Print

Print


All right, I'll reword the main point: it depends on the way it's marked. If it's part of the tense system for example, then yes, each verb gets marked, but a separate particle less so. You can't leave it off the tense system in general when it's incorporated there, though I'm not familiar with the other systems enough to comment on whether you can there.
I've never dug much into evidentiality outside of the tense-mood-aspect system, but within it, if it's obligatory, I've seen it on all verbs.


 
      From: Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]>
 To: [log in to unmask] 
 Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: Obligation and Scope of Evidentiality Marking
   
To "scribbler": I already know this information; that's not the question.
The question is the scope of the marking. Not the way in which it is
marked.
As well as: If evidentiality is grammaticalized, to what degree can it be
left out?




On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:13 AM, The Scribbler <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I would say if the language has it obligatory, it is obligatory:
>
> "Some languages have a distinct grammatical category of evidentiality that
> is required to be expressed at all times. The elements in European
> languages indicating the information source are optional and usually do not
> indicate evidentiality as their primary function — thus they do not form a
> grammatical category."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality
>
>
> WALS has a good breakdown: http://wals.info/chapter/78
>
>
> Value  Representation
> No grammatical evidentials      181
> Verbal affix or clitic  131
> Part of the tense system        24
> Separate particle      65
> Modal morpheme  7
> Mixed systems  10
> Total:  418
>
>
> ---
>
> This is a question about natlangs that have grammaticalized evidentiality,
> whether as specific affixes, fused with the tense or modality morphemes, or
> as separate particles.
> The question is, to what extent is the marking obligatory; or equivalently,
> what is the scope of the marking?
> In other words, does the speaker have to mark every verb, or only one verb
> (or other part of speech) per clause or sentence, or merely once per
> discourse?
>
> Of course, the question does not apply to languages where evidentiality is
> optional, like English, where one can say "I saw that", or "from what I
> heard", or even "AFAIK".
> I am only interested in natlangs here, and the distribution among them of
> scope or obligation of marking.
>
> Jeffrey
>