Print

Print


On Nov 15, 2015 3:43 PM, "Guilherme Holzmann" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I liked this idea of the Direct Evidential quite a lot. Especially its
function as evidential anaphora. Would you mind if I used it in some future
conlang of mine?
>

Of course not!
Zach

> -----Mensagem Original-----
> De: "Zach Wellstood" <[log in to unmask]>
> Enviada em: ‎15/‎11/‎2015 13:28
> Para: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Assunto: Re: Evidential constructions in Ronc Tyu
>
> >
> >
> >
> > The second construction, however, is more interesting. It's more common
in
> > speech than the other type, it's used specifically for statements of
> > evidential value, and it's a few steps further forward on the way to
> > becoming grammaticalized. It employs a special kind of complement
clause,
> > which is subordinated to the impersonal verb *trà* ‘exist’ and
introduced
> > by one of several specialized complementizers that indicate different
> > levels of evidentiality. (These are diachronically derived from former
> > possessed nouns, along the lines of "there is [the information source
> > of]..."):
> >
> >
> ​I actually like the idea of using special complementizers a lot. It never
> occurred to me before. I think it would be useful in a conlang like Ronc
> Tyu in which evidentiality is optionally marked.
>
> >
> > Hope this is of interest to some of you. How do your conlangs form
> > evidential statements? How many and which levels of evidentiality do
they
> > have? Are they expressed morphologically or periphrastically?
>
>
> Evidentiality is something that is infinitely fascinating to me for no
> particular reason. ​łaá siri marks information source obligatorily on all
> main verbs of a clause morphologically. It distinguishes:
>
> Direct (DIR): for general gnomic or accepted facts. Also used after the
> information source (hearsay, etc.) of a statement has been introduced
> earlier and is now understood, kind of like an "evidential anaphor."
> ​‘arusasaá łaa’-ła r-u-r-la’ú.
> SENT\mother animal-ANIM  ABS-IMM-INVS-DIR\see
> 'Some animal has seen (my) mother (this is a fact which has been
> established).'
>
> Auditory/Reportative (RPRT): to express knowledge attained through hearsay
> or hearing (like if you were to hear a noise).
> ‘arusasaá łaa’-ła r-u-r-raa’-la’u.
> SENT\mother animal-ANIM ABS-IMM-INVS-RPRT-see
> 'I heard that some animal has seen (my) mother.'
>
> Visual (VIS): to express knowledge attained by the speaker's sight.
> ‘arusasaá łaa’-ła l-u-r-’aa’-la’u.
> SENT\mother animal-ANIM  NEAR-IMM-INVS-VIS-see
> 'I see that animal looking at (my) mother.'
>
> Inferential/Speculative (INFR): this is a conflation of epistemic modality
> with evidentiality, and it expresses uncertainty of an event's occurrence
> or inference about an event's occurrence. There are two inferential
> evidentials which differ only in the epistemic content, one being _raa-_
> (certainty) and one being _łaa-_ (doubt).
>
> ‘arusasaá łaa’-ła r-u-r-raa-la’u.
> SENT\mother  animal-ANIM  ABS-IMM-INVS-INFR-see
> 'I think some animal probably saw (my) mother.'
>
> ‘arusasaá łaa’-ła r-u-r-łaa-la’u.
> SENT\mother animal-ANIM  ABS-IMM-INVS-INFR-see
> 'I doubt that some animal saw (my) mother.'
>
> ​There are also some different ways of asking yes/no questions with the
> evidentials. And a verb unmarked for evidentiality is interpreted as
> negated.
>
> Zach