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

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 54 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.