Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- language:imperial:contemporary:start [2025/08/10 00:29] – shyriath
+++ language:imperial:contemporary:start [2025/08/10 00:57] (current) – shyriath
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 The categories of evidentiality are:
-  * General knowledge (<fs x-small>GKN.EV</fs>): the events are, or should be, known to be true.
+  * General knowledge (<fs x-small>GKN.EV</fs>): the events are, or should be, known to be true: //Everybody knows she went.// Expressed with the suffix //-shya//.
-  * Witness (<fs x-small>EXP.EV</fs>): the speaker participated in the events, was otherwise physically present for them, or perceived them through real-time sensory data (sight, hearing, empathy, touch) in such a way as to be certain of what was being perceived.
+  * Witness (<fs x-small>EXP.EV</fs>): the speaker participated in the events, was otherwise physically present for them, or perceived them through real-time sensory data (sight, hearing, empathy, touch) in such a way as to be certain of what was being perceived: //She went (which I know because I was there)//.
-  * Induction (<fs x-small>IND.EV</fs>): the speaker did not directly perceive the events themselves, but said events left behind sensory data that allowed them reach a conclusion about what occurred.
+  * Induction (<fs x-small>IND.EV</fs>): the speaker did not directly perceive the events themselves, but said events left behind sensory data that allowed them reach a conclusion about what occurred: //She went (judging by her footprints).//
-  * Deduction (<fs x-small>DED.EV</fs>): the speaker did not directly perceive the events themselves, but what occurred can be reconstructed from common sense, general knowledge, or experience.
+  * Deduction (<fs x-small>DED.EV</fs>): the speaker did not directly perceive the events themselves, but what occurred can be reconstructed from common sense, general knowledge, or experience: //She went (if I know her).//
-  * Reportative (<fs x-small>RPT.EV</fs>): the speaker has been told of the events by someone professing to be a direct witness.
+  * Reportative (<fs x-small>RPT.EV</fs>): the speaker has been told of the events by someone professing to be a direct witness: //She went (according to someone who said he saw her).//
-  * Hearsay(<fs x-small>HSY.EV</fs>): the speaker has heard of the events, but not from a witness.
+  * Hearsay(<fs x-small>HSY.EV</fs>): the speaker has heard of the events, but from someone who has not claimed to be a witness: //She went (so I hear).//
 The categories of epistemic modality are:
-  * Indicative (<fs x-small>IND.EPI</fs>): the speaker is certain of, or has no intention of passing judgment upon the truth of, the information: //She went.// When there is no epistemic suffix, this is the intended meaning.
+  * Indicative (<fs x-small>IND.EPI</fs>): the speaker does not question the truth of the information; certainty in its truth is usually implied: //She went.// When there is no epistemic suffix, this is the intended meaning.
   * Veridical (<fs x-small>VER.EPI</fs>): as with the indicative, the speaker is certain of the information, but wishes to emphasize that certainty: //She **did** go.//
   * Assumptive (<fs x-small>ASS.EPI</fs>): the speaker assumes the information to be true: //No doubt she went.//
   * Dubitative (<fs x-small>DUB.EPI</fs>): the speaker is uncertain or dubious as the whether the information is true: //She might have gone.//
-  * Potential (<fs x-small>POT.EPI</fs>: the speaker considers it likely that the information is true: //She probably went.//
+  * Potential (<fs x-small>POT.EPI</fs>): the speaker considers it likely that the information is true: //She probably went.//
   * Conditional (<fs x-small>COND.EPI</fs>): the speaker is expressing a statement that is not true but could have been: //She could have gone.// When used together with a counterfactual, it indicates something that is not true but would have been had a condition been satisfied: //She would have gone (if it had been sunny).//