Chapter 16 Evidentiality, or knowing how we know
Evidentiality: naming a source
Rain can reach a speaker in several ways. They may stand in it, infer it from wet roofs, receive a message from someone outdoors, or expect it because this season usually brings rain. Phi can name each route.
| Particle | Gloss | Claimed source |
|---|---|---|
hi | DIR | direct sensory witness |
ke | INFER | conclusion from specific evidence |
ti | REP | information received from another source |
ho | ASSUM | background expectation without evidence specific to this case |
The particles occupy the evidential rank after voice and before modality. One clause carries at most one of them. If two sources matter, two clauses can state them without forcing one particle to impersonate both.
Optional marking
An evidential is optional. pheralu lepa. asserts that rain falls with provenance unstated. pheralu hi lepa. adds a claim of direct witness; pheralu ke lepa. adds inference from signs.
The unmarked sentence does not secretly mean hi, certain, or careless. It simply leaves provenance unstated. Marking a source does not prove honesty, and omitting one does not prove confidence. The choice matters when the route to the claim matters.
Source is not truth or probability
An eyewitness can misperceive. An inference can be excellent, a report carefully checked, and an assumption correct by chance. Evidentials sort claims by their stated source, not by reliability or degree of belief.
That limited job is useful. It gives a listener a more exact question: what did you witness, which signs support the inference, who supplied the report, or what expectation supports the assumption?