Editing Quechuan languages (section)

====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)}}