Chlouvānem/Syntax: Difference between revisions

In certain complex sentences in the ''past'' tense, where the first part has a non-firsthand evidential and the latter, on the other hand, has one, and the action in the latter sentence is consequential to the former, the knowledge in the first part is understood as being circumstantial to the past situation expressed in the second clause, and pragmatically it may be a description of how the speaker got their first hand knowledge of the situation, as the following example shows:

{{Gloss

| translation = We went to the place where Dalaigin was lying ill.<ref>Example taken from [https://www.reddit.com/r/conlangs/comments/g8hlms/1249th_just_used_5_minutes_of_your_day/ the translation activity "''1249th Just Used 5 Minutes of Your Day''"] started by u/mareck_ on the r/conlangs subreddit, Apr 26, 2020, adapted for the purpose of this page.</ref>

}}

In this example, the situation described in the first sentence (Dalaigin was lying ill), was only known by the speaker because someone had told them, therefore the usage of the reportative evidential. This is not true for the time of the utterance, but it was true (and relevant) for the time the action described in the second sentence (the two of us went there) took place: in fact, it is understood that the speaker likely gained first hand knowledge of the fact expressed in the first sentence exactly because the second sentence happened. The following example would be understood as if the speaker already knew that Dalaigin was lying ill, i.e. they had already visited him:

{{Gloss

| translation = We went to the place where Dalaigin was lying ill.

}}