Phi practice Evidentiality in Phi

Reading 10 of 11

Part 9

Exercises

The answer key explains which source each marked clause presents. Where more than one sentence is possible, the intended context decides whether the source is worth stating.

Part AName the source

For each situation, choose hi, ke, ti, ho, or no mark, and write the Phi sentence.

  1. You watched sulae arrive this morning. Report the arrival with witnesshood made explicit.
  2. Her basket is by the door; you have not seen her. Infer that she arrived.
  3. siora told you that sulae arrived. Report the arrival.
  4. It is market day, and sulae usually comes on market day. Say that she will come.
  5. You and a friend are standing in the rain. Say that rain is falling without making source part of the message.

Part BOrder the stack

Rebuild each scrambled particle set into a correct sentence. All three concern the elder going to the well.

  1. wheo / wepu / hi / to / kau phitura
  2. wheo / wepu / ma / ti / to / kau phitura
  3. wheo / wepu / ke / to / si / kau phitura

Part CTranslate into Phi

  1. Rain fell, according to a report.
  2. I assume that the child is asleep.
  3. Did you see the snake directly?
  4. They did not leave; I witnessed the interval in question.
  5. The elder reportedly said that the well path took water.

Part DTranslate into English

  1. mia suliwa ruela to hi nila.
  2. ne sulae so ho shua.
  3. suliwa ke nai. mia mua muila ruela nila.
  4. wa suliwa ti nai.

Part ECompare source and situation

Each item is grammatical. Decide whether its source marker matches the situation. If it does not, repair it.

  1. pheralu to hi lepa. is said by someone whose only evidence is wet ground after waking.
  2. suliwa ti nai. is said by the child whose only source is seeing the snake.
  3. thia siora phaelo. is said to a friend whose smile the speaker has noticed.
  4. sileta ti keru loa. is offered as an ordinary remark about the sun, with no particular report under discussion.

Part FA short source ledger

Choose one event from your day. Write one clause using the source you actually had. Then imagine that you had learned the same event by a different route and rewrite the clause with the corresponding particle. If the first clause does not need provenance at all, leave it unmarked and explain why.

Check your workAnswer key

AnswersPart A

  1. ne sulae sui kelua to hi shua. Direct perception is explicit.
  2. ne sulae to ke shua. mia shia wiru mua ponu nila. The basket is evidence specific to this arrival.
  3. ne sulae to ti shua. ne siora mia shane. The source is a report, and the second clause names it.
  4. ne sulae so ho shua. Habit supplies a background expectation.
  5. pheralu lepa. The assertion leaves source unstated. pheralu hi lepa. would also be grammatical, but it would make direct perception part of the message.

AnswersPart B

  1. wheo kau phitura to hi wepu.
  2. wheo kau phitura to ti ma wepu.
  3. wheo kau phitura to si ke wepu.

The verb-phrase particles in the last answer follow tense, aspect, then evidentiality. The prepositional phrase remains before the Slot 1 cluster and predicate.

AnswersPart C

  1. pheralu to ti lepa.
  2. lopia ho nulae.
  3. wa thia suliwa hi nila.
  4. shia to hi ma wepu.
  5. wheo tha phitura ruela phialu to howela tho to ti haolu.

In answer 13, the entire tha ... tho complement precedes the matrix Slot 1 cluster to ti and the predicate haolu.

AnswersPart D

  1. I saw the snake's trail directly.
  2. I assume that sulae will come.
  3. I infer that a snake is present. I see a trail in the earth.
  4. Is there a report that a snake is present?

AnswersPart E

  1. The source does not match. Wet ground is a sign, so pheralu to ke lepa. muila lue phialu nai. fits the stated situation.
  2. If the child's sight is the only source, ti does not match. mia suliwa hi nila. makes direct perception explicit; suliwa nai. is also possible when source is not part of the message.
  3. The clause is grammatically possible and names no source. If the speaker intends to expose the inference from the smile, thia siora ke nai. does so. wa thia siora nai. lets the friend answer instead.
  4. Nothing grammatical is wrong with ti here, but it makes received provenance salient. In the stated ordinary context, sileta keru loa. better matches the message.

Part F has no single answer. The two clauses should differ only where the imagined source or the decision to state it requires a difference.