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