Chapter 16 Evidentiality, or knowing how we know
Inference ke
ke presents a claim as a conclusion drawn from evidence specific to the case.
shia to ke wepu. — It appears from the evidence that they left.
pheralu to ke lepa. — I infer from the wet ground that rain fell.
thia shorui ke nai. — I infer that you are weary.
The last sentence remains an inference about another person's state. The person can correct it. ke makes the inferential step audible without turning an outward sign into privileged access to someone else's experience.
From sign to conclusion
An empty room may support the conclusion that someone left. Wet ground may support past rain. A repeated observation may support a broader pattern. In each case, the speaker perceived something, then reasoned beyond it.
Direct and inferential claims differ here:
shia to hi wepu. — I witnessed them leave.
shia to ke wepu. — I infer that they left.
One is not automatically more reliable. Direct perception can be brief or obstructed; a well-supported inference can draw on several records. The particles identify the route. Evidence quality and reasoning remain open for examination.
Inference and necessity
ke is an evidential; necessity belongs to modal na, after the evidential rank, while probability remains unstated:
womu ki se ke na lorima. — From the evidence, I infer that the house must have been built.
Here ke names inference and na presents the conclusion as necessary. A listener may still challenge either step.
The back of the tongue closes and releases into e in ke. That crisp gesture may help a learner distinguish the particle, but deduction does not live in the consonant. The reasoning lives in the evidence and the path from it to the claim.