the evidential??

[roger]

Does anyone else hear Mo'at say lehú hasey when she tries to transfer Grace and then Jake, just after Neytiri says ma sa'nok ? I'm wondering if that <eh> could be the evidential infix.

[Lance R. Casey]

Yes, I do. And yes, it might!

[Ftiafpi]

hmmm, except perhaps it's fì'u hasey

[ikngopyu]

I confirm that she seems to say "lehu hasey" not "fi'u hasey" 
That <eh> could be an evidential (as said by Roger) or an injunctive infix.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

hmmm, except perhaps it's fì'u hasey

It ought to be fìkem shouldn't it?

Because of that, I'm inclined to think that it is lehu hasey but that the <eh> is not the evidential but is something else that we don't know or a pronunciation error/us all mishearing it and then being prepared to hear <eh>.

[Ftiafpi]

hmmm, except perhaps it's fì'u hasey

It ought to be fìkem shouldn't it?

Because of that, I'm inclined to think that it is lehu hasey but that the <eh> is not the evidential but is something else that we don't know or a pronunciation error/us all mishearing it and then being prepared to hear <eh>.

Yeah, the more I think about it the more I remember it not sounding like 'fì'u'. Anyway, it's definitely interesting.

[roger]

For Jake, it sounds like luhu asey in the Spanish dub and lu əsey in the French dub.

[Tseyk Tìriuä]

it does kinda sound like lehu and it would make sense, as shes observing the event

[wm.annis]

it does kinda sound like lehu and it would make sense, as shes observing the event

In the Language Log article the only thing Frommer says about the evidential(s) is, "second-position infixes indicate speaker attitude—positive orientation, negative orientation, or uncertainty/indirect knowledge."  A direct evidential may not exist.

[roger]

it does kinda sound like lehu and it would make sense, as shes observing the event

In the Language Log article the only thing Frommer says about the evidential(s) is, "second-position infixes indicate speaker attitude—positive orientation, negative orientation, or uncertainty/indirect knowledge."  A direct evidential may not exist.

I was assuming an inferential: "It is (it appears) finished." Mo'at won't know until she examines Grace/Jake whether her attempt has worked. And it the case of Grace, it hasn't.

I would guess that if s.o. had put bread in the oven, and you come in and it smells done, you might be able to say lehu hasey for that too.

[Prrton]

I asked him. He said it's just « Lu hasey » (perhaps slightly mispronounced). I heard « lehu hasey » the last time I saw the film too (Wednesday). But, alas, « -eh- » for "inferential" as such does not exist.

The question of the "evidential" for "uncertainty/indirect knowledge" is still an open question. I didn't probe. We'd need it in writing, etc. I suggest that either roger or wm.annis ask him.

[omängum fra'uti]

Doesn't seem like an open question anymore.

[roger]

Yes, following up, the EVID is <ats>. Thread can be closed.