he1
must6 be getting
ready / preparing5 at4
home3 now
2
Unlike -ahi and -le
which occur only in the non-future, kabüizhü(na)mo
and mabüi(ho)mo can occur both in the future and
non-future senses (occurrence in the non-future tense has
already been illustrated):
Further, as mentioned, =ahi
marks the strongest kind of inference, the presumptive evidence
being the most solid and virtually infalliable. The presumptive
evidence in the case of -le is weaker and that in the case
of kabüizhü(na) mo/mabüizhü(ho)mo the most tenuous.
Thus,
134.
1.
pfo-no1 idu2
rü-oi3 -ahi4
2.
pfo-no1 idu2
rü-oi3 le4
3.
pfo-no1 idu2
rü3 kabüizhü(na)mo/mabüizhü(ho)moe4
all mean ‘he1 must4
have written3 yesterday2‘.
But they convey inferences of varying intensity and reliability.
In the case of the first example (-ahi), the presumptive
evidence could, for instance, be that the speaker can recognise
the hand writing of the referent of the subject. In the
case of the second example (le), the speaker, for instance,
saw the subject write something yesterday, but did not look
into/know what it was that the subject was writing. In the
case of the third example (kabüizhü(na)mabüizhü(ho)mo),
the evidence is still less sure: some body, for instance,
has told the speaker that the subject would write whatever
he was to write by yesterday.
It
may be mentioned en passant that the deontic obligative
mood may be confused with the mood of inference because
of the renderings into English where the deontic and inferential
moods are often formally the same. A simple operational
test which is diagnostic of the mood of inference is that
inferential statements typically do not provide for verification,
expressed in the following sentences by the decretive clauses
which follow the statements embodying the two different
moods.
ie1
kabüizhü(na)mo/mabüizhü(ho)mo2
