The epistemic auxiliary

6.1 The compulsory assertion pattern

Core. A finite assertion requires:

subject + agreeing EF auxiliary + strength + evidential + predicate.

The auxiliary expresses the utterance's epistemic commitment. It agrees with the grammatical subject of the clause, including an expletive es. Agreement does not determine whose beliefs the clause represents. EF always belongs to the speaking voice; section 7.5 specifies quoted and translated voices.

The shape ef can be motivated as a fictional erosion associated with efshar “perhaps/possibly.” Its paradigm and compulsory use are conlang inventions. It is not an attested Yiddish evidential conjugation.

6.2 Mood rather than a synonym for believe

“The light is on” and “I believe the light is on” are different propositions. The first receives epistemic marking without inserting a lexical belief report. The second can also be expressed, but now the speaker is asserting something about a person's mental state.

Dos likht ef⁺⁶=zen brenen.

“The light is on, +6 bits, on perceptual evidence.”

Ikh ef-av=zikh gleybn tsit [dos likht brent] oys.

“I believe that the light is on, +10 bits about my having that belief, by introspection.”

The second sentence does not by itself supply the believer's numerical credence in the light being on. It reports a belief. To give both numbers, separately assess the light's state in the believer's speaking voice. For another person's belief, this requires an attributed voice frame; an indirect complement alone does not transfer EF ownership.

6.3 Tense and time

Core baseline, made explicit here. EF does not inflect for past versus future. Its number normally describes the current assessment. Time belongs to the event predicate and context.

The perfect auxiliary follows the inherited lexical choice: hobn or zayn. The earlier essay often places that auxiliary after the participle. This reference retains that nonfinite ordering as its convention.

An old belief is a separate matter. “Yesterday I assigned +2 bits to H” is an autobiographical assertion about yesterday's credence; it does not make +2 the current credence in H. Use a dated belief record or a reporting clause.

6.4 Aspect, ability, obligation, and passive voice

Core. Lexical aspect and ordinary modals remain under EF. In Es ef⁺³=pon shvimen kenen, +3 concerns the referent's ability to swim, not whether that person will swim on this occasion. In Es ef⁺²=pon kumen darfn, +2 concerns an asserted need or obligation. Issuing the instruction to come instead uses tu.

Aspect may be conveyed lexically: oyfhern “stop,” onheybn “begin,” or an explicitly proposed technical paraphrase. No compulsory perfective versus imperfective paradigm is added at this stage. A passive can use the inherited participle with nonfinite vern: Dos tekst ef⁺⁴=zog ibergezetst vern, “the text is being translated / gets translated, +4, by report,” with time supplied by context.

This approach avoids making EF responsible for every verbal distinction. It is obligatory epistemic mood, not a replacement for the entire verb phrase.

6.5 Negation

Core distinction. Negating the proposition and assigning negative log-odds are distinct operations:

Es ef⁻²=pon regenen. — P(rain) = 0.2.

Es ef⁺²=pon nit regenen. — P(not rain) = 0.8.

Those are equivalent when the proposition, time, and context match. But Es ef⁻²=pon nit regenen assigns only 0.2 to “not rain,” favoring rain. A negative number is not an extra spoken nit.

Keyn remains available for negative noun phrases, and inherited negative concord is not interpreted as mathematical double negation by default. To discuss logical ¬¬H, display a formal expression or a clearly delimited proposition. Always establish the actual proposition before applying its bit value.

6.6 Ellipsis and short answers

Core. A recoverable proposition may be omitted, but its epistemic complex remains: Ef-un-av=pon. This is the answer in the opening of “Feeling Rational.” It assigns −10 bits to the proposition just asked about.

Core agreement rule. An elliptical answer retains the agreement that its reconstructed clause would require. With a recoverable plural subject, efn remains plural. A standalone impersonal proposition can use default third-person ef.

“Yes” and “no” alone can acknowledge that a message was heard, or accept/refuse a request, under an interactional operator. If they answer a factual question, the numerical commitment is still required. Ellipsis must not become a way to leave every assertion unmarked.

6.7 Quantified modals

Core construction; conventional scale anchors. A quantified modal is an invariant bound stem plus a degree. It occurs in the nonfinite predicate under EF. It does not take person endings: Du efst⁺⁶=pon kumen zol-dra, not du ef or zolst-dra. The schematic order is subject + EF(bits)=evidence + complements + lexical infinitive + modal-degree. Fronting follows the ordinary V2 rule. One finite EF assesses the resulting modal proposition.

