Editing Quechuan languages (section)

===Evidentiality===
The Quechuan languages have three different morphemes that mark [[evidentiality]].  Evidentiality refers to a morpheme whose primary purpose is to indicate the source of information.<ref>Aikhenvald 2004, p. 3.</ref>  In Quechuan languages, evidentiality is a three-term system: there are three evidential morphemes that mark varying levels of source information. The markers can apply to first, second, and third persons.<ref name="Aikhenvald 2004, p. 377">Aikhenvald 2004, p. 377.</ref> The chart below depicts an example of these morphemes from [[Wanka Quechua]]:<ref>Aikhenvald 2004, p. 42.</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Evidential morphemes
! ''-m(i)'' || ''-chr(a)'' || ''-sh(i)''
|-
| Direct evidence || Inferred; conjecture || Reported; hearsay
|}
<section begin="list-of-glossing-abbreviations"/><div style="display:none;">
DIR:direct evidence
CONJ:conjecture
</div><section end="list-of-glossing-abbreviations"/>

The parentheses around the vowels indicate that the vowel can be dropped when following an open vowel.{{Clarify|reason=Clearly, none of them follows a vowel. Is the intention to indicate that they are dropped when another vowel follows?|date=May 2025}} For the sake of cohesiveness, the above forms are used to discuss the evidential morphemes. There are dialectal variations to the forms. The variations will be presented in the following descriptions.

The following sentences provide examples of the three evidentials and further discuss the meaning behind each of them.

====''-m(i)'' : Direct evidence and commitment====
<ref>Floyd 1999, p. 60.</ref>
Regional variations: In [[Cusco Quechua]], the direct evidential presents itself as ''–mi''  and ''–n''.

The evidential ''–mi'' indicates that the speaker has a "strong personal conviction the veracity of the circumstance expressed."<ref>Floyd 1999, p. 57.</ref>  It has the basis of direct personal experience.

Wanka Quechua<ref>Floyd 1999, p. 61.</ref>
{{interlinear|indent=3
|ñawi-i-wan-'''mi''' lika-la-a
|eye-1P-with-DIR see-PST-1
|I saw them with my own eyes.}}

====''-chr(a)'' : Inference and attenuation====
<ref>Floyd 1999, p. 95.</ref>
 
In Quechuan languages, not specified by the source, the inference morpheme appears as ''-ch(i), -ch(a), -chr(a)''.

The ''-chr(a)'' evidential indicates that the utterance is an inference or form of conjecture. That inference relays the speaker's non-commitment to the truth-value of the statement. It also appears in cases such as acquiescence, irony, interrogative constructions, and first person inferences. These uses constitute nonprototypical use and will be discussed later in the ''changes in meaning and other uses'' section.

Wanka Quechua<ref>Floyd 1999, p. 103.</ref>
{{interlinear|indent=3
|kuti-mu-n'a-qa-'''chr''' ni-ya-ami
|return-AFAR-3FUT-now-CONJ say-IMPV-1-DIR
|I think they will probably come back.}}

====''-sh(i)'' : Hearsay====
<ref>Floyd 1999, p. 123.</ref>
Regional variations: It can appear as ''–sh(i)'' or ''–s(i)'' depending on the dialect.

With the use of this morpheme, the speaker "serves as a conduit through which information from another source passes." The information being related is hearsay or revelatory in nature. It also works to express the uncertainty of the speaker regarding the situation. However, it also appears in other constructions that are discussed in the ''changes in meaning'' section.

Wanka Quechua<ref>Floyd 1999, p. 127.</ref>
{{interlinear|indent=3
|shanti-'''sh''' prista-ka-mu-la
|Shanti-HSY borrow-REF-AFAR-PST
|(I was told) Shanti borrowed it.}}

Hintz discusses an interesting case of evidential behavior found in the Sihaus dialect of [[Ancash Quechua]]. The author postulates that instead of three single evidential markers, that Quechuan language contains three pairs of evidential markers.<ref>Hintz 1999, p. 1.</ref>

====Affix or clitic====
The evidential morphemes have been referred to as markers or morphemes. The literature seems to differ on whether or not the evidential morphemes are acting as affixes or clitics, in some cases, such as Wanka Quechua, enclitics. Lefebvre and Muysken (1998) discuss this issue in terms of case but remark the line between affix and clitic is not clear.<ref>Lefebvre & Muysken 1998, p. 89.</ref> Both terms are used interchangeably throughout these sections.

