Evidentiality - Revision history

Carol at 15:58, 4 February 2014

2014-02-04T15:58:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 4 February 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Evidentiality is the grammatical encoding of information source on the verb. Mi'gmaq has two markers—''-p(n)'' and ''-s((p)n)''.		Evidentiality is the grammatical encoding of information source on the verb. Mi'gmaq has two markers—''-p(n)'' and ''-s((p)n)''.
	Mi’gmaq has two clear evidential markers—the direct and indirect marker, -p(n) and -s(n), respectively<ref>Little, Carol Rose. 2013. "Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq."</ref>. These mark source of information, whether ﬁrsthand or non-ﬁrsthand. Whenever -p(n) is used a past tense reading applies. The indirect marker is also used in the past tense and also surfaces in future tense environments<ref>Inglis, Stephanie & E. Johnson. 2001. The Mi’kmaq Future: An Analysis. Papers of the 32nd Algonquian Conference. J.D. Nichols (ed.) Winnipeg: University of Manitoba : 249-257.</ref>. The direct and indirect markers have two forms—-p, -pn and -s, -sn, respectively. Morphosyntactic constraints dictate, which form surfaces: the n is dropped word-ﬁnally except in embedded clauses<ref>Loughran, Jenny. 2012. "Tense and Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq." Masters Thesis.</ref>.		Mi’gmaq has two clear evidential markers—the direct and indirect marker, -p(n) and -s(n), respectively<ref>Little, Carol Rose. 2013. "Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq."</ref>. These mark source of information, whether ﬁrsthand or non-ﬁrsthand. Whenever -p(n) is used a past tense reading applies. The indirect marker is also used in the past tense and also surfaces in future tense environments<ref>Inglis, Stephanie & E. Johnson. 2001. "The Mi’kmaq Future: An Analysis." Papers of the 32nd Algonquian Conference. J.D. Nichols (ed.) Winnipeg: University of Manitoba : 249-257.</ref>. The direct and indirect markers have two forms—-p, -pn and -s, -sn, respectively. Morphosyntactic constraints dictate, which form surfaces: the n is dropped word-ﬁnally except in embedded clauses<ref>Loughran, Jenny. 2012. "Tense and Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq." Masters Thesis.</ref>.

	=Direct marker=		=Direct marker=

Carol: /* Indirect marker in the future */

2014-02-04T15:57:22Z

Indirect marker in the future

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:57, 4 February 2014
Line 116:		Line 116:
	</gl>		</gl>

	Inglis & ~~Johson~~ (2001) propose the structure below for the future of an animate intransitive verb. They explain that the teg sufﬁx is a “a grammaticalized, reduced form, of the Mi’kmaq II Independent neutral of the verb ‘to be’,” eteg (Inglis & Johnson 2001: 255). The ''teg'' becomes ''te'' in some instances as in example 11 above.		Inglis & Johnson (2001) propose the structure below for the future of an animate intransitive verb. They explain that the teg sufﬁx is a “a grammaticalized, reduced form, of the Mi’kmaq II Independent neutral of the verb ‘to be’,” eteg (Inglis & Johnson 2001: 255). The ''teg'' becomes ''te'' in some instances as in example 11 above.

	<gl>		<gl>

Carol: /* Indirect marker in the future */

2014-02-04T15:57:14Z

Indirect marker in the future

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:57, 4 February 2014
Line 116:		Line 116:
	</gl>		</gl>

	Inglis & Johson (2001)~~<ref>Inglis, Stephanie & E. Johnson. 2001. The Mi’kmaq Future: An Analysis. Papers of the 32nd Algonquian Conference. J.D. Nichols (ed.) Winnipeg: University of Manitoba : 249-257.</ref>~~ propose the structure below for the future of an animate intransitive verb. They explain that the teg sufﬁx is a “a grammaticalized, reduced form, of the Mi’kmaq II Independent neutral of the verb ‘to be’,” eteg (Inglis & Johnson 2001: 255). The ''teg'' becomes ''te'' in some instances as in example 11 above.		Inglis & Johson (2001) propose the structure below for the future of an animate intransitive verb. They explain that the teg sufﬁx is a “a grammaticalized, reduced form, of the Mi’kmaq II Independent neutral of the verb ‘to be’,” eteg (Inglis & Johnson 2001: 255). The ''teg'' becomes ''te'' in some instances as in example 11 above.

