In the first case, the agent is not expressed, but the construction is impersonall, thus the responsibility is to some extent hidden and avoided. The pluperfect with the copula v"oli has here apparently the same function as the past-in-past of the Western European («Standard Average European») pluperfect. In the second example, the reflexive suffix expressly removes the responsibility of the author, the event just happened without his volition. The objects are retained, as is shown by the morphological markers. In the third example, the authorship is shown, but again demoted by the genitive form, although the verb form is the perfect without the reflexive suffix. Thus it only shows the resulting state. The critics' part in this is based on the result, and the perfect of the verb «understand» has a clear evidential meaning: the critics must have understood the author's words in a certain way. The author tries to avoid their interpretation by using the quotative particle p"o. The last predicate in the simple past k"osji «I wanted», shows what the author did intentionally and in full consciousness.

The impersonal constructions based on the participle — "om(a) are, as was noted in the beginning, neutral. One of the fullest descriptions of Komi from the XDCth century states:

That is, there is no formally marked passive in Komi, and the analytic constructions with instrumental agents that appear in grammars are obvious loan translations from Russian (E. A. Cypanov in [Fedjunjova 2000: 282]). In earlier grammatical descriptions, e. g. [Lytkin 1955], such constructions are claimed to represent genuine Komi passive forms. The tradition has been faithfully continued until today, and has taken root in modem written Komi (see e. g. [Ludykova 1993]).

As in the historical development of languages with habere perfects, a predilection of the possessive impersonal construction to be used with transitive verbs is apparent in Komi, at least with respect to the frequencies of transitive and intransitive verbs. With transitives, it is often difficult to decide whether the genitive should be interpreted purely as the possessor of an item, or as the agent responsible for the action; it can be both. P. Doronin, a prolific writer who began publishing in the 1930s used the construction with transitives, verbs both with and without an object. In all cases, the interpretation as an evidential is possible, since it often coincides with the basic meaning of the forms with — oma, that of a state resulting from an event/action in the past:

Another example shows the verb «work», which is certainly active, but hardly transitive:

In the context, the father is inspecting the ploughing done on his field. Dissatisfied, he draws the conclusion that his son must have been at work. The adverb tadz «thus» is suffixed with — s"o, marker of 3rd person singular definiteness and accusative, is also used in Komi as an emphatic particle, comparable to the Russian — to. The suffix — s"o marks definite objects, while indefinite ones remain unmarked:

In the following example, the construction can hardly be interpreted as evidential, conjecture or hearsay; it simply reports on the appearance of a person. The meaning of state becomes very clear due to v"oli:

In early fiction, there are some cases of the construction with intransitives:

The writer in question shows in his production a fairly strong influence of Russian, which is noticeable to Komi language specialists. Whether or not this possessive construction is connected with Russian dialects or not, Fedorov shows during his long career (from the 1930s to the 1990s) a growing predilection for its usage. In the early stories (1930—1950s, [Fedorov 1955], 282 pages) there are only four cases of the possessive impersonal, the one above included, whereas in the prose of the 1990s ([Fedorov 1989], 165 pages), there are 16 cases.