The crosslinguistic concept of evidentiality, discriminating between direct and indirect knowledge, does not account for the Tibetic system, where the domain of direct is split up between external direct knowledge, based on immediate sense perception, and internal direct knowledge, based on acquaintance, control/ volition, responsibility, and/ or authority or active involvement.With the so-called 'factual' copula and auxiliary red (or equivalents), several Tibetic languages also differentiate assertions, which are said to be neutral with respect to evidentiality. Ladakhi does not seem to have a corresponding counterpart. However, many 'factual' usages of red as a copula could possibly be translated by the compound auxiliary inok of the Central Ladakhi dialects and its siblings' ɦinak, ɦindak, ɦinɖak, and intsuk elsewhere. Nevertheless, inok & siblings do not present events neutrally, but express a speaker's distanced attitude towards the content and the addressee and, logically, express the expected attitude of the addressee in questions. One important function of inok & siblings is to shift the focus from the speaker and his or her knowledge to the addressee and the latter's knowledge or interest. The exact value of this attitude may vary considerably according to the context and sociopragmatic constraints, some of the latter also being dialect specific. The various functions of Ladakhi inok & siblings may shed light on the perhaps not so neutral character of red (and its equivalents) and, more generally, on how 'evidential' the 'evidential' systems in Tibetic languages (and languages under Tibetic influence) actually are.