Home Linguistics & Semiotics Chapter 2. Factual vs. evidential? The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Chapter 2. Factual vs. evidential? The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian

  • Benjamin Brosig
View more publications by John Benjamins Publishing Company
To Publisher Page
Evidence for Evidentiality
This chapter is in the book Evidence for Evidentiality

Abstract

Past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian distinguish between established (‑sang) and non-established knowledge, which is then either based on direct (‑laa) or indirect (‑jee) evidence. Time of acquisition thus determines whether information source is marked, though vivid recollection (‑laa) and deferred realization (‑jee) overrule it. Conversely, attempted recollection in questions (‑l=uu) doesn’t presuppose sensory perception. A fourth suffix (‑v) is used if well-established events still surprise the speaker. These suffixes may also be used in a discontinuous fashion to refer to the future and then modally qualify predictions as inevitable (‑sang), apprehended [but preventable] (‑v), based on sensory evidence (‑laa) or inferred (‑jee). The distinction between unsourced ‑sang and sourced ‑laa/-jee is thus not about factual stance, but codes the extent to which information is consolidated in memory.

Abstract

Past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian distinguish between established (‑sang) and non-established knowledge, which is then either based on direct (‑laa) or indirect (‑jee) evidence. Time of acquisition thus determines whether information source is marked, though vivid recollection (‑laa) and deferred realization (‑jee) overrule it. Conversely, attempted recollection in questions (‑l=uu) doesn’t presuppose sensory perception. A fourth suffix (‑v) is used if well-established events still surprise the speaker. These suffixes may also be used in a discontinuous fashion to refer to the future and then modally qualify predictions as inevitable (‑sang), apprehended [but preventable] (‑v), based on sensory evidence (‑laa) or inferred (‑jee). The distinction between unsourced ‑sang and sourced ‑laa/-jee is thus not about factual stance, but codes the extent to which information is consolidated in memory.

Chapters in this book

  1. Prelim pages i
  2. Table of contents v
  3. Preface vii
  4. Introduction 1
  5. Part I. What do we know? Knowledge and evidence
  6. Chapter 1. Evidentiality as stance 19
  7. Chapter 2. Factual vs. evidential? The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian 45
  8. Chapter 3. I think and I believe 77
  9. Chapter 4. (Yo) creo que as a marker of evidentiality and epistemic modality 99
  10. Chapter 5. Finnish evidential adverbs in argumentative texts 121
  11. Part II. When do we know? Accessibility of evidence in time
  12. Chapter 6. Uralic perspectives on experimental evidence for evidentials 145
  13. Chapter 7. Reportive sollen in an exclusively functional view of evidentiality 173
  14. Chapter 8. The French future 199
  15. Chapter 9. Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in the Tibetic languages 227
  16. Chapter 10. From similarity to evidentiality 257
  17. Chapter 11. What can different types of linguistic data teach us on evidentiality? 281
  18. Author Index 305
  19. Language index 309
  20. Subject index 311
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.03bro

Chapters in this book

  1. Prelim pages i
  2. Table of contents v
  3. Preface vii
  4. Introduction 1
  5. Part I. What do we know? Knowledge and evidence
  6. Chapter 1. Evidentiality as stance 19
  7. Chapter 2. Factual vs. evidential? The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian 45
  8. Chapter 3. I think and I believe 77
  9. Chapter 4. (Yo) creo que as a marker of evidentiality and epistemic modality 99
  10. Chapter 5. Finnish evidential adverbs in argumentative texts 121
  11. Part II. When do we know? Accessibility of evidence in time
  12. Chapter 6. Uralic perspectives on experimental evidence for evidentials 145
  13. Chapter 7. Reportive sollen in an exclusively functional view of evidentiality 173
  14. Chapter 8. The French future 199
  15. Chapter 9. Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in the Tibetic languages 227
  16. Chapter 10. From similarity to evidentiality 257
  17. Chapter 11. What can different types of linguistic data teach us on evidentiality? 281
  18. Author Index 305
  19. Language index 309
  20. Subject index 311
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2026 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 3.3.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/hcp.61.03bro/html
Scroll to top button