	<gl>		<gl>

Carol at 15:55, 4 February 2014

2014-02-04T15:55:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:55, 4 February 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Evidentiality is the grammatical encoding of information source on the verb. Mi'gmaq has two markers—''-p(n)'' and ''-s((p)n)''.		Evidentiality is the grammatical encoding of information source on the verb. Mi'gmaq has two markers—''-p(n)'' and ''-s((p)n)''.
	Mi’gmaq has two clear evidential markers—the direct and indirect marker, -p(n) and -s(n), respectively<ref>Little, Carol Rose. 2013. "Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq."</ref>. These mark source of information, whether ﬁrsthand or non-ﬁrsthand. Whenever -p(n) is used a past tense reading applies. The indirect marker is also used in the past tense and also surfaces in future tense environments (Inglis & Johnson, 2001). The direct and indirect markers have two forms—-p, -pn and -s, -sn, respectively. Morphosyntactic constraints dictate, which form surfaces: the n is dropped word-ﬁnally except in embedded clauses (Loughran, 2012).		Mi’gmaq has two clear evidential markers—the direct and indirect marker, -p(n) and -s(n), respectively<ref>Little, Carol Rose. 2013. "Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq."</ref>. These mark source of information, whether ﬁrsthand or non-ﬁrsthand. Whenever -p(n) is used a past tense reading applies. The indirect marker is also used in the past tense and also surfaces in future tense environments<ref>Inglis, Stephanie & E. Johnson. 2001. The Mi’kmaq Future: An Analysis. Papers of the 32nd Algonquian Conference. J.D. Nichols (ed.) Winnipeg: University of Manitoba : 249-257.</ref>. The direct and indirect markers have two forms—-p, -pn and -s, -sn, respectively. Morphosyntactic constraints dictate, which form surfaces: the n is dropped word-ﬁnally except in embedded clauses<ref>Loughran, Jenny. 2012. "Tense and Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq." Masters Thesis.</ref>.

	=Direct marker=		=Direct marker=

Carol: /* Indirect marker in the future */

2014-02-04T15:53:59Z

Indirect marker in the future

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 4 February 2014
Line 108:		Line 108:

	==Indirect marker in the future==		==Indirect marker in the future==
	Inglis (2002)<ref>Inglis, Stephanie. 2002. "Modality in Mi'kmaq."</ref> hypothesizes that the indirect evidential, -s(n), surfaces in events in the future, thus reﬂecting the lack of direct source of information—events in the future, information source cannot be known for certain. Example 11 shows how the parsing is under this analysis. This is a combination of the verb eteg 'to be' and the indirect evidential.		Inglis (2002)<ref>Inglis, Stephanie. 2002. "Modality in Mi'kmaq." Doctoral Dissertation.</ref> hypothesizes that the indirect evidential, -s(n), surfaces in events in the future, thus reﬂecting the lack of direct source of information—events in the future, information source cannot be known for certain. Example 11 shows how the parsing is under this analysis. This is a combination of the verb eteg 'to be' and the indirect evidential.

	<gl>		<gl>

Carol at 15:52, 4 February 2014

2014-02-04T15:52:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 4 February 2014
Line 122:		Line 122:
	</gl>		</gl>

	== References ==		= References =
	<references/>		<references/>

Carol at 15:51, 4 February 2014

2014-02-04T15:51:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 4 February 2014
Line 121:		Line 121:
	Reduced verb stem + teg'' + -s/s’p + personal sufﬁxes		Reduced verb stem + teg'' + -s/s’p + personal sufﬁxes
	</gl>		</gl>

