Phi pamphlets — Part 8: Common errors

An evidential clause can fail in two different ways. Its particles may be out of order, which is a grammatical error. Its source marker may also disagree with the situation the speaker means to describe. This second kind may be perfectly formed while identifying the wrong source.

Error 1evidentiality out of order

*shia hi to wepu.
3SG DIR PST go.

shia to hi wepu.

3SG PST DIR go.

(They left; I witnessed it.)

Tense precedes evidentiality. The complete Slot 1 order is Tense > Aspect > Voice > Evidentiality > Modality > Negation, and no emphasis or conversational pressure reverses it.

Error 2negation before the source

*shia to ma hi wepu.
3SG PST NEG DIR go.

shia to hi ma wepu.

3SG PST DIR NEG go.

(They did not leave; I witnessed the interval in question.)

Negation is the final Slot 1 rank and stands immediately before the verb. The corrected sentence denies departure and gives direct perception as its source. To say only that you did not see them, make seeing the predicate: mia shia ma nila.

Error 3adding a report to a quotation

ne sulae sha suliwa ti nai sho to haolu.

NAME sulae QUOT.COMP snake REP be QUOT.COMP.CLOSE PST speak.

(sulae said, "There is a snake, according to a report.")

This is correct only if the quoted Phi wording actually included ti. The particle inside the frame belongs to sulae's quoted assertion. A plain relay without exact wording is different:

suliwa ti nai.

snake REP be.

(There is a snake, according to a report.)

The sha ... sho frame preserves an evidential that was spoken; it does not add one automatically or copy the present speaker's source into someone else's words.

Error 4hi supported only by a trace

suliwa to hi shua. mia suliwa ruela mua muila nila.

snake PST DIR come. 1SG snake path LOC earth see.

(A snake came; I witnessed it. I see a snake's trail in the earth.)

If the trail is the speaker's only source for the coming, the first clause should take ke:

suliwa to ke shua. mia suliwa ruela mua muila nila.

snake PST INFER come. 1SG snake path LOC earth see.

(I infer that a snake came. I see a snake's trail in the earth.)

The trail itself may be directly seen. The snake's earlier movement is inferred from it.

Error 5treating another mind as a grammar problem

thia siora phaelo.

2SG joy feel.

(You feel joy.)

This unmarked sentence states the feeling without naming a source. The grammar does not grant privileged access, though the social assertion may still be unwelcome or mistaken. If a smile is the stated basis, thia siora ke nai. marks an inference. If the person's own account is available, wa thia siora nai. asks them. The relationship and purpose decide among these forms; the evidential system does not supply a courtesy ranking.

Error 6marking source when it is not part of the message

An evidential can be accurate and still distract from the sentence's work. sileta ti keru loa. makes a received source salient while saying that the sun gives light. That may suit a lesson about a particular report. In ordinary conversation, sileta keru loa. is enough because provenance is not the point.

Unmarked assertions are not weak or incomplete. They simply leave source unstated. Marking every sentence can make the few source distinctions that matter harder to hear.

Error 7inheriting another person's hi

suliwa hi nai. lopia mia shane.

snake DIR be. child 1SG tell.

(A snake is present; I perceive it directly. The child told me.)

If the child's report is the speaker's only source, these clauses conflict. The first should be suliwa ti nai. If the speaker also sees the snake, hi can be correct for that new direct perception even though the child spoke first.

A validator can find particle order and unknown forms. It cannot inspect the wet path, overhear the message, or know whether the speaker saw the snake. That last comparison remains part of speaking.