A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ...

The speaker is relying on two types of evidence in making her deductive statement in
(119). First, she can visibly see the kids getting darker. Second, it is her past personal
experience that Ojibwe kids get darker when playing in the sun. Therefore, again, her use
of naa in this example cannot be a hedge (as one might argue), but a statement deduced
from both the visual evidence and personal experience. There is no doubt about the fact
that the Ojibwe kids will become darker over time, and the use of naa here allows the
speakers to express this deductive knowledge.
The following example shows that speakers may use naa in making deductive
statements based upon residual evidence of an event, rather than from actually witnessing
it. For example, in one story, some butchered snapping turtles were stolen from a barrel
inside a cabin. Because the speaker did not actually see who or what took and ate the
snapping turtles, he could only deduce what must have happened based upon the
evidence, i.e. turtles are gone, big footsteps spotted around the cabin, and a broken
window. He then makes the following assertions, all accented by naa.
(120) Evidentiary function of naa (Kegg 1991:90-91)
a) “Awegwenag naa.
I don’t know who they are DM
b) Wenda-gichi-mamaangizidewag naa ingiw.
they have very big feet DM those
c) Mii iidog naa gaa-izhi-niigoshkamowaad i'iw waasechigan,” ikido…
that DUB DM then they broke it that window say
a) ‘“I don’t know what they are [naa].
b) They [naa] have really big feet.
c) They must [naa] have broken the window,” he said…’
190