Re: Marking and Imperatives
|From:||Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>|
|Date:||Monday, February 14, 2000, 13:52|
At 21:50 13/02/00 -0300, you wrote:
>Sorry if this has been already said, but I was wondering about
>a construction like this:
> As for what Bill thinks, John has left.
>No need of a verb "think" here, if you have some way to mark
>Bill as the "environment" ("scope"?) for which the evidencial
>level holds, i. e. you say "John EVID has left" but you also
>restrict it to Bill (with a particle, a case ending, a paraphrase,
>whatever -- even an actual verb "think" for which the EVID mark
>on the next clause should be compulsory).
"According to"? Anyway, it could be a nice use of the "contextual" case of
Azak :) . Too bad Azak doesn't have evidentials... (but it has particles
not unlike the Japanese 'yo' that could have also an evidential meaning
when combined to the contextual case)
|Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.
"Reality is just another point of view."
homepage : http://rainbow.conlang.org