bbaexl bæ̠⁶⁶1DISC (REPORTED SPEECH--auditory evidential speaker-oriented modality)话语（间接引语)(expresses that the evidence of what is being said is based on what one has heard or seen)Eilni yar ngo leil bbeix: "Ni miar bei ssi nr ssa a" bbaexl eine bbeix a. 今天他对我说：“你不要去干活了”这样说。Today s/he told me, "You don't need to go to work" (she) said.Yar woxrke ca mel yar eine bbeix a bbaexl ddar eilmel ngo leil bbeix gger a. 他下面的人们依照他说的这些话，告诉我。The people under him/her told me the words s/he said.2(affirm or verify that [you] think something is true)觉得/juédé/Ni bbaexl yar seir seir? 你觉得他好不好？Can you affirm is s/he good or not?1. /bbaexl/ is an evidential operator, which indicates that the information came from visual sources. Though it still retains the idea that the speaker’s information came from seeing, its meaning seems to have expanded to ‘I affirm’ or ‘it is a fact’, especially in (but not limited to) propositons concerning ego. It communicates that the proposition is a fact, not an opinion, that the speaker affirms is correct. It expresses a higher degree of commitment to the truth of the statement than /sor/, but not as much as /lo/ or /mar/. (See validationals.) Certain evidentials may double up in some propositions. I have observed that only the logical deduction /naer/ and the visual /bbaexl/ may follow other evidentials; other combinations of evidentials don’t seem to be acceptable. /naer/ communicates that the speaker is certain of the proposition (possibly because he/she understands the situation well). /bbaexl/ indicates that the speaker affirms the truth of the proposition. It indicates that the source of information is reliable. Such marking is not superfluous. Rather, in these cases, the second evidential seems to lose its evidential meaning and take on validational ones instead. The second evidential confirms the first one. It does not mark another source of information for the speaker or addressee. This is in contrast to what Aikenvald has observed in some languages where “[h]aving several evidentiality markers in one clause allows speakers to express subtle nuances relating to types of evidence and information source….” (Aikenvald, 88-91) Native speakers of this language inform me that they may not express several different sources of information in the same proposition; they must choose one source of information only. If the speaker’s information comes from more than one source and his/her information is quite good, the speaker may use the logical deduction /naer/ to indicate that he/she has a thorough understanding of the situation. While most evidentials may be used to comment on 2nd and 3rd person subject’s feelings, only the visual /bbaexl/ and logical deduction /naer/ may be used to comment on a 1st person subject’s feelings, probably because in such contexts they acquire validational, not evidential meanings. The visual /bbaexl/ and logical deduction evidential /naer/ and the emotive word /mei/ (which derives from the word for feel) may be used to comment on the content of dreams. The non firsthand evidentials may not be used. (Judi Merrifield)It was reported that this is not used in the village of ZhangJia.据说张家村那里不用此字。The meaning is similar to the word /zzor/ but it is used in a different way.Compare 另见zzor

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *