rather than jøt? The speaker is passing recently discovered information about himself to someone who does not know it.
Interrogative, descriptive copular clause type 14
.82 aku tshiriŋ thaŋ-puwa duk=ka? uncle tshiring health-ADJVZR EXIST.VIS=Q
‘Is uncle Chiring healthy?’ Or: ‘Have you seen uncle Chiring being healthy?’ Speaker assumes that the hearer is in a position to have seen uncle Chiring recently and therefore
has been able to observe whether he is well or not. This is a predicate adjective. Negated declarative, descriptive copular clause type
14 .83 aku tshiriŋ thaŋ-tɕe min-tuk.
uncle tshiring health-ADJVZR NEG-EXIST.VIS ‘Uncle Chiring is not healthy.’
Speaker has recently seen uncle Chiring and his observation was that uncle was not well. Table 14.18. Summary of the ways direct sensory observation is realized
in possessive and descriptive copular clauses Declarative
1.person subject and speaker’s recent discovery of his own state of affairs inner feelings.
3.person subject and speaker’s direct sensory observation of the state.
Negated declarative
3.person subject and speaker’s direct sensory observation of negated state.
Interrogative 3.person subject and the assumed hearer’s direct sensory
observation of the state.
14.2.4 Speaker’s inference from circumstantial evidence
Speaker’s inference from circumstantial evidence represents his conclusion and opinion about the activity, process, or state of affairs he has not observed very closely. Speaker draws his conclusion from
casual circumstances. He reasons. The closest English translation often is something like ‘I think’, ‘in my opinion’, or ‘it is my conclusion that’.
The tense is nonpast and the verb root nonpast. This evidentiality is marked by the suffix -køppet which is attached to the nonpast root of the finite verb or to the finite auxiliary hin. This suffix could be
further segmented into progressive aspect marker -køt and inchoative aspect marker -pet, but it would make no sense to do so. When suffixes are put to a string like this the individual suffixes tend to lose
most of their original grammatical meaning and the whole string has its own grammatical function.
When the marker -køppet is affixed to the nonpast root of the finite verb, the resulting tense is nonpast. When -køppet is attached to the finite auxiliary hin of the past verb root, the tense is past. This
inference contrasts with other evidential categories, e.g. assumption based on general knowledge. Inference of this kind is based either on scanty sensory observation or any kind of first or
secondhand scanty information. It is obvious that this inference cannot occur in interrogative mood. However, it may be negated. The following examples illustrate this evidentiality category the suffix that
marks this is underlined.
Speaker’s inference from circumstantial evidence in verb types T1, ST1 and I 14.2.4.1
Clause type T1 14
.84 ŋ-e dak-ʏ khim so-køppet. 1SG-GEN friend-ERG house build-INFER
‘I think my friend is in the process of building a house.’ Or: ‘As far as I know my friend is building a house.’
Speaker deducts his statement from his prior knowledge about the plans and the character of his friend. He either has heard some hints from his friend or seen some definite signs of beginning the
process. It is based on either scanty firsthand information or eyewitness observation that is inconclusive. Clause type T1
14.85 u-p-e tuwa sa-køppet. that-PL2-ERG food eat-INFER
‘As far as I can tell they are eating.’
Speaker is outside of the house and he hears people inside talking about eating and hears other sounds of eating and he figures out that they are eating.
Clause type ST1 14.86 roo saar-la
ɖo-køppet. 3SG city-DAT go-INFER
‘As far as I know he is going to town.’ Or: ‘I think he is going to town.’ Someone has seen the third person going on trail and reports to the speaker who then can make this
statement. Speaker does not know for sure but bases it on someone else’s eyewitness report. 14.87 roo saar-la
ɖo-ken hiŋ-køppet. 3SG city-DAT go-NMLZ;CONJ COP-INFER
‘I think he is going to town. Or: ‘I think he is the one who goes to town.’ This is a headless subject relative clause that is a predicate NP. There is more about relative clauses
in chapter 17. Clause type I
14 .88 aku passaŋ na-køppet.
uncle Passang get.sick-INFER ‘I figure that uncle Passang is sick.’
