BETTINA ZEISLER – ZEIS@UNI-TUEBINGEN.
DE 2
Keynote lecture:
Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself!
Evidentiality, speaker’s attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi
(a Tibetic language spoken in the Northwest of India)
3. EPISTEMIC MODALITY, EVIDENTIALITY, SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE, and (ad)mirativity
– EPISTEMIC MODALITY basically deals with hypothetical or counterfactual situations,
in contrast to the attested situations in the real world. It may describe different
degrees of likelihood. In an extended usage, it can have a hedging function,
indicating that the speaker merely makes an inference. Such expressions may also
express different degrees of desirability, leading to extended usages, where speakers
evaluate their attitude towards a real-world situation or towards their audience.
– SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE (or STANCE) basically deals with the relation between the
speaker and the content of the utterance and between the speaker and the addressee.
The speaker conveys a judgement about the reliability of the content of his or her
own statement or that of other persons. In the first case, this may indicate that the
speaker merely makes a guess or an inference or, by contrast, that s/he wants to
warrant the content by all means. In the second case, this may also contain
judgements about the likelihood that the content is true.
– A particular instance or value of SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE is admirativity, where the
speaker conveys a strong notion of non-commitment towards the proposition (cf.
Friedman 1986, 2012): uncertainty due to indirect knowledge, on the one hand,
and surprise, disbelief, embarrassment, on the other. The notion of disbelief should
also cover other, more positive types of surprise and/ or emotional involvement,
such as compassion or joy: this is too good to be true!
– Mirativity is a more narrowly defined instance of SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE, merely
marking surprise or unexpectedness (DeLancey 1997 and Aikhenvald 2012). The
notion of surprise essentially belongs to the moment where the particular situation
became known, not to the time of the utterance, where the situation may no longer
constitute a surprise for the speaker. A mirative statement invites the audience to
share the erstwhile experience of surprise. In an extended usage, a mirative (or
admirative) statement can be a statement about the likelihood or desirability of a
situation in a particular causal or social context.
– EVIDENTIALITY basically deals with different sources of, or access channels for, the
evidence for the content of an utterance. The basic types are
a) personal or first hand experience or direct knowledge (perception)
b) hearsay, and
c) inference,
the latter two usually subsumed under indirect knowledge. In an extended usage, all
three types may be used to express a SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE. That is, type a) expressions
may convey a notion of authority or commitment, whereas type b) and type c) ex-
pressions may convey a notion of doubt or non-commitment. Type a) and c) may
also convey different degrees of probability, and thus of EPISTEMIC MODALITY.
The Tibetic languages would suggest a fourth type of knowledge: intimate or fully as-
similated knowledge that presents itself to the speaker as self-evident, with the source
no longer being important or apparent. This type of knowledge, also known as ego-
Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing!
phoric among the Tibeto-linguists, stands in sharp contrast to knowledge based on
mere sense perception.
The notion of ‘new knowledge’, whether based on perceptions or inferences,
cannot be included in a meaningful manner in a general concept of mirativity, since
most of the situations we perceive or infer for the first time come without surprise, as
they fit well into our general world knowledge.
If, in some languages, new sense perceptions (and inferences) are, in fact, marked
the same way as surprises, then the reason for doing so is the fact that a single
perception is not enough to state a truth authoritatively, and we deal with a notion of
non-commitment or admirativity in the original sense, as in the case of the Balkan
languages, and as in the case, partly at least, of the Tibetic languages.
Peterson (2013) distinguishes parasitic and non-parasitic usages. In the case of
parasitic usages, the mirative connotation is not part of the meaning of a particular
expression, construction or grammatical marker. Hence, unlike non-parasitic usage, it
should always be possible to state that one is not surprised, and it should not be
possible to question the speaker why s/he is (not) surprised.
If we turn that argument on the Tibetic languages, speakers could state explicitly
that they were not surprised, when they use ḥdug. Nobody would do so, just because
nobody expects anybody to be surprised when using ḥdug, as surprise is not part of its
basic meaning. For the same reason nobody would ever challenge anybody and ask
why s/he was surprised.
On the contrary, speakers would rather be challenged, if they would not use ḥdug
in situations where this is the canonical choice and where the reason is not obvious
through contextual features or intonation. The notion of this challenge would not be
*why are you not surprised?, but: How do you want to know? or Why do you think
you can tell me how the world is? or something along these lines. Hence, ḥdug cannot
be an overt marker of mirativity, but may have parasitic mirative connotations.
4. The auxiliary systems of modern Tibetic languages, in particular of Ladakhi
With the exception of Balti, the modern Tibetic languages display a grammatical
opposition, the exact function of which is difficult to define. Formally, the basic
opposition is between two sets of linking verbs, auxiliaries, or light verbs.
– Set I auxiliaries refer to authoritative, self-evident knowledge, not based on
immediate perception (neutral category). Some languages allow evaluative usages.
– Set II auxiliaries refer to knowledge based only or primarily on immediate
perception (marked category). In some languages, additional markers may be used
for a merely constative function without reference to the knowledge source. A few
languages in the west also differentiate between visual and non-visual perceptions.
These modes of knowledge relate to the main speech act participant (MSAP), that is, the
speaker in positive statements and the addressee in questions. More specifically, set I
auxiliaries are typically used for the MSAP’s own controlled [+ctr] actions and, in an
extended usage, all situations under the control or responsibility of the MSAP, set II
auxiliaries (and evaluative markers) accordingly for all situations not controlled by the
MSAP, that is, [–ctr] events relating to the MSAP and typically all [±ctr] events relating to
other persons (in the following both notions will be treated as OTHER).
Furthermore, set I auxiliaries are used neutrally in non-finite constructions and can
be followed by the said evaluative markers, whereas set II auxiliaries are functionally
marked, and therefore not commonly used in non-finite constructions (some varieties
Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing!
