As mentioned before, the evidentials can be affixed to verbs, nouns or adjectives with different results. In fact in a sentence the place where one affixes the evidentials makes subtle changes in the sense of the sentence. For example, if we go back to our sample sentence: qappaka pile.
Using the "hear-say evidential" we can get qappakan pile or qappaka pilen. The first one means "I've heard I eat fish", while the second would be closer in meaning to "Fish is what I've heard I eat". The difference is very subtle, but can be used for rhetorical purposes.
In fact qappakach pile means "I assume I eat fish", but qappaka pilech means "I assume that what I eat is fish". That's why a sentence like qappaka piles sounds a lot like "What I'm eating IS fish". Depending where the evidential is placed the focus shifts.
Showing posts with label evidentials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evidentials. Show all posts
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Friday, 18 June 2010
Evidentials usage
To clear up some doubts about evidentials I will clarify some with examples. For instance, how the "obvious evidential" is used. It is the equivalent to the usage we give to tone in this context, "duh!" and the like.
In a given dialogue:
This can be translated into:
Hence the interpretation as a rude or very informal referential. The "fact evidential" is really more neutral, but still informal. While it is common in normal speech, it can be rude using it to someone you don't know or an elder, or someone who deserves respect altogether.
Now the "infamous evidential" always marks someone for something his famous for abusing. For instance if you say qappatal can mean "he is famous for eating" as in "he enjoys it very much". But saying qappatalya will yield the sense "he is famous for eating" as in "he can't stop eating" or "he's a fat-ass". This ending used to be the much more formal, much older form of -l, used about people like the king "his majesty is most famous for defeating his enemies" and over time through popular usage it came to be pejorative but in a sense of excess.
Even if between friends you would tend to use -s the "fact evidential" it would be good to remind that when facing someone's father, for instance, it'd probably be better to use -sha "I believe". Even in the same example as before:
While you could answer pile or piles to a friend or acquaintance.
In a given dialogue:
- Chaman koy?
- pilelcha!
This can be translated into:
- What is this?
- Duh! It's a fish! or It's a fish, don't you see it?
Hence the interpretation as a rude or very informal referential. The "fact evidential" is really more neutral, but still informal. While it is common in normal speech, it can be rude using it to someone you don't know or an elder, or someone who deserves respect altogether.
Now the "infamous evidential" always marks someone for something his famous for abusing. For instance if you say qappatal can mean "he is famous for eating" as in "he enjoys it very much". But saying qappatalya will yield the sense "he is famous for eating" as in "he can't stop eating" or "he's a fat-ass". This ending used to be the much more formal, much older form of -l, used about people like the king "his majesty is most famous for defeating his enemies" and over time through popular usage it came to be pejorative but in a sense of excess.
Even if between friends you would tend to use -s the "fact evidential" it would be good to remind that when facing someone's father, for instance, it'd probably be better to use -sha "I believe". Even in the same example as before:
- Chaman koy?
- What is this?
- pilesha.
- I believe it is fish.
While you could answer pile or piles to a friend or acquaintance.
odanibeki las wile.
I'm happy for being with you.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Evidentials
Evidentials are used in Kareyku to mark how evident one statement is or the source of said statement. Only one evidential marker can be used each time, and they can be used either with verbs, adjectives or nouns. There are seven evidentials in Kareyku:
-s, -si Determines that the statement is fact either empiric or to the speaker.
-n, -ni Determines that the speaker heard about the statement.
-ch, -chi Determines that the speaker assumes the statement to be true.
-l, -li Determines that the thing being referred is famous for doing what is stated.
-sha Determines that the speaker "believes" the statement to be true.
-lya Determines that the thing being referred is infamous for doing what is stated.
-lcha Determines that the statement is obvious.
So for instance, if we have the previous example sentence: qappaka pile 'I eat fish'. We can further develop it into:
qappakas pile. I eat fish (it's a fact, I'm doing it).
qappakan pile. I eat fish (I have heard, I don't remember).
qappakach pile. I eat fish (I assume, because I'm eating it).
qappakal pile. I eat fish! (I'm famous for that!)
qappakasha pile. I believe I eat fish.
qappakalya pile. I eat fish (I'm infamous for it, because I eat too much or I don't finish them).
qappakalcha pile. I eat fish (duh! It's obvious!)
Evidentials have an active role in formality and informality contrast and in politeness vs. rudeness. For instance, it is considered in Kareyku culture that you should not always be sure of things you say, even when talking about yourself the continuous use of the "fact evidential" can result in rudeness. The rudest of them all, of course, is the "obvious evidential" which is considered very aggressive and rude, you should never point out to others they don't know something, even when you are right or even if the fact is really obvious.
The case with the "infamous evidential" is interesting. It used to be a respectful or augmentative equivalent of the "famous evidential" but as time passed it started to be felt pompous and so developed as a satirical comment, thus infamity for doing something too much.
-s, -si Determines that the statement is fact either empiric or to the speaker.
-n, -ni Determines that the speaker heard about the statement.
-ch, -chi Determines that the speaker assumes the statement to be true.
-l, -li Determines that the thing being referred is famous for doing what is stated.
-sha Determines that the speaker "believes" the statement to be true.
-lya Determines that the thing being referred is infamous for doing what is stated.
-lcha Determines that the statement is obvious.
So for instance, if we have the previous example sentence: qappaka pile 'I eat fish'. We can further develop it into:
qappakas pile. I eat fish (it's a fact, I'm doing it).
qappakan pile. I eat fish (I have heard, I don't remember).
qappakach pile. I eat fish (I assume, because I'm eating it).
qappakal pile. I eat fish! (I'm famous for that!)
qappakasha pile. I believe I eat fish.
qappakalya pile. I eat fish (I'm infamous for it, because I eat too much or I don't finish them).
qappakalcha pile. I eat fish (duh! It's obvious!)
Evidentials have an active role in formality and informality contrast and in politeness vs. rudeness. For instance, it is considered in Kareyku culture that you should not always be sure of things you say, even when talking about yourself the continuous use of the "fact evidential" can result in rudeness. The rudest of them all, of course, is the "obvious evidential" which is considered very aggressive and rude, you should never point out to others they don't know something, even when you are right or even if the fact is really obvious.
The case with the "infamous evidential" is interesting. It used to be a respectful or augmentative equivalent of the "famous evidential" but as time passed it started to be felt pompous and so developed as a satirical comment, thus infamity for doing something too much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)