Conversation as collaboration

Two people disagree about a leaking tank. One saw water running from a joint and can mark that witness with hi. The other found wet ground after the rain and can mark an inference with ke. They may still disagree about the cause, but they no longer have to argue over two claims pretending to come from the same place.

Collaboration here means treating the source distinction as material both people can inspect. It can coexist with disagreement, refusal, and an ending in which nobody changes position. The aim is to understand what each claim rests on before deciding what follows.

The grammar supplies useful material. Evidentials can identify the claimed source. wa makes a binary question audible, while the interrogative words identify the part of a proposition being asked for. A clarification request may begin with polite pi no. Each gives listening a more precise next move.

Collaboration does not require consensus. A conversation may end with a corrected fact, a better question, a refusal, or two positions that remain apart. Phi's repair conventions explicitly preserve the last possibility:

That is a successful sentence when it is true. Understanding does not charge agreement as its fee.