Concerning Tundra Enets and Taimyr Tundra Nenets, the situation is worse.
8) In Tundra Nenets, R"Macb is used and drMACb appears, albeit very infrequently in older Forest Enets data: (9)
Instead, both Enets languages and Nganasan show a different verb which is of common origin but shows a different syntactic realization.
If all the data by Castren is truthful, it may be a reference to the option that the prohibitive verb stems of the Nenets no-, no-, Nganasan ne- and Enets i- were very restrictedly used in his time, and that later their spheres of use in imperative usually broadened.
However, the etymological adherence of the Enets i- to the Nenets no-etc.
3) The long i in the Enets general prohibitive auxiliary (Castren 1854 : 518) has obviously emerged through adherence of the plural marker *j that designates any plural object, on the one hand, and the marker *j of reflexive conjugation, to the original stem vowel e (ni- < *ne-j-), on the other (see e.
Prokof'jev ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1937 : 76) who first showed in print that the two Enets languages use different personal pronouns, Forest Enets 2Sg u, 3Sg Bu, Tundra Enets 2Sg tod'i, 3Sg nitoda, and that the Forest Enets pronouns resemble the same pronouns in Ket.
By adding the equivalent forms from both Enets varieties (3) one sees, that Tundra Enets resembles Nganasan much more, as with the exception of 3P, Tundra Enets is etymologically closer to Nganasan than to any other Northern Samoyedic language.
The purpose of this paper is to review Hajdu's account of personal pronouns in Nenets and Enets (1983) and to focus on some peculiar details that are interesting from a wider typological perspective.
But Enets has a special suffix of preterital interrogative -sa-/-da-/-ta-/-ca- used in Nganasan and Selkup as a primal common normal suffix of preterite in affirmative clauses.
Yet, as seen from the above Enets textual example (3), it has nothing to do with expressing a preterite action but only with its evidential meaning.
The Enets material is very scanty and I cannot say anything concerning possible different rules for evidentials depending on the semantic type of the verb used.