3 EVIDENTIALITY, SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE, AND MIRATIVITY IN LADAKHI BETTINA ZEISLER – ZEIS@UNI-TUEBINGEN.DE 4
allow certain exceptions) and with the exception of red, they cannot be followed by or a pragmatically licensed situational acquisition of control or authority over OTHER
other evaluative markers. by the MSAP. Table 2 below shows the distribution of the canonical and non-canonical
Table 1 Canonical use of Tibetic ‘evidentials’ (schematic overview)1 usage of the above-listed auxiliaries for the MSAP and OTHER. The non-canonical us-
domain set I: set II: ages are given in shaded cells. Brackets indicate that the usage is quite rare and/ or may
MSAP +ctr OTHER ±ctr, MSAP –ctr (=OTHER) be restricted to Ladakhi (where it is restricted to the auxiliary ḥdug).
self-evident directly observed In view of the Ladakhi data, one could replace the notions of MSAP and OTHER with
assertive constative the notions of assumed authority or commitment and non-authoritative or non-
identificatory copula yin –– (red) committed statements. The former would be the restricted and hence informationally
future yin –– (red) marked category, cf. Table 3 below.
yin stem II (.PA) + ø (red)
past/ anterior or light verbs Table 2 Canonical and non-canonical use of Tibetic ‘evidentials’
attributive copula yin (/ yod) ḥdug (& grag) (red) domain set I: set II:
existential, possession yod ḥdug (& grag) –– yin / yod ḥdug / grag red
present/ simultaneous yod ḥdug (& grag) –– identificatory copula MSAP OTHER –– OTHER MSAP
perfect/ resultative (yin /) yod ḥdug (& grag) –– future MSAP OTHER –– OTHER MSAP
all domains MSAP & OTHER
past/ anterior MSAP OTHER –– OTHER MSAP
evaluative markers (EM) yin / yod + EM (red) attributive copula MSAP OTHER OTHER (MSAP) OTHER MSAP
existential, possession MSAP OTHER OTHER MSAP ––
quotation/ hearsay verba dicendi: lo, zer, etc. present/ simultaneous MSAP OTHER OTHER (MSAP) ––
Additionally, various evaluative markers and constructions are used for general knowl- perfect/ resultative MSAP OTHER OTHER MSAP ––
edge, inferences, and probabilities. The evaluative markers are typically added only to evaluative markers (EM) OTHER MSAP OTHER MSAP
set I auxiliaries, but can be followed by set II auxiliaries. quotation/ hearsay MSAP & OTHER
Hearsay and/ or reported speech is encoded separately, adding a quote marker to
the quoted proposition. The quoted proposition contains the evidential and/ or Table 3 Pragmatically conditioned use of ‘evidentials’ in Ladakhi
evaluative markers of the original utterance as in direct speech, although the pronouns domain set I: set II:
are usually shifted and honorific markers added or deleted as in indirect speech. non-experiential experiential
authoritative/ non-authoritative/
The choice of the markers in question is quite flexible and not (always) depending committed non-committed, polite, dedicated
on the sources of knowledge (in relation to the MSAP). Often, if not always, the choice identificatory copula yin yin + EM ––
reflects the commitment the MSAP is willing (or is expected) to take as well as notions future yin yin + EM / gerundive ––
of voluntary involvement. This question certainly needs further discussion and detailed past/ anterior yin yin + EM stem II (.PA) + ø
research in all varieties of Tibetan. I can here only speak about Ladakhi. attributive copula yin (/ yod) yin (/ yod) + EM ḥdug & grag
The common cross-linguistic notion of direct knowledge (as opposed to inference existential, possession yod yod + EM ḥdug & grag
and hearsay) does not really match the Tibetan system: knowledge about one’s own present/ simultaneous yod yod + EM ḥdug & grag
controlled actions and about situations under one’s control is certainly the most direct perfect/ resultative (yin /) yod (yin /) yod + EM ḥdug & grag
knowledge a speaker can have. But this is treated differently from immediate quotation/ hearsay verba dicendi: lo, zer, mol
perception. To make things even more complicated, self-perception of situations under
one’s control is formally treated like inferences and generally shared knowledge 4.1. Mirative and not so mirative usages of the auxiliary ḥdug in Ladakhi
through the use of the set I auxiliaries. Knowledge based on mere perception, on the (1) ta ŋa-nik ama Gogza Lam+e ʈhugu,
other hand, is perceived as not being fully reliable and it can well have the semantic STK now I-TOP mother Gogza Lamo+GEN child
function of indirect, namely inferential knowledge (the identity or character of the mõan-i ʂanʈhuk in-ok.
items of the outer world are inferred from what they look like, which may not woman.bad-GEN street.child be-INF
correspond to their ‘true’ identity or character). ŋa+(ː) ʧig-ek mane mi-rak.
Table 1 above gives a simplified picture. Under certain conditions, forms that are I+AES one-LQ ever NG-have=IInv
listed for the MSAP (+ctr) can be used for OTHER and vice versa, see also example (13), ŋaʒa+(ː) mane sakjat mane mi-ruk. […]
we.excl+AES ever land ever NG1-have=IIv
below. However, such usages are less frequent and highly marked, indicating a prag- ɲeʒa-s […] tene ŋa+(:)-aŋ sakjat-ʧik sal-gos-ok!
matically licensed or even enforced situational loss of control or authority of the MSAP you.excl-ERG then I+LOC-FM land-LQ hon.give-must-INF
‘Now, as for me, I am just mother Gogza Lhamo’s child, I am just a street child,
1
born to a despiseable mother. To my dismay, I do not possess a single thing (on
Forms in brackets are language specific: grag for non-visual experience is restricted to Western Ti- my body), at all! To our dismay, we [mother and I] do not have any land, at all!
betan. In these languages, red is not used. Some languages show completely different set II auxilia-
ries. […] You folk […] have to give me a piece of land!’
Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing! Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing!
5 EVIDENTIALITY, SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE, AND MIRATIVITY IN LADAKHI BETTINA ZEISLER – ZEIS@UNI-TUEBINGEN.DE 6
In the context of the story, the speaker does not just find out about these facts, but is – ḥdug is typically used for newly perceived situations relating to OTHER. It’s usage
familiar with them. The use of the experiential forms instead of the expected non- may go along with a notion of surprise and or non-commitment, as in (1) and (8),
experiential form has an admirative connotation: the speaker does not approve the but this is not the standard usage.
situation and he claims his share of land. One could perhaps say, that the surprising – The use of ḥdug is not obligatory in unexpected situations, yod can or must be used
(and embarrassing) fact is the social situation as such, not just something newly as well, depending on the dialect and the presumed knowledge state of the ad-
perceived. The inferential marker with the copula (inok) is likewise used with a dressee, (9) and (10).
mirative connotation, in place of ḥdug.
– Where ḥdug cannot be used, an evaluative marker (for inference, mental distance,
(2) tharmosi-naŋa ʧa daruŋ rag-a mi-rak? or shared knowledge) is used with the same connotation of surprise, as in (7).
