Hi!
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.
I'm very keen on seeing more about Br'ga, since the structure is
similar to my most current project S11.
> 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
Did you have a look at Lojban evidentials?
The first Google hit found this:
> ja'o I conclude
> [jalge]
> ca'e I define
> ba'a I expect I experience I remember
> [balvi]
> su'a I generalize I particularize
> [sucta]
> ti'e I hear (hearsay)
> [tirna]
> ka'u I know by cultural means
> [kulnu]
> se'o I know by internal experience
> [senva]
> za'a I observe
> [zgana]
> pe'i I opine [pensi]
> ru'a I postulate
> [sruma]
> ju'a I state [jufra]
I assume the [...] show a root they are derived from.
My conlang Qthyn|gai has a combined categorie of evidence/mood with
the following options:
Evidences:
fact
belief
experience ; participation
perception
knowledge ; general ~ of the speaker
intuition
instinct
conclusion
declaration
hearsay
Moods:
interrogative
imperative
suggestive
optative
conditional
consequential
HTH,
**Henrik