			== References ==
			<references/>

Carol at 15:51, 4 February 2014

2014-02-04T15:51:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 4 February 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Evidentiality is the grammatical encoding of information source on the verb. Mi'gmaq has two markers—''-p(n)'' and ''-s((p)n)''.		Evidentiality is the grammatical encoding of information source on the verb. Mi'gmaq has two markers—''-p(n)'' and ''-s((p)n)''.
	Mi’gmaq has two clear evidential markers—the direct and indirect marker, -p(n) and -s(n), respectively. These mark source of information, whether ﬁrsthand or non-ﬁrsthand. Whenever -p(n) is used a past tense reading applies. The indirect marker is also used in the past tense and also surfaces in future tense environments (Inglis & Johnson, 2001). The direct and indirect markers have two forms—-p, -pn and -s, -sn, respectively. Morphosyntactic constraints dictate, which form surfaces: the n is dropped word-ﬁnally except in embedded clauses (Loughran, 2012).		Mi’gmaq has two clear evidential markers—the direct and indirect marker, -p(n) and -s(n), respectively<ref>Little, Carol Rose. 2013. "Evidentiality in Mi'gmaq."</ref>. These mark source of information, whether ﬁrsthand or non-ﬁrsthand. Whenever -p(n) is used a past tense reading applies. The indirect marker is also used in the past tense and also surfaces in future tense environments (Inglis & Johnson, 2001). The direct and indirect markers have two forms—-p, -pn and -s, -sn, respectively. Morphosyntactic constraints dictate, which form surfaces: the n is dropped word-ﬁnally except in embedded clauses (Loughran, 2012).

	=Direct marker=		=Direct marker=
Line 108:		Line 108:

	==Indirect marker in the future==		==Indirect marker in the future==
	Inglis (2002) hypothesizes that the indirect evidential, -s(n), surfaces in events in the future, thus reﬂecting the lack of direct source of information—events in the future, information source cannot be known for certain. Example 11 shows how the parsing is under this analysis. This is a combination of the verb eteg 'to be' and the indirect evidential.		Inglis (2002)<ref>Inglis, Stephanie. 2002. "Modality in Mi'kmaq."</ref> hypothesizes that the indirect evidential, -s(n), surfaces in events in the future, thus reﬂecting the lack of direct source of information—events in the future, information source cannot be known for certain. Example 11 shows how the parsing is under this analysis. This is a combination of the verb eteg 'to be' and the indirect evidential.

	<gl>		<gl>
Line 116:		Line 116:
	</gl>		</gl>

	Inglis & Johson (2001) propose the structure below for the future of an animate intransitive verb. They explain that the teg sufﬁx is a “a grammaticalized, reduced form, of the Mi’kmaq II Independent neutral of the verb ‘to be’,” eteg (Inglis & Johnson 2001: 255). The ''teg'' becomes ''te'' in some instances as in example 11 above.		Inglis & Johson (2001)<ref>Inglis, Stephanie & E. Johnson. 2001. The Mi’kmaq Future: An Analysis. Papers of the 32nd Algonquian Conference. J.D. Nichols (ed.) Winnipeg: University of Manitoba : 249-257.</ref> propose the structure below for the future of an animate intransitive verb. They explain that the teg sufﬁx is a “a grammaticalized, reduced form, of the Mi’kmaq II Independent neutral of the verb ‘to be’,” eteg (Inglis & Johnson 2001: 255). The ''teg'' becomes ''te'' in some instances as in example 11 above.

	<gl>		<gl>
	Reduced verb stem + teg'' + -s/s’p + personal sufﬁxes		Reduced verb stem + teg'' + -s/s’p + personal sufﬁxes
	</gl>		</gl>

Carol: /* Indirect marker in the future */

2014-02-04T15:45:52Z

Indirect marker in the future

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:45, 4 February 2014
Line 116:		Line 116:
	</gl>		</gl>

	~~The proposed~~ structure for the ~~above construction~~ is ~~here~~:		Inglis & Johson (2001) propose the structure below for the future of an animate intransitive verb. They explain that the teg sufﬁx is a “a grammaticalized, reduced form, of the Mi’kmaq II Independent neutral of the verb ‘to be’,” eteg (Inglis & Johnson 2001: 255). The ''teg'' becomes ''te'' in some instances as in example 11 above.

	<gl>		<gl>
	Reduced verb stem + ''teg'' + ''-s/s’p'' + personal sufﬁxes		Reduced verb stem + teg'' + -s/s’p + personal sufﬁxes
	</gl>		</gl>

Carol: /* Indirect marker in the future */

2014-02-04T15:44:56Z

Indirect marker in the future

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 4 February 2014
Line 119:		Line 119:

	<gl>		<gl>
	Reduced verb stem + teg + -s/s’p + personal sufﬁxes		Reduced verb stem + ''teg'' + ''-s/s’p'' + personal sufﬁxes
	</gl>		</gl>