LEH thermos.flask-PPOS:LOC tea still exist=IInv-QM NG-exist=IInv
(3) tharmosi-naŋa ʧa daruŋ dug-a mi-nuk? – The choice of ḥdug does not always depend on the newness of the experience, but
LEH thermos.flask-PPOS:LOC tea still exist=IIv-QM NG-exist=IIv on the re-accessibility of the situation via sense perception, (5) and (6).
‘Is there still tea in the thermos flask or not?’ (Shaking or peeping into the flask.) – The choice of the auxiliary ḥdug or yod may also depend on whether the speaker
(4) ɲeraŋ-a tāruŋ ʧhuhol ɦor+a? claims or accepts responsibility for the situation, cf. the comments to example (5).
GYA hon.you-AES still water.boiled exist=Ie+QM
– The choice of the auxiliary ḥdug or yod may also be socially conditioned and may
‘Do you still have [enough] boiled water?’ (The addressee is expected to know
without looking.) thus depend on whether the speaker wants or feels allowed to make an authoritative
statement, see (11) and (13).
My landlady told me about guests, who had left for trekking the day before:
In the case of well-known generic facts and habits of OTHER, both auxiliaries are
(5) khoŋ trekiŋ-a soŋ-ste-jot. … khoŋ-e ʤola bor-te-duk. common. yod emphasises that the speaker is well acquainted with the situation, that
LEH they trekking-LOC go.PA-CP-AUX=Ie they-ERG/GEN bag put-CP-AUX=IIv
s/he assumes authority (when warning), that the situation belongs to his/her cultural
‘They have gone trekking. […] They have left their bags [in the room over there].’
sphere, that the situation is exceptionless, or that it applies to a limited set of individu-
Ten days later, she said casually: als. By contrast, ḥdug may indicate that the situation is not fully exceptionless or that it
(6) kh+e ʤola bor-te-jot. applies to a non-limited set of individuals – hence the speaker does not feel to have
LEH s/he+GEN/ERG bag put-CP-AUX=Ie enough authority to make a general claim. ḥdug may also indicate that the speaker
‘They have left their bags [in the room over there].’ wants to distantiate him- or herself from a well-known habit or custom within the
While there was no change in the way, she had acquired the knowledge, s/he family or his or her cultural sphere. In all such cases, ḥdug does not convey the notion
apparently no longer had access to the visual impression of the first days, and she drew that the knowledge of the habit or generic fact is new, not to speak of being surprising.
the knowledge only from her memory. In example (11), the use of ḥdug is triggered by considerations of politeness: using
Dressed like a Ladakhi woman, I happened to overhear two times some passers-by the auxiliary yod, would have left Standzin no chance to save his face, as it would have
commenting among themselves: indicated that the habit is exceptionless.
(7) kho ʧhirgyalpa in-ok. / in-tsok. (11) Standzin-la spera maŋbo zer-na, rʤet-ʧha+ruk.
s/he foreigner be-INF / be-INF(Sham) TYA Standzin-LOC speech much say-LOC=COND forget-go.PRS+AUX=IIv
‘[But] she is a foreigner!’ ‘If you tell Standzin (too) many things, [he] might forget [half/ most /all of it].’
When talking about a visible result of a non-witnessed event, both the markers for
(8) karkuŋ-p+iaŋ laŋpoʧhe ʧha+ruk! immediate perception and inference may be used.
TYA window-DF+PPOS:LOC elephant go.PRS+AUX=IIv
‘(I see) an elephant walking through (lit. in) the window!’ (12) nono malts+eaŋna laŋs-e joŋ-tsana,
DOM younger.brother bed+PPOS:ABL rise-CP come-when
(9) lhtos-aŋ! ar+ekana laŋpoʧhe ʧh+et! ʂa namkha+(:) laŋs-e-duk. / laŋs+ok.
DOM look.IMP-DM over.there+PPOS:ABL elephant go.PRS+AUX=Ie hair sky+LOC rise-CP-AUX=IIv / rise=PA+INF
‘Look, over there, there is an elephant walking!’ ‘When [my] younger brother got out of bed and came (in), [his] hair stood on
(10) ar+ekana laŋpoʧhe ʧh+et, d+o-a! end (lit. rose towards the sky).’
DOM over.there+PPOS:ABL elephant go.PRS+AUX=Ie that+DF-LOC The experiential perfect indicates that the state endures and/ or has been observed for a
‘Wow, [look] at that, over there, there is an elephant walking!’ while. The inferential past focuses more on the (non-witnessed) transformation and the
These examples show in a nutshell that various different factors trigger the choice of fact that one observes the resulting state just now. That means, however, that the
the auxiliaries: knowledge expressed by the inferential past might be newer and possibly more
surprising than the knowledge expressed by the experiential perfect and the auxiliary
ḥdug.
Furthermore, there are contexts, where ḥdug is preferred over yod for reasons of
politeness (cf. Zeisler 2012b), particularly during economic exchange:
Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing! Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing!
7 EVIDENTIALITY, SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE, AND MIRATIVITY IN LADAKHI BETTINA ZEISLER – ZEIS@UNI-TUEBINGEN.DE 8

(13) nomo, usu tsam-a sal-duk? – quite true. The lady accordingly shows her utter despair. Both reactions, and particu-
younger.sister coriander how.much-LOC hon.give.PRS-AUX=IIv larly the second one, come as a surprise to the main character, and they would cer-
ŋ+e kilo kirmo sum-a phul-duk. tainly also affect the reader of the text.