====Position in the sentence====
Evidentials in the Quechuan languages are "second position enclitics", which usually attach to the first constituent in the sentence, as shown in this example.<ref>Aikhenvald 2004, p. 68-69.</ref>

{{interlinear|indent=3
|huk-'''si''' ka-sqa huk machucha-piwan payacha
|once-HSY be-SD one old.man-WITH woman
|Once, there were an old man and an old woman.}}

They can, however, also occur on a focused constituent.

{{interlinear|indent=3
|Pidru kunana-'''mi''' wasi-ta tuwa-sha-n
|Pedro now-DIR.EV house-ACC build-PROG-3SG
|It is now that Pedro is building the house.}}

Sometimes, the affix is described as attaching to the focus, particularly in the Tarma dialect of [[Yaru Quechua]],<ref>Weber 1986, p. 145.</ref> but this does not hold true for all varieties of Quechua. In Huanuco Quechua, the evidentials may follow any number of topics, marked by the topic marker ''–qa'', and the element with the evidential must precede the main verb or be the main verb.

However, there are exceptions to that rule, and the more topics there are in a sentence, the more likely the sentence is to deviate from the usual pattern.
{{interlinear|indent=3
|Chawrana-qa puntataruu-qu trayaruptin-qa wamrata-qa mayna-'''shi''' Diosninchi-qa heqarkaykachisha syelutana-shi
|so:already-TOP at:the:peak-TOP arriving-TOP child-TOP already-IND our:God-TOP had:taken:her:up to:heaven:already-IND
|When she (the witch) reached the peak, God had already taken the child up into heaven.}}

====Changes in meaning and other uses====
Evidentials can be used to relay different meanings depending on the context and perform other functions. The following examples are restricted to Wanka Quechua.

'''''The direct evidential, -mi'''''

The direct evidential appears in wh-questions and yes/no questions. By considering the direct evidential in terms of prototypical semantics, it seems somewhat counterintuitive to have a direct evidential, basically an evidential that confirms the speaker's certainty about a topic, in a question. However, if one focuses less on the structure and more on the situation, some sense can be made. The speaker is asking the addressee for information so the speaker assumes the speaker knows the answer. That assumption is where the direct evidential comes into play. The speaker holds a certain amount of certainty that the addressee will know the answer. The speaker interprets the addressee as being in "direct relation" to the proposed content; the situation is the same as when, in regular sentences, the speaker assumes direct relation to the proposed information.<ref>Floyd 1999, p. 87.</ref>

{{interlinear|indent=3
|imay-'''mi''' wankayuu-pu kuti-mu-la
|when-DIR Huancayo-ABL return-AFAR-PAST
|When did he come back from Huancayo?
<br />(Floyd 1999, p. 85)}}

The direct evidential affix is also seen in yes/no questions, similar to the situation with wh-questions. Floyd describes yes/no questions as being "characterized as instructions to the addressee to assert one of the propositions of a disjunction."<ref>Floyd 1999, p. 89.</ref> Once again, the burden of direct evidence is being placed on the addressee, not on the speaker. The question marker in Wanka Quechua, ''-chun'', is derived from the negative –chu marker and the direct evidential (realized as –n in some dialects).

{{interlinear|indent=3
|tarma-kta li-n-'''chun'''
|Tarma-ACC go-3-YN
|Is he going to Tarma?
<br />(Floyd 1999, p. 89)}}

====Inferential evidential, -chr(a)====

While ''–chr(a)'' is usually used in an inferential context, it has some non-prototypical uses.

''Mild Exhortation''
In these constructions the evidential works to reaffirm and encourage the addressee's actions or thoughts.

{{interlinear|indent=3
|mas kalu-kuna-kta li-la-a ni-nki-'''chra'''-ri
|more far-PL-ACC go-PST-1 say-2-CONJ-EMPH
|Yes, tell them, "I've gone farther."
<br />(Floyd 1999, p. 107)}}

This example comes from a conversation between husband and wife, discussing the reactions of their family and friends after they have been gone for a while. The husband says he plans to stretch the truth and tell them about distant places to which he has gone, and his wife (in the example above) echoes and encourages his thoughts.

''Acquiescence''
With these, the evidential is used to highlight the speaker's assessment of inevitability of an event and acceptance of it. There is a sense of resistance, diminished enthusiasm, and disinclination in these constructions.