Speaker has heard this from someone else but is not sure. He has not seen the patient. He may have heard the moaning of the sick. It is purely an inference from scanty information and circumstances.
Table 14.19. Summary of how inference from circumstances is realized in T1, ST1, and I type finite verbs marked by -køppet
Declarative 3.person agentsubject and speaker’s inference
based on circumstances. 3.person dativesubject and speaker’s inference
based on circumstances.
Speaker’s inference is from circumstantial evidence in verb types ST1, ST2, and T1.
Clause type ST1 14.89 u-ki mi u-la nøppa ak-si
ɕuu-pa hiŋ-køppet. that-GEN man that-DAT evil.spirit wicked-INTNS enter-NMLZ;Q AUX-INFER
‘In my opinion an evil spirit has entered that man.’ This implies demon possession. Structurally this is parallel to
ɕuu-pa bet, -NMLZ;Q AUX. Therefore - pa hiŋ-køppet communicates both past tense and inference. It refers to an event and the indirect object is
there as well. Therefore it is grammatically more correct not to analyze this as a relative clause. Clause type ST2
14.90 u-ko doŋpu-ni tshar-a hiŋ-køppet.
that-head tree-ABL fall.down-NMLZ;Q AUX-INFER ‘I think he has fallen from a tree.’
Speaker finds someone lying badly injured under a tree. Victim is unable to speak but speaker figures that he probably has fallen from a tree nearby. Yet he is not sure. If he were able to get
confirmation from the victim then he would quote him verbatim. Clause type T1
14 .91 aku passaŋ-ki iki ɖok ɕii-pa hiŋ-køppet.
uncle passang-ERG writing read know-NMLZ;Q AUX-INFER ‘In my opinion uncle Passang has learned to read.’
Inference is based on the fact that the speaker has received a letter from Passang. No prior knowledge or observation of the learning process is implied.
Table 14.20. Summary of how inference from circumstances is realized in ST1, ST2, and T1 verbs marked by -
pa hiŋ-køppet Declarative
3.person agentsubject and speaker’s inference based on circumstances.
3.person dativesubject and speaker’s inference based on circumstances.
Speaker’s inference from circumstantial evidence in copular verbs 14.2.4.2
Also copular verbs participate in this subsystem of direct evidentials. The possessive, locational, and descriptive copula for inference is jøppet and the respective equative copula is
hiŋ-køppet. The negated forms are mippet and
meŋ-køppet respectively. Tense is governed by the context. The examples below illustrate these verbs.
Locational copular clause type 14.92 u-na mi d
ʑa tɕik-tsøt tɕik jøppet. that-IN man hundred one-amount INDF EXIST.INFER
‘In my estimate there were about a hundred men.’ Speaker has been in a meeting and later he reports this figure to someone who has asked him. He
has not counted but later he makes this estimate or inference.
14 .93 ŋ-e ama khim-na jøppet.
1SG-GEN mother house-IN EXIST.INFER ‘It seems to me that my mom is at home.’ Or: ‘I think my mom is at home.’
Speaker sees smoke coming from the house and knows that mother ought to be there. She could be anybody’s mother actually. Close kinship relation has no impact on this example. This is logical inference
from external signs. Equative copular clause type
14.94 u- ki jaŋ-la pempu di aku wantsin hiŋ-køppet.
that-GEN time-DAT headman DEF uncle wantsin COP.EXP-INFER ‘At that time I think the headman was uncle Wantsin.’
The topic is the headman in this statement and the proper name is the predicate nominal. When the copula hin is inflected for inference or for any other inflectional category, the direct experience strategy
of hin is reduced. In other words no kinship relation is involved here. Negated equative copular clause type
14.95 u- ki jaŋ-la pempu di aku wantsin meŋ-køppet.
that-GEN time-DAT official DEF uncle wantsin NEG.COP.EXP-INFER ‘At that time I think the headman wasn’t uncle Wantsin.’
The topicsubject is the headman in this statement and the proper name is the predicate nominal. Table 14.21. Summary of how inference from circumstances is realized in copular verbs
Declarative 3.person subject and inference from
circumstances. Negated declarative
3.person subject and inference from circumstances.
14.2.5 Speakerhearer’s assumed evidential based on general knowledge
