Part 6
Choosing and combining
The four particles become useful at their boundaries. A memory may come from something once witnessed, a sound may be the event itself or only a sign, and a report may eventually lead a listener to see the event directly. The question throughout is narrower than "How certain am I?" It is "What source am I putting forward for this clause?"
01Memory
mia suliwa to hi nila.
1SG snake PST DIR see.
Saying this later still identifies the earlier event as something the speaker saw. The past tense locates the perception; hi identifies its source. Neither particle certifies the present accuracy of the speaker's memory. A reconstruction from notes or traces takes ke, while a recollection supplied by another person's account takes ti when that received source matters.
02One's own inner life
mia siora phaelo.
1SG joy feel.
An ordinary first-person feeling can remain unmarked because the clause need not make provenance part of its message. This is a common use, not a special evidential exemption. If a speaker is reasoning from bodily signs or repeating what a clinician said, the actual source may be marked in the usual way.
03Dreams
mia mua whemura suliwa to nila.
1SG LOC dream snake PST see.
The dream phrase confines the seeing to the dream. It does not turn a dream image into direct perception of a waking snake. Phi has no separate dream evidential; the frame and ordinary source particles keep their stated jobs.
04Sound, smell, and signs
mia pheralu hi hea.
1SG rain DIR hear.
pheralu to ke lepa. muila lue phialu nai.
rain PST INFER fall. earth ABL water be.
In the first clause, rain itself reaches the speaker through sound. In the second, wet ground is a sign of an earlier event. Smell and touch follow the same distinction: direct perception supports hi for the state perceived, while a conclusion that goes beyond it takes ke.
05A report from a witness
One person's source does not transfer automatically to the next speaker. If a child saw the snake and tells a neighbour, the child may use hi; the neighbour uses ti when that report is the neighbour's source. If the neighbour later sees the snake, a new clause may carry hi because the neighbour now has direct perception of their own.
06Evidentials with negation
Negation follows evidentiality in Slot 1:
shia to hi ma wepu.
3SG PST DIR NEG go.
shia to ti ma wepu.
3SG PST REP NEG go.
Both clauses deny the departure. The first locates that denial in direct perception, and the second locates it in received information. Reordering the particles cannot make negation apply to the source marker.
07Evidentials in questions
wa thia suliwa hi nila.
Q 2SG snake DIR see.
wa suliwa ti nai.
Q snake REP be.
The source particle remains inside the questioned clause. The first asks whether direct perception applies; the second asks whether the proposition is reported. Neither form obliges the answerer to accept the questioner's framing, and an answer may correct the proposed source.
08Switching sources
When a retelling moves from witnessed material to inference or report, each new clause can mark its own source. A long account need not wear one particle throughout. It also need not mark every clause: a source particle appears when provenance is part of what the speaker is saying.
The unmarked clause is not a fifth evidential. It asserts without naming a source. That makes it ordinary, not evasive, and keeps the four marked choices available for the moments when the route to a claim matters.
09Drill: one event, four routes
Imagine that the well path flooded yesterday. Say this four times: once because you watched the water rise, once because you found silt on the path, once because the elder told you, and once because this path usually floods after rain. The event stays the same, but the appropriate source moves through hi, ke, ti, and ho.