{{interlinear|indent=3
|paaga-lla-shrayki-'''chra'''-a
|pay-POL-1›2FUT-CONJ-EMPH
|I suppose I'll pay you then.
<br />(Floyd 1999, p. 109)}}

This example comes from a discourse where a woman demands compensation from the man (the speaker in the example) whose pigs ruined her potatoes. He denies the pigs as being his but finally realizes he may be responsible and produces the above example.

''Interrogative''
Somewhat similar to the ''–mi'' evidential, the inferential evidential can be found in content questions. However, the salient difference between the uses of the evidentials in questions is that in the ''–m(i)'' marked questions, an answer is expected. That is not the case with ''–chr(a)'' marked questions.

{{interlinear|indent=3
|ima-lla-kta-'''chr''' u-you-shrun llapa ayllu-kuna-kta-si chra-alu-l
|what-LIM-ACC-CONJ give-ASP-12FUT all family-PL-ACC-EVEN arrive-ASP-SS
|I wonder what we will give our families when we arrive.
<br />(Floyd 1999, p. 111)}}

''Irony''
Irony in language can be a somewhat complicated topic in how it functions differently in languages, and by its semantic nature, it is already somewhat vague.  For these purposes, it is suffice to say that when irony takes place in Wanka Quechua, the ''–chr(a)'' marker is used.

{{interlinear|indent=3
|chay-nuu-pa-'''chr''' yachra-nki
|that-SIM-GEN-CONJ know-2
|(I suppose) That's how you learn [that is the way in which you will learn].
<br />(Floyd 199, p. 115)}}

This example comes from discourse between a father and daughter about her refusal to attend school. It can be interpreted as a genuine statement (perhaps one can learn by resisting school) or as an ironic statement (that is an absurd idea).

====Hearsay evidential, -sh(i)====

Aside from being used to express hearsay and revelation, this affix also has other uses.

''Folktales, myths, and legends''

Because folktales, myths, and legends are, in essence, reported speech, it follows that the hearsay marker would be used with them.  Many of these types of stories are passed down through generations, furthering this aspect of reported speech. A difference between simple hearsay and folktales can be seen in the frequency of the ''–sh(i)'' marker.  In normal conversation using reported speech, the marker is used less, to avoid redundancy.

''Riddles''

Riddles are somewhat similar to myths and folktales in that their nature is to be passed by word of mouth.

{{interlinear|indent=3
|ima-lla-'''shi''' ayka-lla-'''sh''' juk machray-chru puñu-ya-n puka waaka
|what-LIM-HSY how^much-LIM-HSY one cave-LOC sleep-IMPF-3 red cow
|(Floyd 1999, p. 142)}}

====Omission and overuse of evidential affixes====

In certain grammatical structures, the evidential marker does not appear at all. In all Quechuan languages the evidential will not appear in a dependent clause. No example was given to depict this omission.<ref>Aikhenvald 2004, p. 72.</ref>
Omissions occur in Quechua. The sentence is understood to have the same evidentiality as the other sentences in the context. Quechuan speakers vary as to how much they omit evidentials, but they occur only in connected speech.<ref>Aikhenvald 2004, p. 79.</ref>

An interesting contrast to omission of evidentials is overuse of evidentials. If a speaker uses evidentials too much with no reason, competence is brought into question.  For example, the overuse of –m(i) could lead others to believe that the speaker is not a native speaker or, in some extreme cases, that one is mentally ill.<ref name="Aikhenvald 2004, p. 377"/>

====Cultural aspect====

By using evidentials, the Quechua culture has certain assumptions about the information being relayed. Those who do not abide by the cultural customs should not be trusted. A passage from Weber (1986) summarizes them:
# (Only) one's experience is reliable.
# Avoid unnecessary risk by assuming responsibility for information of which one is not absolutely certain.
# Do not be gullible. There are many folktales in which the villain is foiled by his gullibility.
#Assume responsibility only if it is safe to do so. Successful assumption of responsibility builds stature in the community.<ref>Aikhenvald 2004, p. 358.</ref>

Evidentials also show that being precise and stating the source of one's information is extremely important in the language and the culture. Failure to use them correctly can lead to diminished standing in the community. Speakers are aware of the evidentials and even use proverbs to teach children the importance of being precise and truthful. Precision and information source are of the utmost importance. They are a powerful and resourceful method of human communication.<ref>Aikhenvald 2004, p. 380.</ref>
[[File:Acta Independencia argentina quechua.jpg|thumb|Act of Argentine Independence, written in Spanish and Quechua (1816)]]