| 5.2.1 | FAC | The Factual |
The FACTUAL mood signifies that the factuality of the speaker’s statement is certain and that there either is no underlying presupposition to the statement, or if there is, its factuality is also certain or has no bearing on the factuality of the statement. Examples:
His kids are ill. [i.e., it is known he has kids and it is known they are ill]{lo sei fatci panzi be do ku bilma sei fatci}
| 5.2.2 | SUB | The Subjunctive |
The SUBJUNCTIVE mood indicates that the factuality of an explicit or implicit presupposition underlying the statement is certain, but the factuality of the speaker’s statement itself is questionable or uncertain, the specific nuance of factuality intended being subject to the particular Bias and Validation associated with the verb. Corresponds roughly with English ‘may,’ ‘maybe’ or ‘might,’ with the added distinction that an explicit or implicit (i.e., underlying) presupposition is true. Examples:
Maybe his kids are ill. [i.e., it is known that he has kids but it is not known whether they are ill]{lo sei fatci panzi be do ku bilma sei cumki}
| 5.2.3 | ASM | The Assumptive |
The ASSUMPTIVE mood functions identically to the FACTUAL except that the factuality of an underlying presupposition is unknown. It therefore conveys an act, state, or event whose factuality is dependent on whether something else is factual, thus corresponding to certain usages of English ‘maybe’ and ‘will’ (where ‘will’ primarily conveys possibility, not future tense). As with all moods, the specific translation is subject to the particular Bias and Validation associated with the verb. Examples:
His kids’ll be ill OR If he has kids, they are ill. [i.e., it is unknown whether he has kids, but if he does, they are certainly ill.]{lo sei cumki panzi be do ku bilma sei fatci}
| 5.2.4 | SPC | The Speculative |
The SPECULATIVE mood indicates that the factuality of both the presupposition and the statement itself are unknown. Its translation into English is dependent on the specific context, sometimes corresponding to ‘may,’ ‘maybe’ or ‘might,’ and at other times corresponding to the auxiliary ‘would.’ Compare the examples below to those above:
Maybe his kids are ill [i.e., it is unknown if he has kids but if he does, they may be ill].{lo panzi be do ku bilma sei cumki}
| 5.2.5 | COU | The Counterfactive |
The COUNTERFACTIVE mood indicates that the factuality of the underlying presupposition is false or unreal but that the factuality of the statement would otherwise be true. It thus corresponds to the English construction of auxiliary ‘would’ or ‘would have’ in its use to show counterfactuality (i.e., what would have been if a false presupposition had been true). Again, the specific translation is subject to the particular Bias and Validation associated with the verb. Compare the examples below to those above.
His kids would be (would have been) ill [i.e., if he had kids they would be ill, but he doesn’t].{lo sei na fatci panzi be do ku bilma sei fatci}
| 5.2.6 | HYP | The Hypothetical |
The HYPOTHETICAL mood indicates that the factuality of the underlying presupposition is false or unreal and that the factuality of the statement itself is uncertain. It thus corresponds to the English construction of auxiliary ‘might have’ in its use to show possible counterfactuality (i.e., what might have been if a false presupposition had been true). Again, the specific translation is subject to the particular Bias and Validation associated with the verb. Compare the examples below to those above.
His kids might’ve been ill [if he had kids, but he doesn’t, so we’ll never know].{lo sei na fatci panzi be do ku bilma sei cumki}
| 5.2.7 | IPL | The Implicative |
The IMPLICATIVE mood indicates that the factuality of the underlying presupposition determines the factuality of the statement and that the relationship between the two need not necessarily be a direct cause-and-effect, but merely an indirect chain of events from which the speaker infers the statement from the underlying presupposition. In grammatical analysis, this is referred to as an “epistemic conditional.” Examples are shown below.
His kids are (must be) ill [i.e., as implied by some other fact such as his staying home from work].
{lo panzi be do ku bilma sei se sinxa}
{lo panzi be do ku bilma sei se ve djuno}
| 5.2.8 | ASC | The Ascriptive |
The ASCRIPTIVE mood functions identically to the IMPLICATIVE immediately above, except that the factuality of the inference derived from the underlying presupposition is uncertain. Examples:
--
His kids may be ill [i.e., as implied by some other fact such as his staying home from work].{lo panzi be do ku bilma sei se sinxa sei cumki}
{lo panzi be do ku bilma sei se ve djuno sei cumki}