I+ERG/GEN kilo rupee 3-LOC hum.offer.PRS-AUX=IIv
(15) «tshig šes-sam don šes» zer |
‘Young lady, for how much do/ will [you] give the coriander? – I (will) offer word know=PRS-QM meaning know=PRS say=PA
[one] kilo for three rupees.’ (Adapted from Koshal 1982: 18) «tshig šes» gsuŋs-pa+s |
(14) a. ŋeraŋ-a kampjuʈar ʂul-ba-ɲan+ug-a? word know=PRS hon.speak.PA-NOM+INS
DOM hon.you-AES computer drive-NOM-be.able=PRS+AUX=IIv-QM mo dgaḥ-nas rgod-ciŋ ḥphag |
‘Do you by chance know /Have you ever learned how to operate/ work on a she be.happy-ABL laugh-CNT joke.PRS
computer?’ mkhar·ba nam·mkha+r bteg-nas gar byed-ciŋ-ḥdug | ...
stick sky+LOC lift.PA-ABL dance do.PRS-CNT-AUX=IIV
b. ŋeraŋ-a kampjuʈar ʂul-ba-ɲan-bat-a? «ŋa-s don yaŋ šes» gsuŋs-pa+ḥi |
DOM hon.you-AES computer drive-NOM-be.able=PRS-HAB=Ie-QM I-ERG meaning also know-PRS hon.speak.PA-NOM+GEN
‘Are you able to operate/ work on a computer?’ mo ma-dgaḥ-ba ŋu-žiŋ lus sprug
4.2. Other ways of expressing surprise and/ or emotional involvement she NG2-happy-NOM cry.PRS-CNT body shake.PRS
mkhar·ba sa-la rdebs-šiŋ-ḥdug-pa-las |
The notion of surprise or counterexpectation, particularly if associated with positive or stick earth-LOC throw.down.PRS-CNT-AUX=IIv-NOM-ABL
negative emotions can be expressed iconically by the use of an unexpected or at least ‘When [the old woman] asked him: «Do [you] understand the word or do [you]
non-canonical choice of grammatical forms. These could be tense markers, case understand the meaning?», [Nāropa] answered: «[I] understand the word».
markers, or even the ‘evidential’ auxiliaries. Such non-canonical choices do not only Thereupon happily, she laughs and jokes. Holding up her stick into the sky, she
express surprise, but often may have a contrastive function. The emphasis on a is [even] dancing. [...] «I understand also the meaning», when [he] had said this,
contrast often includes a notion that the situation is not entirely as expected, in being unhappy, she cries and shakes her body. With a clash, she is [even]
particular, that the situation stands in contrast with the usual behaviour. throwing the stick to the earth, and therefore ...’ (Nāropa 60-61/19a2-3)
4.2.1. Iconical marking of surprise Example (16) is a variant of the tale of Potiphah’s wife. The queen’s advances have
The choice of a grammatical form is unmarked if the form is usual or normal, i.e. if it been disappointed by the royal priest, and she is furious. Note the fine psychological
appears more frequently than others, the choice is marked, when the form is unusual, contrast, which is achieved through the presentation of the raging with a present tense
i.e. less often or rarely employed, metaphorically used, or even violating the general form as expression of the queen’s uncontrolled, but real emotions and the presentation
rules. It thus signals a special meaning and a special emphasis, not conveyed by the of her unruly, mendacious, but quite controlled behaviour with past tense forms.
normal use (Smith 1991: 16).
(16) btsun·mo+s bsams-pa «šin·tu sñiŋ na-nas |
In other words, if functionally loaded expressions or grammatical forms are used in queen+ERG think.PA-NOM very heart be.ill-ABL
non-standard contexts or in deviation from the normal or canonical distribution, this slob·dpon khyod kyaŋ ḥjig·rten mi·yul ḥdir |
unexpected usage sends a strong signal to the audience, that something is not exactly teacher.master you also world human.country here
the way it should be. One could say that an unexpected linguistic sign iconically refers ŋa-yis bstan·pa snub-kyi» zer-nas-su |
I-ERG teach.FUT-NOM destroy.PRS-GEN=EMPH say-ABL-ABL
to an unexpected extralinguistic situation. tshig ŋan smras-te khyim-du log-nas-soŋ |
4.2.2. Tense shift (parasitic admirativity) word bad speak.PA-CP hon.house-LOC return-ABL-go.PA
In Classical Tibetan, we find the conventional use of present tense forms in past time lha·babs skad zer ḥdre·babs-nas zer smyo |
narratives, cf. Zeisler (2000, 2004). One typical situation is that a personage comes to god.possessed speech say demon.possessed-ABL say rage.PRS
a particular place and looks at an ongoing situation as if looking through a window. sgrog·bu bcad-de šam·bu phral-nas-su |
ribbon cut.PA-CP flounce tear.PA-ABL-ABL
Another typical situation is that a new personage enters the scene. In both cases, we ḥdziŋs-pa-ḥi tshul-du lus·po sen·rjes byas |
deal with a new situation for the listener/ reader, and in the first case at least, also with fight.PA-NOM-GEN manner-LOC body nail.trace make.PA
a new, typically unexpected situation for the main personage. Tense shift, thus, can ḥphrig-ciŋ ŋus-pa+s ḥkhor-rnams druŋ-du byuŋ |
express mirativity in the narrow sense as defined by DeLancey. be.excited-CNT cry.PA-NOM+INS attendant-PL front-LOC appear.PA
Present tense forms are furthermore almost obligatory when it comes to emotions. ‘The queen thought: «[My] heart suffers a lot (lit. is very ill). Therefore, in this
Emotions stand in contrast to ordinary or neutral behaviour, and there seems to be a world, in this land of man, [I] will, certainly, destroy the doctrine as well as you,
connotation of surprise and even embarrassment associated with this contrast. Tense the master!», saying this, she returned home, uttering imprecations. Shouting like
shift can thus also express admirativity in the wider sense. someone possessed by a god or someone possessed by a demon, she rages.
In the first example, (15), a kind of old fairy-hag asks the main personage, whether Having cut off the ribbons and torn off the flounces, she applied [on] [her] body
he knows a certain text only by heart or whether he also understands it. She shows traces of the nails as if there had been a fighting. Excited and crying, she
appeared before [her] attendants.’ (Btsunmoḥi bkaḥthaŋyig 52.9-13)
great happiness when he answers the first part of the question positively. He thinks he
would do her a pleasure, if he also affirms the second part, even though this is not
Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing! Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing!
