Part 4 · grammar — Chapter 16 · evidentiality

Direct experience hi

The particle hi marks information as directly witnessed through the speaker's own senses. The speaker was there, perceived the event, and can vouch for it personally.

Basic usage

mia hi nila. — I see (this). (I am directly witnessing it.) shia to hi wepu. — They left. (I saw them leave.) peloru hi phelora nai. — The flower is beautiful. (I see it myself.)

The hi particle emphasizes that the speaker has firsthand sensory knowledge, not inference, report, or assumption.

When to use hi

An unmarked sentence claims no source. For a present, perceivable event (mia nila, I see), direct perception is the natural assumption, but only hi claims it, and takes on the accountability of the claim. So when is hi worth spending?

Use hi when: - You want to emphasize the directness of your knowledge - The context involves other evidential types and you need to contrast - Your claim might be doubted and you're vouching for it - You're being precise about how you know

shia to wepu. — They left. (simple past) shia to hi wepu. — They left. (I saw it happen.)

The second version explicitly commits to witnessing, which may matter in some contexts (testimony, dispute resolution, important news).

What counts as direct evidence

Direct evidence includes: - Seeing something happen - Hearing something - Feeling, tasting, or smelling something - Any firsthand sensory perception

It does not include: - Seeing signs that something happened (that's inference, ke) - Being told something happened (that's reportative, ti) - Assuming something is probably true (that's assumptive, ho)

The boundary is between "I perceived the event itself" and "I perceived something else that led me to conclude about the event."

Sound and meaning

The hi particle is minimal: just a voiced glide into a bright vowel. It's quick and clear, like pointing at something present. The sound suggests immediacy, the here-and-now quality of direct perception.

Cultural note

Some languages grammatically require evidential marking; speakers cannot make a claim without specifying how they know. Phi doesn't go that far, but it provides the tools for speakers who value epistemic precision. The availability of hi invites reflection: "Have I actually witnessed this? Or am I assuming?"