Speaker’s source of information is “hearsay”

marks the same subject chain which ends with the finite verb ‘die’. Indirect speech is very rare in Lhomi. Direct speech, quotative, is normally preferred. It is the personal pronoun 2SG and 3SG that helps us see the difference. Another interesting detail in this one is that the negation covers also the preceding verb nø in the serial chain.

14.2.7 Speaker’s source of information is “hearsay”

This type of evidentiality is marked by a particle lo at the end of the finite verbal phrase. Naturally this cannot occur in questions but negated declarative does occur. The source is purely rumour or ‘hearsay’. Speaker disclaims his responsibility for the truth value of his statement. Consider the following examples the disclaimer particle is underlined. Clause type T1 14.109 mi t ɕik set taŋ-a bet lo. man INDF kill[PST] IMMED-NMLZ;Q AUX DISCL ‘People say that someone has killed a man.’ The source of information is rumour. The agentsubject of this clause is deliberately left out. Clause type ST1 14.110 hi-ko hassøt phaksiŋtak-tu ʈhep-pa bet lo. TE18 this-head VIP pheksinda-LOC meet-NMLZ;Q AUX DISCL ‘People claim that he met the police in Pheksinda.’ Speaker tells an old story about a great lama who had all kinds of skills and he was even taken to Kathmandu to perform a miracle before the king. In Pheksinda the lama meets the police who were sent to fetch him. Speaker uses the disclaimer particle very frequently in this story. Probably he himself does not fully believe the story. Clause type I 14 .111 aku passaŋ na-tuk lo. uncle passang get.sick-PRF.VIS DISCL ‘People tell that uncle Passang has been sick.’ Or: ‘There is a rumour that uncle Passang has become sick.’ Uncle has been sick. Speaker has heard common “hearsay.” He reports this to someone else. The patient is getting well or is well at the time of the speech act. Speaker disclaims himself from any responsibility for the epistemic value of this rumour. Figure 14.2. Summary of direct evidentials in Lhomi. Aikhenvald lists the following semantic parameters 2004:366: “I. VISUAL which covers evidence acquired through seeing; II. SENSORY which covers evidence through hearing, and is typically extended to smell and taste, and sometimes also touch; III. INFERENCE based on visible or tangible evidence or result; IV. ASSUMPTION based on evidence other than visible results: this may include logical reasoning, assumption, or simply general knowledge; V. HEARSAY, for reported information with no reference to whom it was reported by; and VI. QUOTATIVE, for reported information with an overt reference to the quoted source.” How does Lhomi fit into this framework? My conclusion is that Lhomi has a five-term system. Sensory covers both visual and sensory observation in Lhomi, typically it is visual. Other semantic parameters are: inference from circumstances, assumption based on general knowledge, quotative, and ‘hearsay’ report. This is obvious when we look at the examples in the current section. Figure 14.2 summarizes these terms. Actually the resultative perfect in section 14.1.3 could be included as one more kind of inference under direct evidentials. Certainly it is a borderline case. There is no compelling support on either side in deciding whether -tuk marks resultative perfect as primary grammatical meaning or the visual inference of results. If we view the latter as primary meaning then Lhomi would have a six term system. As for how Aikhenvald classifies the cross-linguistic systems of evidentials 2004:367, Lhomi does not fit right away into any of those categories. The closest seems to be modified D1 with five choices. Direct evidentials Hearsay rumour Direct sensory observation uninvolved disclaimer sensory observer Quoted source embedded quote carries its own evidential markings Assumption general knowledge generally known fact Inference from circumstances some prior knowledge -køppet 14.2.4 bet, -ken bet, -pa bet 14.2.5 14.2.6 lo 14.2.7 Events -soŋ 14.2.1 Processesstates -kuk 14.2.2 Existence duk, min-tuk 14.2.3 Table 14.22. Ranking of Lhomi evidentials in relation to epistemic certainty number 1 refers to the highest epistemic value 1. Experienceparticipation evidentiality strategy, -køt, -tɕuŋ, hin, jøt 2. Direct sensory observation -kuk, -soŋ, duk 3. Assumed evidential based on general knowledge -pa bet, -ken bet, jøk-ken bet, bet 4. Inference from sensory observation of the results evidentiality strategy -tuk 5. Inference from circumstancial evidence marked by -køppet, jøppet 6. “Hearsay” disclaimer particle lo We cannot really put the quotative in table 14.22. Speaker disclaims his reponsibility as to the truth value by quoting someone else. Yet the quotation itself may rank very high in certainty scale and would be one of those six options in the table. Lhomis always prefer to use direct quotation rather than committing themselves to use other evidentials when talking about someone else. In doing so they disclaim themselves as for the certainty of their assertion. No one can later blame them for lying since they have quoted someone else. 15 Clause This chapter describes contrastive Lhomi clause types that can be distinguished from one another by various grammatical ways such as case markers on core-arguments and basic order of arguments within a clause. Table 15.1. Clause types of Lhomi Tentative name tags for clause types Case mark- ings on S Case mark- ings on O Case markings on IO and INS Basic order References to examples 1. bi-transitive BT, bi-transitive ERG ABS DATABLINS S-IO-O 15.1.1-5 2. transitive T1, transitive ERG ABS S-O 15.6-10 T2, transitive DAT ABS S-O 15.12-13 3. semitransitive ST1, semitransitive ABS DATLOC S-IO 15.14-21 ST2, semitransitive ABS ABL S-IO 15.22 ST3, semitransitive ABS COM S-IO 15.23 4. intransitive I, intransitive ABS S 15.24-33 5. copular Possessive copular clause DAT ABS S-O 15.34-36 Descriptive copular clause ABS S 15.37-40 Locational copular clause ABS INDAT S-IO 15.41-43 Equative copular clause ABS 15.44-45 Ambient copular clause 15.46-50

15.1 Bi-transitive clause