Re: Evidentials

You could distinguish the sensory source of the evidence, e.g. between sight 
and hearing. For example, you might have a form for "It rained yesterday (I 
saw the drops falling)" and another for "It rained yesterday (I heard the 
drops hitting the roof)". I've read that this distinction is made in a 
Native Californian language, which I can't remember the name of.

 On 9/1/05, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote: 
> 
> I'm thinking about bringing optional evidentials into Br'ga, which is also
> going to go through a massive vowel-simplification[*].
> 
> I want a lot of them, preferably aranged in some kind of byzantine,
> roccoco structure that defies a simple grid.
> 
> I don't yet know the semantic roles I'm going to have. This is a result of
> the comingling of cases and verbs in the language. However I think I want
> to start with something like:
> 
> I know because I was the Agent
> I know because I was the Patient
> I know because I was the Benefactor
> (likewise for other roles)
> I know because I was a witness
> I know because I was told by the Agent/Patient/witness/etc, maybe with
> strength of trust in what was told
> I know from examining the Agent/Patient/etc, maybe with strength of
> inference
> 
> What other forms and functions should I be considering?
> 
> 
> [*]Simply because I can't readily pronounce some of the CVC sequences I
> ended up allowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul
> 


-- 
http://www.geocities.com/rodionraskolnikov2000/