[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Henry" <jimhenry1973@...> wrote: > Evidentiality is a category by which the speaker's source of evidence > for his assertion is expressed. The closely related category of > validationality expresses whether and to what degree he's certain > of what he's saying. > > If you used e.g. "fe" as your evidentiality suffix, then you might have > > xawfe, da pa dorm. > He was sleeping (I saw him). > > tiqfe, da pa dorm. > He was sleeping (I heard him snoring). > > bolfe, da pa dorm. > He was sleeping (Someone told me). > Neat idea! My first thought is that evidentials should be a subset of the -xe thing. Could use 'via,' meaning 'according to'. via ba hu go tiq, cusa swayn poseyn. According to what I hear, that pig is crazy. Becomes tiqviaxe, cusa swayn poseyn. Or, instead of using via, maybe dem (show, demonstrate) tiqdemxe, cusa swayn poseyn. Actually, looking back at your examples, boldemxe would be better, and tiqdemxe should be reserved for direct auditory evidence, as you have it. And, finally, maybe you're right and this needs an ending of its own. Does this make 'xe' a bound morpheme? What could it mean when it isn't an ending? >