9 EVIDENTIALITY, SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE, AND MIRATIVITY IN LADAKHI BETTINA ZEISLER – ZEIS@UNI-TUEBINGEN.DE 10
Example (17) contains a variant of a Salomonic judgement. The unexpected behaviour tshaŋ·ma sna·khuŋ-naŋ·la ḥkhyer-rad-thsug |
of the real and loving mother is contrasted through tense shift with the rather expect- all nose.hole-PPOS:LOC take.away.PRS-AUX=Ie-DSTM
able rude behaviour of the false mother: dbugs phi·sta-la phiŋ-tsa·na |
breath outside-LOC throw.out.PRS-when
(17) bu+ḥi ma ma-yin-pa de+s ni yaŋ tshaŋ·ma phiŋ-ste-khyoŋ-ŋad-tshug || ...
boy+GEN mother NG2-be-NOM that+ERG θ also all throw.out-CP-bring.hither.PRS-AUX=Ie-DSTM
bu-la sñiŋ·rje med-pa+s Ke·sar-la bdud mthoŋ-ste ḥjigs-te ḥdar-rad-tshug-pa |
boy-LOC compassion NG.exist-NOM+INS Kesar-AES demon see-CP fear-CP tremble.PRS-AUX=Ie-NOM
snad-kyis mi-dogs-te mthu ci yod-pa+s draŋs-so | ‘And then, [the demon] was sound asleep, and lo! when(ever) it drew the breath
hurt-INS NG1-fear-CP force what exist-NOM+INS pull.PA-SF in, earth, stones, and whatever was [around], everything, is taken away into his
bu+ḥi ma gaŋ yin-pa de+s ni bu-la byams.pa+s nostril! And lo! when(ever) he drew the breath out, then, again, everything is
boy+GEN mother who be-NOM that+ERG θ boy-LOC love+INS thrown out! [...] As soon as Kesar caught sight of the demon he was afraid, and
snad-kyis dogs-te stobs-kyis thub-kyaŋ while he is, indeed, trembling (all over) ...’ (Lower Ladakhi Kesar, Francke 1905-
hurt-INS fear-CP strength-INS be.equal-although
drag-tu mi-ḥdren-no | 41, IV: 186.13-19)
strong-LOC NG1-tear.PRS-SF 4.2.3. Case alternation (parasitic admirativity)
‘The one who was not the mother of the boy was without any compassion for Particularly the Kenhat dialects of Upper Ladakh (including Leh) have a very flexible
the boy and, therefore, not fearing to hurt him, [s/he] pulled with all [her] force. system of case marking. There is a tendency not to use overt markers for events on the
[But] the one who was the mother of the boy, because of [her] love for the boy, lower or middle ranges of the semantic transitivity hierarchy, especially not in contexts
feared to hurt him, and although equal in strength, by contrast/ surprisingly, that are spatially, temporally, or mentally near for the speaker. The use of an overt
[she] does not pull with strength.’ (Dbyigpacan, Hahn 1985: 214.25-27) case marker, where it is not obligatory, thus often conveys the connotation that the
The modern Tibetic languages practically show the same types of narrative event is either temporally or spatially dislocated or that it is in some way or another
conventions, but the present tense forms that appear in a past narrative usually receive exceptional. One of the connotations could be that the subject did something in
an additional evaluative marker, which most probably moderates the connotation of contrast to other persons or in contrast to some other behaviour, but quite often, an
newness or mental closeness or accessibility. additional connotation is that the speaker is in one way or another emotionally
involved with dismay, joy, compassion, or simple surprise (cf. Zeisler 2012a).
(18) kho soŋ-ste rgyab-na žon-nad-tshug-pa |
s/he go.PA-CP behind-ABL mount-AUX=Ie-DSTM-NOM In the Shamskat dialects of Lower Ladakh, one finds this kind of case marking
mi tshaŋ·ma+s hab·rgod btaŋs | alternation mainly with inagentive verbs.
people all+ERG laughter give.PA (20) daruŋ ta apimeme-ŋun / apimeme-ŋun-la khjut-en+uk.
de·nas kho mdun-la soŋ-ste | DOM still now grandparent-PL / grandparent-PL-AES able.to.work-CNT+AUX=IIv
then he front-LOC go-CP ‘The grandparents can still work.’
rnam·chog-la ḥtham-ste žon-nad-tshug |
ear-LOC hold.on-CP mount-AUX=Ie-DSTM-NOM The non-marked form conveys a neutral statement of the grandparents’ ability as an
de·nas a·bā soŋ-ste «khyod bu·ŋan khyo·raŋ attribute. The aesthetive marker might emphasise the (dis)ability of the grandparents
then father go.PA-CP you boy.nasty you.self or express some kind of surprise or a positive or negative affectedness of the speaker.
da-tshug·pa rta-la žon-mi-šes-mkhan-žig yin-na |
now-until horse-LOC ride-NG1-know-NOM-LQ be-QM (21) ʃan / ʃan-e trhak thuŋ-gak, ʃa za+(:)-ma-nak.
ḥdi·phyogs-na žon» zer-te bslabs-pa | GYA snow.leopard / snow.leopard-ERG/GEN blood drink-INF meat eat.PRS+NOM-NG2-INF
this.side-ABL mount=IMP say-CP tell.PA-NOM ‘Snow leopards [only] drink the blood; they [never] eat the meat.’
de·nas kho srib·cig-la žon-te | Giving a neutral information, like in a schoolbook, only the unmarked form would be
then he moment-LOC mount-CP used. The ergative marker would be used to indicate that the whole blood is drunk
‘He went [there] and when [he] is, truly, mounting from behind, all people burst (which may also implicate a connotation of surprise) or to indicate that one is
into laughter. Then he went to the front and holding on to the ears he is, truly,
emotionally involved, e.g., surprised about the fact.
mounting. Thereupon the father went [there]: «You nasty boy!, don’t you know
yet how to mount? Mount this side!», being told [so], then he mounted in no 4.2.4. Auxiliary shift (parasitic admirativity)
time, and ...’ (Lower Ladakhi Kesar, Francke 1905-41, VII: 283.11-15) The choice of an experiential marker in a situation, where usually the non-experiential
marker would be used, can have a mirative or admirative function, cf. example (1)
In example (19), not only the sight of the demon is surprising and frightening. The
above. The same holds for the use of inferential or other evaluative markers, cf. exam-
hero’s behaviour is likewise surprising and ridiculous: he is trembling like a child.
ple (7) above and the following example:
(19) de·nas [g]ñid-di.skyil·la soŋ-ste |
then sleep-PPOS:LOC come-CP (22) daŋ ŋe ɲeraŋ-eduna ane ʧhondrol-a ʂanʈe māt-pen.
GYA y.day I-ERG hon.you-PPOS:LOC aunt Chondrol-LOC very talk.bad=PA-RM
dbugs naŋ-du ḥthen-za·na | sa rdo·ba ci yod-mkhan
breath inside-LOC draw.PRS-when earth stone what exist-NOM han! ŋ+e ʧhon-la ɲeraŋ-a zer-hanak.
intj I+ERG/GEN vain-LOC hon.you-LOC say=PA-DSTM
Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing! Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing!
