Re: Marking and Imperatives

Matt Pearson <jmpearson@...> wrote:

>>Why bother with "think" at all? Why not just use the evidential
>>particles?
>
>Because other people can think things besides the speaker and the
>general public.  How else could I say "Bill thinks that John has left"?
[snip]

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).


--Pablo Flores
  http://www.geocities.com/pablo-david/index.html
  http://www.geocities.com/pablo-david/draseleq.html