Strange use of Quapaw article/aux.

[Koontz John E]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote:
> If he found the time, he visited you.
> The time being found, he visited you.
>
> =>
>
> It seems that he found the (*the*) time.  (The evidence is the visit.)
>
> Or from the footprint example.
>
> It seems that there were some (*khe*) footprints.  (They could be seen.)
>
> By extension (maybe):
>
> It seems that they went that way (*khe*)  (The evidence is the implicit
> line of footprints.)

The main problem with this sort of analysis is that in the 'when' uses the
order is [reason]=when, consequence, but in the evidential uses the order
is [consequence]=EVID, where the set of 'when' and EVID markers are the
same.  The "evidence" may appear in the consequence clause, or be
implicit, but it seems strange that the development isn't more like
DEM=when [consequence].  That is, how does the EVID marker hop to the end
of the main clause?

JEK