11 EVIDENTIALITY, SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE, AND MIRATIVITY IN LADAKHI BETTINA ZEISLER – ZEIS@UNI-TUEBINGEN.DE 12
kho tōt-ʧe-ʒik duk, sokpo mi+nuk. (28) daruaŋ rul-e-duk-se-jod-a, wa?!
s/he laud-NOM-LQ be=IIv bad NG1+be=IIv
TYA still rot-CP-stay-CP-AUX=Ie-QM xcl
juʒu he, ŋ+e pēra zer-han tshaŋma sem-a ma-khur! ‘Hey, are you still sleeping (lit: have you been keeping rotting)?!’ (2P =MSAP)
please intj I+ERG/GEN speech say-NOM all mind-LOC NG2-carry=PRS
‘Yesterday, I said something very negative about aunt Chondrol in your (29) wa, khiri nono daruaŋ rul-e-duk-se-jot!
presence. Sorry! I told (lit: must have told) you [this] without any reason! S/he is TYA xcl you.self.GEN younger.brother still rot-CP-stay-CP-AUX=Ie
[only] to be lauded, she is not bad at all. Please, forget about all that I have said!’ ‘Hey, your younger brother is still sleeping!’ (3P =OTHER)
The distance marker {-kanak} indicates the speakers embarrassment, not so much about (30) ŋ+i nono ʒaktaŋ rul-e-duks-taŋ-et!
the fact that s/he had said something bad, but that s/he did that without any reason. TYA I+GEN younger.brother every.day rot-CP-stay.PA-give-AUX=Ie
In the dialects of Lower Ladakh, the opposite can also be observed: the use of the ‘My brother stays too long in bed, every day!’ (3P =OTHER)
non-experiential marker yod in situations of immediate visual observation, where the 4.2.5. Word order alternations (parasitic admirativity)
experiential marker ḥdug would be normally used, can likewise have an (ad)mirative The Tibetic languages are SOV languages, with a relatively free word order. In
function, indicating surprise and some sort of embarrassment.2 conformity with the thema-rhema or topic-comment pattern, the constituents can be
(23) l̥tos-aŋ! tsamʃik kha rdaŋ-et! shifted from their canonical or neutral place. That is, what is already given comes first
TYA look.IMP-DIR how.much mouth open.wide.PRS-AUX=Ie (or is elided), what is new comes closest to the verb. Shift away from the canonical
‘Look, how [you] are (/ [s/he] is) yawning!’ order adds an extra strong contrastive focus on the last element. Such contrasts often
(24) pitse+(ː) ʂok-na ʧh+et. bila+(ː) hjaŋspa joŋ-et! implicate a notion of positive or negative surprise (s/he did X, but not Y or she did X
DOM mouse+GEN life-ABL go.PRS+AUX=Ie cat+AES fun come.PRS-AUX=Ie while nobody else dared to).
‘The mouse is going to die. [But] the cat is having fun!’3 (31) a. mi ŋābgja-ʒik ʧhulog-ne tshe thar.
Here, yod is used in assertions about 2P or 3P = OTHER in a new situation just being GYA person 500-LQ flood-ABL life escape=PA
observed. The unexpected yod indicates surprise and/ or embarrassment. ‘About 500 people saved [their] lives /escaped from the flood.’
(25) miʃes rguʃes khoa ʃes-et! b. ʧhulog-ne mi ŋābgja-ʒik tshe thar.
DOM people.know nine/all.know s/he-AES know.PRS-AUX=Ie GYA flood-ABL person 500-lq life escape=PA
‘S/he knows everybody and who not!’ ‘From the flood, to our surprise, about 500 people could escape.’
4.2.6. Exclamatives (non-parasitic admirativity)
(26) las rhtsokpo co-se,
DOM work bad do-CP The Tibetic languages have a special exclamative form: the dative-locative marker la is
daruŋ-ni kho-s rdoŋ stan-et! / stan-en+uk. added mainly to nominalised adjectivals, occasionally also to nouns, yielding the
still-θ s/he-ERG face show.PRS-AUX=Ie / show.PRS-CNT+AUX=IIv meaning “what an X!”
‘Having performed [such] bad deeds, s/he still [dares to] show [his/her] face! / In the Ladakhi dialects, this exclamative is not only found with nominalised
s/he [nevertheless] shows [his/her] face.’ adjectivals, but also with other verbs. While the form -la is found in Leh and in the
The use of yod indicates that the speaker is surprised and angry with that person, eastern part of Lower Ladakh, the exclamative marker takes the form -ra in the dialect
thinking: s/he should not be able to show his/her face; it is unbelievable, why is nobody of Gya-Miru (Upper Ladakh). The marker is not attested in the Domkhar dialect in the
doing anything against it, etc. western part of Lower Ladakh.
The non-experiential auxiliary may also be used in sarcastic speech: Furthermore, common exclamations such as ama-le-(le)! ‘Oh mother!’, améʃa! ‘By
the flesh of [my] mother!’, kunjuk sum! ‘By the Three Jewels’, or la lamaraŋ konjok!
(27) sil- khoraŋ -ma-sil-ba, fε:l soŋ-se, ‘Hey, lama and the Jewels!’ also explicitly indicate one’s surprise or compassion.
DOM study.PRS itself NG2-study.PRS-NOM fail go.PA-CP
ta kheraŋ-a thatpo yot! joŋ-et! Another way of expressing one’s surprise and/ or dismay is to use the vocative
now you-AES happy have=Ie come.PRS-aux=Ie pronouns wa and la, or the morpheme le sentence initially or sentence finally.
‘Now that [you] have failed after not even touching the books, you are surely All exclamations usually go along with a marked intonation pattern. Exclamations
satisfied / will surely be satisfied!’ can combine with each other as in examples (33) to (35) or with any other means of
expressing surprise as in example (29) above.
The following examples similarly show that yod is preferred in expressions of anger
and surprise, independent of whether the event refers to an MSAP, as in example (28) or (32) rkhunma-le!
to OTHER as in example (29). Example (30) shows that the connotation of anger TYA thief-xcl
and/or surprise overrides the habitual meaning, for which the dialects of Lower ‘You little good-for nothing (lit. thief)!’ (Addressing her baby)
Ladakh have a specific form -bat (< ba-yod). (33) ama-le! Aŋmo rde-a-la!
TYA mother-xcl Aŋmo be.nice/beautiful-NOM-LOC
2
Such examples are extremely rare. So far, I have come across less than 10 examples out of 21,000
‘Oh my, [look] how beautyful /what a beauty Aŋmo is!’
elicited sentences and not one in the ca. 50 hours of transcribed recordings.
