I think I've decided on a set of evidentials for my future English,
though it's still subject to change at any time.

1. Direct experience: no marker
2. Hearsay:
a)  <peirly> /perli/ (from "apparently")
b) <spouzly> /spozli> (from "supposedly" / "supposably")
3. Inference: <syNly> - replace N with engma /siNli/ (from "seemingly")

<peirly> and <spouzly> are both "hearsay" markers, used for information
gained through words, whether written or spoken.

<spouzly> implies that the speaker is sceptical about the truth of what
they've heard.  <peirly> is neutral towards the truth of the statement;
it does not necessarily imply that the speaker thinks the statement is
true, but refrains from specifically expressing scepticism/disbelief.

<syNly> is used for things that the speaker infers from available
evidence, but has neither experienced directly or been informed of by
words.  This is the evidential you'd use to tell someone that your
roommate is out when you notice that their shoes are gone.

Direct experience is marked by the absence of another evidential -
thus, the other evidentials are required when appropriate.


Oh, other interesting distinctions I thought of making, but didn't
- a distinction within "hearsay" of hearing vs reading
- a distinction within "direct experience" of seeing vs hearing vs other