This creates two distinct numerical fields: b, confidence in the assessment, and d, the modal degree assessed. Neither determines the other. Zol-dra means recommendation grade 3, not a three-bit probability and not a forecast that the action will happen. Written pedagogical zol[3] and compact zol-dra are equivalent; the latter reads “zol dra.” The ordinary digit system applies. In zol-un-dra, the bound sign makes the degree negative; the hyphen in zol-dra alone is a word boundary, not a minus sign.

The roots are inherited; the bound forms, scale semantics, and invariant behavior are conlang rules. Source-language references include uses of zol, kenen, and darfn. Ordinary nonquantified kenen, darfn, viln, and zoln remain possible under EF. The quantified construction always supplies its degree: an omitted number is not silently 0 or 3. It is not compulsory to quantify every lexical modal in Version 0. Assertions still always require numerical EF and an evidential.

Default anchors. For zol and vil, 0 means neutrality between the specified alternatives; magnitudes 1, 3, 6, and 9 mean slight, substantial, very strong, and highest conventional strength. Negative values reverse the direction of recommendation or desire between A and B. Intermediate integers are ordered intermediate grades. They are ordinal judgments: degree 6 is not twice degree 3. Grade 9 is the top of this conventional scale, not infinite moral importance, infinite desire, or certain action.

For ken, anchors 0, 3, 6, and 9 mean no capacity at the defined task under the stated conditions, limited capacity, competent capacity, and the top of the declared task rubric; 1–2, 4–5, and 7–8 occupy the intervening bands. A listening or swimming rubric must specify what its levels count as. Ken-nu does not assert metaphysical impossibility, and absence of evidence for ability is not automatically grade 0. For darf, 0 means no need relative to the selected goal, 3 material need, 6 very strong need, and 9 indispensable within the stated requirement model. A need is not automatically a moral obligation or permission. These anchors are an assessment convention, not measured universal thresholds.

Scope. In the default categorical interpretation, the proposition under EF is grade_S(A, B, subject, conditions) = d. EF gives the speaking voice's credence in that classification. The standard S and comparison may be contextually recoverable but must be restated when contested. For zol, the speaking voice supplies the evaluation unless a standard is named; vil and ken concern the grammatical subject's desire or ability. The assessor still remains the speaking voice. A bound such as “at least grade 3” is a different proposition and must explicitly state the bound. Neither a negative EF value nor lexical nit automatically reverses a modal degree.

Du efst⁺⁶=pon kumen zol-dra.

דו עפֿסט⁺⁶=פּאָן קומען זאָל־דראַ.

“You should come, recommendation grade 3; I give 64:1 odds to that assessment, by inference.” The comparison is coming versus not coming in the stated situation. This is an assertion of a recommendation. Tu kum performs a directive instead.

Zey ef⁺²=zog shvimen ken-zek.

זײ עף⁺²=זאָג שװימען קען־זעק.

“That person has swimming ability grade 6 under the agreed rubric; I give 4:1 odds to that classification, by report.” The 6 measures ability grade; the 2 measures confidence. It supplies no probability of swimming tomorrow.

Technical measurements. A named scale replaces the default ordinal scale only when explicitly introduced. The analytical form zol(S; x) is read zol loyt S [number x]; the brackets here indicate a numerical expression in metalanguage, not an utterance frame. A technical scale S can define x = (EU(A) − EU(B)) / u₀, naming the evaluator, utility function, alternatives, background, and positive utility unit u₀. A value of 3 then means three declared utility units of expected advantage. It is not interchangeable with ordinary zol-dra. Keep ordinary quantities and EF bits separate. Exact zero and one on a modal or measurement scale are allowed.

A point-valued continuous measurement should state its reporting precision, for example “rounds to 3 units”; do not accidentally require positive probability of equality to one exact real number in a continuous uncertainty model. The categorical default grades avoid that issue. Numerical ranges can express explicitly unresolved assessments, with their intended interpretation stated; they are not automatically credible intervals.

Composition and limits. Do not stack several bare quantified modals and guess their scope. Use separate EF clauses or an explicitly bracketed predicate in technical notation. Ability, desire, need, recommendation, and permission remain separate. Permission under a rule can be expressed using inherited torn or an explicit rule statement; a larger darf grade does not confer permission. There is no general additive law for modal grades. Adding two evidence increments in bits and comparing two utility differences are different operations.