3
Said when a person enjoys the pain of another, e.g., swinging around a child, although s/he is crying.
Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing! Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing!
13 EVIDENTIALITY, SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE, AND MIRATIVITY IN LADAKHI BETTINA ZEISLER – ZEIS@UNI-TUEBINGEN.DE 14

(34) améʃa! / lhtos-aŋ! kho-s lug sad-ed-la! (40) l̥tos, gyalpo skjod-at-suk!
TYA mother’s.flesh look.IMP-DM s/he-ERG sheep kill.PRS-AUX=Ie-LOC SHE look.IMP king hon.come-AUX=Ie-DSTM
‘Darn! /Look! He KILLS a sheep!’ ‘Look!, the king is coming!’ (The speaker has not expected to see the king in this
(35) ama-le-le! de-a-ra, i mentok-te! moment or s/he might be emotionally moved after waiting so long).
GYA mother-xcl-xcl be.nice/beautiful-NOM-?LOC this flower-DF (41) ŋ+e ɲeraŋ ʃam-a ɦot-kan ʧē-at-pen,
‘Oh my dear! How beautiful it is, this flower!’ GYA I+ERG hon.you Šam-LOC exist=Ie-NOM do=PRS-AUX=Ie-RM
(36) tēs-aŋ! taksaraŋ kho luk sa+ruk. / sa+ra-ra! ɦinaŋ ɲeraŋ lē-a ɦot-suk.
GYA look=IMP-DM now.only s/he sheep kill=PRS+AUX=IIv kill=PRS+NOM-?LOC but hon.you Leh-LOC exist=Ie-DSTM
‘Look! He is killing a sheep, just now. / He KILLS a sheep, right now!’ ‘I had been thinking (lit: doing) you were/ are in Šam, but you apparently were/
are in Leh.’
The last example shows through the contrast of the two forms that while ḥdug may
(42) ŋ+e kho rarzi (ɦin-kan) ʧē-at-pen.
refer to an actual (and hence new) perception, it is used for a rather neutral statement. GYA I+ERG s/he goatherd (be=Ic-NOM) do=PRS-AUX=Ie-RM
Its main purpose is to draw the attention of the addressee to the event. The event might tē-zane, ʈī:ʧhar ɦin-tsuk.
or might not have been expected. The exclamative form, on the other hand, implies look-when teacher be=Ic-DSTM
that the speaker is totally surprised and most probably also emotionally involved. ‘I had been thinking (lit: doing) that s/he was a goatherd. But on a closer look,
4.2.7. Explicit references to surprises (non-parasitic admirativity) s/he turned out to be a teacher.’
The explicit reference to surprise is a much less common strategy in the Tibetic (43) ɲeraŋ-a hindi ʃe-at-suk?!
languages. I have not yet seen any such expression in Classical Tibetan, but there are GYA hon.you-AES Hindi know=PRS-AUX=Ie-DSTM
certainly expressions similar to those found in Ladakhi in other Modern Tibetic ʃe-a-me-kanak sam.
languages. In Ladakhi, one can use the adjectives yamtshan ‘strange’ or halaʃas know=PRS-NOM-NG1-DSTM think.PA
‘unbelievable’ to characterise an event as strange or surprising, and one can use the ‘You know Hindi?! I had been thinking that you might not.’
Arabic loan heran plus the verb ‘go’ to express that one has become surprised or (44) o! i-re ʧhaŋ in-kanak!
astonished. There is even a verb halas ‘to be surprised, to ridicule, criticise (sth GYA excl this-DF chaŋ be=Ic-DSTM
nonconventional or unexpected)’. ŋe i-re man-pin sam-de, nāŋmera thuŋ-a-rak.
I-ERG/GEN this-DF NG.be=Ic-RM think-CP carelessly drink=PRS-NOM-AUX=IInv
(37) ŋaʧ+i kansalar-is “yul-iphia a ʧo-et, ‘Oh! This is chaŋ! I was just (about) drinking [this] without paying attention,
TYA we.excl+GEN councillor-ERG village-PPOS that.over.there do.PRS-AUX=Ie assuming that this is not [chaŋ].’
d+o ʧo-et.” zer-e, kha lhaŋs.
that+DF do.PRS-AUX=Ie say-CP mouth take.PA chaŋ is the local barley beer. With respect to the act of drinking, the informant used
ŋaʧa ʧikʧig-a rden ma-ʃes. the auxiliary for non-visual perception to indicate that she was only aware of the
we.excl single-AES truth NG2-believe=PA movement of her hand, since she did not pay attention to her action. With respect to
inaŋ kho-s ʧi tshaŋma ʧos. this semi-automatic act, there is no connotation of surprise implied. The surprising fact
but s/he-ERG what all do.PA lies in identifying the content of the cup. Note that the marker for immediate non-
ŋaca tshaŋma+(:) heran soŋ. visual perception: grag is not used.
we.excl all+AES surprised go.PA
‘Our councillor promised to do this and that for the village. Not a single person (45) naniŋ kh+e palaŋ-a petse demo-žik ɦot-suk,
among us believed this. But he did everything. So we were really surprised.’ GYA last.year s/he+GEN cow-AES calf nice-LQ have=Ie-DSTM
talo mi+nuk.
4.2.8. And surprise: the Leh dialect of Ladakh does have a marker for surprise. this.year NG1+have=IIv
The marker ­suk is used in the dialect of Leh and surroundings as a marker of unex- ‘It appears to me that his/her cow had a nice calf last year, [but] this year [it]
pected situations (Koshal 1979). I observed the marker occasionally also with the in- does not have any.’ (The speaker found out about last year’s calf just now or is
formant for the Gya-Miru dialect, for situations that were explicitly against one’s ex- merely guessing.)
pectations, but, on the other hand, not really big surprises. It seems that the marker -
suk can also be used for mere guesses, cf. example (45). 4.3. The historical dimension: ḥdug as a semantic marker of non-commitment

(38) ɲeraŋ-a hindi khjen-at-suk!? The original meaning of ḥdug as a lexical verb was ‘stay, dwell, sit’. As such and as an
hon.you-AES Hindi hon.know=PRS-AUX=Ie-DSTM existential linking verb ‘be at a certain place’, ḥdug originally described a non-
‘So, you know Hindi?!’ (Adapted from Koshal 1979: 218). permanent situation of some duration, in contrast to the existential verb yod, which
related an item to a location either in general or for the moment.
