probably it It's interesting so the knee we still find for first person But it's no longer there in second person. Okay, and then here this sure looks just like inflected forms of to say With a D instead of a T, but I have a story for that Yeah, exactly so yeah context. Yeah, not a story context exactly and so it does seem to be a regular Correspondence, okay, so it's essentially the same construction apparently In a now They kind of generally have different future constructions, but they also actually have So this is the desiderate which is exactly the same as in in monstang actually. Okay, so it's also mean Which we had also in monstang, right, which is kind of a fixed first person singular form of the verb and Then this the which actually depending on dialect and we do the D and I think it actually fused with another form which is to do which one's on is to so I think they just kind of fused Anyway, so yeah, so this is kind of the same desider of construction as in monstang But then kind of it didn't like they in an eye you don't have sort of this Further Development of constructions based on this say verb as we have in monstang Okay, and then yeah, I just said so this is actually the fact that we have a D initial in a nine and I'm going is actually what we would expect because we also have other correspondences of D to ta from proto Here proto so central, but I also put some monstang forms in comparison. So that is really Really what we would expect. Okay, so that works We also have This tab based construction this reported speech based construction in northeastern Interestingly here, it's the negative Okay, so kind of the new construction that a northwestern is only in the negative We saw the example of northeastern where it was affirmative and here so it's always kind of in the opposite polarity Here we have the tick construction in the negative for negative conjugation in Tado And The Vila nasal again on the side of the lexical verb Presumably in 50 for second person could just be a simulation of the Vila nasal to the nuh and then perhaps and for third person 53 a fusion but You know potentially Okay, so this Development from direct speech to future is something that is not Attested in this baby at all The iconic typology of tens aspect mood systems, but it is found in other languages and other parts of the world Okay, so we find it in In Africa quite robustly like in different branches and we find it in Papua languages and Gildaman in his work on comparative sort of across Africa comparative approach Kind of here's enough data to suggest a pathway that it Again starts out with intention. That's apparently sort of the common thing for all future constructions I'm going through immediate future and then becoming a general future Okay So that was our tailace constructions now we have another form. That's actually also quite common and that's a form Something like wrong or wrong or wrong or wrong So there's quite a bit of variation Of course, that's something we always have to be a bit careful whether we really have the same form or there's Either another form that's also playing into it or if it's a fusion somewhere along the pathway So in and I we have from which is really a very Still transparent as actually a purpose marker and Which in general seems to be sort of the Demology of this of this wrong form also where it's kind of fully grammaticalized as a future marker But here we still recognize it as a as a purpose marker. So it's the same dad the div what we saw before but again, it's say think and do more generally and This is how you do How you express trying in a cognitive constructions. Okay, so I Try to beat you is I say think do In order for you to beat Okay Okay, so here's an example and here it's not it's not future, but it's kind of the same Construction that then and other languages can be reanalyzed as a future construction So here cheero we have a combination of wrong with me and that's the main affirmative future in cheero Okay And one sign I showed you earlier this Slide with all these different to base constructions and we have this start on Kitten out which I would Assume is the same marker that also originates in this purpose Marker although. I'm not sure about the bowel What is about? We find the wrong in in chore. Okay, so this is also the slide I showed you before and we see first-person singular and second-person plural Are based on this wrong construction And then long time you have the raw right nicely with the normalization that you would Yeah, that you would expect if it's a purpose marker, right? If it's kind of originally sort of a purpose post-position all type of thing Okay, and run along you have the full paradigm with this rung So you find it also quite White spread both in Barak Valley languages as well as in Chandel in the LSI Yeah, we can also read about Halam for example That this rung is used long with a form ding And both are also employed as post positions with the meaning to for the sake of okay So just more confirmation that we're dealing with the form that originally has this purpose function with nouns or non-phrases and gets used within Sort of at the verbal level to express future and Then as a special treat, I can present to you Carby, which actually has the same cognate Must be a cognate. It's in Carby Really just kind of in a special marker of about to Which you can see because it's it combines with the realist marker. So in Carby, there's no Tens-aspect So there's there's aspect markers, but it's not really tense marking instead. You have sort of the basic You know like Burmese sort of it's all about sort of realist irrealist So you have one basic realist marker and two basic irrealist markers So it combines more commonly with the realist marker. My house is about to flood She's about to finish weaving the mat So that's more common to have it with the realist marker and then I asked well Can you also combine it with the irrealist markers and then I was given two examples and this is one of them and The examples I got was if we eat raw meat, we will immediately feel like vomiting So this is clearly not future because it's this general context, right? So it's you know, very obvious that it's not Indicating future here in any way. It's just sort of the spectral marker of something Being about to to happen. Okay, but Really feels like it must be cognate obviously okay, um so Okay, we talked about me we talked about there and then wrong was still pretty widespread and now we come we get to the truly other constructions that are really Just in one or two languages So we have now Perhaps to start with which is actually the future marker in a knot and You know, this must be Presumably ultimately related to the non nominalizer instrumental applicative Locative Which I still don't I'm not really sure how they all hang together but Like a general nominalizer Mm-hmm in monstang Okay, just Right to this example in monstang. It's actually you use it as a purpose nominalizer So there you would have sort of the again the this purpose function that we also saw with wrong so that would be sort of Also plausible here In the negative future this is sort of the regular Expression for future this now An al is interesting because in the affirmative future It seems like you also originally have not at least that's what you see in third person in the third person context. Okay, there you so you have here Trana me it is not good where me is the The negative and then you have Trana You know one of the other equational copulas that are around in so central So that looks you know perfectly regular all good Except that for all other person forms you don't have the nah But you have funny things happening where the verb becomes Gets a different tone. Okay, so you change from low tone trot to high tone trot and you lengthen the vowel So, you know, maybe it's some sort of fusion of trot and nah But if it