Vardelm wrote:chris_notts wrote:I think it is quite common for some subordinate and complement clauses to be in forms which show reduced or no evidentiality distinctions. However, this probably doesn't normally apply to all subordination and complementation strategies - Tariana, for example, has evidentiality in direct speech (indirect speech is not typically used), and also in explicitly subordinate clauses such as purpose clauses.
This is really good to know! I'm currently planning on having a "gnomic" evidential that is used in dependent and complement clauses, where evidentiality isn't required because the speaker isn't directly making a proposition about that notion. The truthiness (
) of the dependent/complement clause is just assumed or considered irrelevant. It also gets used in reported speech where the the speaker is unsure of exactly what was said in the speech being reported, or is paraphrasing.
I think it's generally true that the more integrated the two verbs are, the less likely they are to be independently and fully inflected. This is discussed in "Subordination" by Cristafaro, who looks at whether balancing or deranking strategies are used for different main verbs in various languages. Verbs would be more integrated if:
1. they share an S/A argument
2. The main verb partially or completely determines the tense, aspect or mood of the dependent verb because of its semantics
A difference in the degree of integration often motivates splits in coding. For example, the complement of want is almost always unrealised (irrealis) and in the relative future, so there is a high degree of TAM integration. In most languages, the complement of want is only optionally marked for TAM or never marked for TAM. Further, many languages show a split depending on whether the S/A of want is the same as the S/A of the complement, with the least independent form of the complement used when the S/A are the same. E.g:
SPANISH:
S/A same: infinitive complement
S/A different: subjunctive complement inflected for subject/tense
Note that past wishes also occur in the subjunctive, but the particle "ojalá" is typically used instead of a main verb.
Quiero ir = I want to go (infinitive)
Quiero que vayas = I want you to go (subjunctive)
Ojalá que hubiera ido = I wish I'd gone (subjunctive)
ENGLISH:
S/A same: deletion of second subject
S/A different: no deletion
Past wishes involve a finite complement
I want to go
I want you to go
I wish I had gone
TARIANA:
S/A same: serial verb construction (no independent marking of A/S, TAM, evidentiality, ...)
S/A different: nominalised complement (and maybe other complement types???)
I have no clue how unrealised wishes are expressed in Tariana.
In my conlang Mɛdíṭṣai, which also has evidentiality, whether it occurs in subordinate/complement clauses or not depends how integrated the two clauses are. The following table is from my grammar, and is based on the work of Cristafaro:
Code: Select all
Main Verb Type Examples Complement Type
Modal be able to SVC
Phasal start, finish SVC
Try try, aempt, manage SVC
Desire want, hope SVC, ṇɔi
Manipulation make, let, order SVC, ṇɔi
Aitude like, fear, enjoy ɕi, ṇɔi
Aention see, hear, discover, find ɕi
Knowledge know, understand, realise direct speech
Thinking think, assume, suppose direct speech
Speaking say direct speech
ṇɔi is the marker of purpose clauses, SVC is serial verb construction and ɕi is a subordinate clause marker which could be translated "when", "if", ... etc. In terms of independent marking of TAM and agreement they can be ordered as follows: SVC < ṇɔi < ɕi < direct speech. The following demonstrates in English what I mean about how my conlang works:
I [be.able.to go] (SVC)
I [start go] (SVC)
I [try go] (SVC)
I [want go] (SVC) / I want [in order that he go] (Purpose) (depending on coreference)
I [make happy] you (SVC) / I make [in order that you carry it] (Purpose) (depending on transitivity)
[When I danced] I like (When) / I like [in order to swim] (Purpose) (specific event vs activity)
[When you came] I saw (When)
I know "he's here" (Direct speech)
I think "he's here" (Direct speech)
I say "he's here" (Direct speech)
Note that it's only the complement types that involve direct speech which show a full range of evidentiality distinctions in my conlang. Of course, that doesn't necessarily help you directly, but maybe the hierarchy in the table is useful to you in thinking about where you might want to put the split between evidential marked complements and non-evidentially marked complements?