(39) ŋ+e ʧhaŋ thuŋ-in-jot-suk!
I+ERG chaŋ drink-CNT-AUX=Ie-DSTM This difference in the temporal reference was exploited for an opposition in terms
‘[Oh!] I was just drinking/ was going to drink chaŋ [the Tibetan beer] (without of a generally valid truth, based on general or intimate knowledge (yod), and a pre-
realizing that it was wrong)!’ (Adapted from Koshal 1979: 219). liminary truth, based on the mere appearance of the things (ḥdug). Relatively early,
periphrastic constructions with (-par)-ḥdug were used for doubtful or non-confirmable
Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing! Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing!
15 EVIDENTIALITY, SPEAKER’S ATTITUDE, AND MIRATIVITY IN LADAKHI BETTINA ZEISLER – ZEIS@UNI-TUEBINGEN.DE 16
facts as well as for inferences and inductions. The (­par)-ḥdug construction thus had an
admirative value. The construction could be best translated as ‘it appears/ appeared as References:
if’ or ‘it seems/ seemed that’. Aikhenvald, A. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16: 435–485.
Some time before the 13th c., the notion of ‘mere appearance’ shifted to the notion DOI 10.1515/lingty-2012-0017.
DeLancey, S. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic
of ‘having been observed’, and the (-par)-ḥdug construction could be used to indicate Typology 1: 33–52.
neutrally that any person had immediately perceived a given fact. Finally, after the 15th Francke, A.H. 1905-41. Gšamyulna bšadpaḥi Kesargyi sgruŋs bžugs. A Lower Ladakhi version of the
c., the auxiliary ḥdug got restricted to facts the MSAP (merely) observed in contrast to Kesar saga. (Bibliotheca Indica, work, 168.), Calcutta 1905–1909 (Fasc. 1–4), 1941 (Fasc. 5):
facts s/he could vouch for, and more generally to references to OTHER in present tense Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal.
Friedman, V.A. 1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In: Wallace
and present perfect constructions. Chafe and Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood,
ḥdug as an evidential cum attitude marker or the MSAP-related ‘evidential’ system NJ: 168–187.
most probably did not reach the West before the 15th or 16th c., when Baltistan got ––––. 2012. Perhaps mirativity is phlogiston, but admirativity is perfect: On Balkan evidential strategies.
disconnected from the Tibetan mainstream, due to her complete conversion to Islam. Linguistic Typology 16: 505–527. DOI 10.1515/lingty-2012-0019.
Hahn, M. 1985. Lehrbuch der klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache. (Indica et Tibetica: Monographien
Otherwise it would be difficult to explain why Balti has -suk as a marker of inference zu den Sprachen und Literaturen des indo-tibetischen Kulturraumes, 10.) Bonn: Indica et Tibetica.
and non-commitment and a form of ḥdug in future tense constructions for OTHER, Hill, N.W. 2012. “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic
while the other typically Tibetic ‘evidential’ distinctions in the present tense and Typology 16: 389−433.
present perfect constructions are completely missing, whereas Purik and Lower Ladakh ––––. 2013. Contextual semantics of ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan evidentials. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Lin-
have both -suk (or ­sok) and the opposition between ḥdug and yod (for mor details see guistics 10.3: 47-54.
Koshal, S. 1979. Ladakhi Grammar. Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass.
Zeisler 2014, to appear). ––––. 1982. Conversational Ladakhi. Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass.
Peterson, T. 2013. Rethinking mirativity: the expression and implication of surprise. Manuscript.
Abbreviations http://semarch.linguistics.fas.nyu.edu/Archive/2FkYTg4O/Rethinking_Mirativity.pdf
Smith, C. 1991. The parameter of aspect. (Studies in linguistics and philosophy, 43). Dordrecht etc.:
1. Dialects (and informants, narrators, or interlocutors): Kluwer.
Zeisler, B. 2000. Narrative conventions in Tibetan languages: the issue of mirativity. In B. Bickel, ed.,
DOM Domkhar (Shamskat): Trhinles Chosphel and Tshering Tshomo Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Part I. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23.2:
GYA Gya-Miru (Kenhat): Mengyur Tshomo and Jigmet Yangdol 39–77.
LEH Leh (Kenhat): Tshering Chondol ––––. 2004. Relative Tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages. A comparative study. Mouton de
SHE Shey (Kenhat): Yangcan Dolma (Yangdol) Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
STK Stok (Kenhat): Phuntsok Paljor ––––. 2012a. Practical issues of pragmatic case marking variations in the Kenhat varieties of Ladakh.
TYA Teya (eastern Shamskat): Tshering Dolkar Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 35.1: 75–106.
––––. 2012b. Evidentiality and inferentiality: Overlapping and contradictory functions of the so-called
2. Grammatical markers and lexical elements evidential markers in Ladakhi (West Tibetan). Extended handout:
http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/zeisler-bettina-handout.pdf (last accessed: 24.02.2014).
ā high tone FM focus marker ––––. 2014./ to appear. Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in Ti-
a low tone FUT future
betan. Handout:
x·x word-internal boundary of written syllable GEN genitive http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/720339/zeisler_evidence_for_the_development_of_evidentiality_as_
y.y separates lexical elements and inherent forms HAB habitual
+ a_grammtical_category_in_tibetan.pdf (last accessed 26.06. 2014).
non-segmentable morpheme hon honorific form
- segmentable morpheme hum humilific form
= implied function IMP imperative
Ic set I marker: copula yin INF inferential marker
Ie set I marker: existential linking verb yod INS instrumental
IIv set II marker for visual perception: ḥdug intj interjection
IInv set II marker for non-visual perception: grag LOC locational case marker, postposition
ABL ablative case marker or postposition LQ limiting quantifier (a, some)
AES aesthetive (=dative subject marking) NG negation marker; 1: mi, 2: ma
AUX auxiliary NOM nominaliser
CNT continuative marker PA past stem
COND conditional PL plural
CP conjuct participle marker PPOS postposition
DF definiteness marker PRS present stem
DM directive marker QM yes/no question marker
DSTM distance marker QOM quotation marker
EM evaluative marker RM remoteness marker
EMPH emphatic marker SF sentence final marker
ERG ergative Θ topic marker
excl exclusive plural xcl exclamation
Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing! Handout, draft version 25.09.2014 23:22 – please confirm before citing!