is then it's Still something irregular because you don't you know, otherwise you should also get it in third person, right? This truck guy and you don't so it's something interesting going on with in the case of speech-check participants here in The an al affirmative future paradigm Okay, and then you have this naive form that is just in So far I've only found it in Cypherium one of the Barak Valley languages Only here in second person as well as transitive I think of the transitive paradigm so transitive negative paradigm here Sort of more regularly So this guy must be the reflex of the verb for love or long for and Desideratives are of course a prime source for futures just like an English will right Then you have a form ball which combines with me here in rung long and I have no clue You know neither neither did Powtang, but no clue where it comes from but some sort of form ball. There's actually a ball swing Carby that is some kind of Uncertainty marker, I don't know if they could be related, but really who knows and Also wanted to show you this so Powtang, okay documented for rung long sort of these Parallel future constructions they have to express different so he expresses it here is or maps it onto different degrees of likelihood or Certainty that an event will happen So then you have sort of these different constructions that map onto Likelihood or certainty I'm not sure that that's really sort of only this one dimension. It's you know, this rung is if we compare it with the rung and one song which was immediate future and the Carby rung that was about to so, you know if something is more of an immediate future It would be also the likeliest because then it's about to happen and then the more sure you can be that it can That it will really happen Okay, so this situation that you have different future constructions with different You know sort of yeah a different epistemic certainties That's That only happens in a firm for affirmative context. Okay, so negative just like we always see a negative Contexts are generally display fewer Alternatives, okay, they're just usually more reduced Okay, a last form then we're through is form sick which we find in Cypherium only transitive paradigm. So Cypherium is a language. We're in transitive and transitive future constructions Work completely differently and here we have this this form sick Which in the affirmative is only used in first person acting on second person and the negative is used sort of regularly And we also find the same sick form in com We find it again Sort of regularly in the affirmative and in the negative we actually have remnants of the knee I think there with the sick construction being sort of a more innovative construction and You know nings sort of having gone its own way because it's originally first-person singular form But you know somehow it was re-analyzed as the future marker and then showing up Also another person forms like third-person singular here and the inclusive Okay so What we've seen is just sort of a list again. Wait, I'm running over time Okay, I'll rip up quickly. So we have seen the knee which is originally our equation of copula, but we find it in this presumably Obligation of predestination construction to mark future then we have seen that they are T Which is reported speech construction Which may or may not have always been a secondary construction So secondary in the sense that monsoon and some other languages We have the lexical verb marked with you know, perhaps to go or something else So then you know, it would have been sort of Perhaps first being sort of an additive construction, you know, I go Buy a book Becoming I will buy a book and then I say I go buy a book sort of future being sort of in and to Cycles sort of still still visible now through two different markers, but the buy in the Toyota Then we have the raw rung with all its sort of Form like variation in terms of form being based on this purpose Atomology and Then sort of the less widespread ones we have now again with this purpose or sort of general nominalizing function We've seen you know going as far as just having future indicated by tone change Combined with vowel length and Anna with unclear history We've seen now which must have started out as a desiderative becoming a future which is cross linguistically common potentially this va as go and all of the sources are Also common future sources cross linguistically and this bull and sick forms where I don't know where they're from where they come From what their story would be And so this is again just to show you Again Sort of split up by whether a particular form occurs in the affirmative versus a negative construction and here we just See the yellow form the yellow highlights are forms that occur in negative Constructions as well So knee being the primary form for negative future Nye and sick only occur in negative future paradigms in the case of transitive verbs Okay, so that's actually kind of limited and otherwise all of the Difficult all of this variation of forms is only found with affirmative future constructions Okay, so affirmative future constructions What we've seen that we is that we have typically multiple Constructions Sort of either, you know, some of them expressing sort of different degrees of certainty or likelihood or temporal proximity Some things about to happen We've seen sort of non-paradigmaticity and that different person forms have follow different constructions sometimes transitive verbs follow different future constructions and intransitive verbs and I didn't really talk about this but for cool my collected data from three different people and get three different Paradigms and so it seems like it's you know, kind of this innovation. You also see unsurprisingly also at the level of different dialects Then sometimes we have combinations of different elements. So we've seen in Kirby the combination of va with there to say we've seen in Chiru the combination of rung and knee so sometimes we have sort of different elements which Could be either sort of diachronic layering or you know combinations of form used for a particular construction But generally we see a high rate of innovation and for affirmative future constructions this quotitive type construction Is very common in negative future constructions. That's much more sort of unified We have generally the combination of a few the negative marker nor ma together with me And when we have innovations for negative future, it's only in transitive paradigms, okay? So basically we can identify in transitive negative future is a very conservative Type of paradigm Okay, so contextualizing this within South Central the next steps, of course will be to kind of You know now that we kind of know what Constructions we find in Northwestern so the question how does that relate to other South Central languages? and how you know, so yeah applying it to kind of Trying to make progress with so essential. How does that help us with identifying? or telling apart sort of inheritance from contact The question is whether occurrences of the same construction would be more likely instances borings or common inheritance Generally affirmative constructions Because there's such a high amount of variation You know if you find the same type of construction in two different languages You'd be more inclined to think that it's contact because you have all this variation But it's not clear that it's really that useful in tracking contact just because there's really so much variation that it's this kind of You know almost seems like too much variation to really be able to to track this properly And then again what we've seen is that particularly in transitive negative future constructions that's That's conservative and stable and so if anything that would be potentially indicative of a phylogenetic grouping to try to yeah, that says Point criteria for phylogenetic groups