>From: Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
>To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
>Subject: Re: New language Noygwexaal
>Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:40:29 +0100
>How do you distinguish 'direct report' from 'hearsay'? Qthyn|gai does
>not do this [1] -- it generally seems impossible for the listener to
>decide at least if evidence is optional. Is it if the reporter uses
>'direct knowledge' that you are allowed to use 'direct report', but if
>he uses 'direct report', you'd need 'hearsay'? What if evidence is
>missing in the report?
>
>From Qthyn|gai, I explicitly eliminated any levels of hearsay, since I
>didn't want politicians to have a means of expressing 'from liable
>sources' in grammar. :-) Futher, anything you know from media is
>'hearsay' in Qthyn|gai, never 'directly witnessed'. [2]
so most people would use the "hearsay" form when talking about the
existance of Antarctica, the nuclear bomb, and the War on Terrorism?
just wondering.
>I love evidentiality! :-)
yeah, its neat...D-3 may have a form of it...eventually. :)