Evidentials usage

To clear up some doubts about evidentials I will clarify some with examples. For instance, how the "obvious evidential" is used. It is the equivalent to the usage we give to tone in this context, "duh!" and the like.

In a given dialogue:

- Chaman koy?
- pilelcha!

This can be translated into:

- What is this?
- Duh! It's a fish! or It's a fish, don't you see it?

Hence the interpretation as a rude or very informal referential. The "fact evidential" is really more neutral, but still informal. While it is common in normal speech, it can be rude using it to someone you don't know or an elder, or someone who deserves respect altogether.

Now the "infamous evidential" always marks someone for something his famous for abusing. For instance if you say qappatal can mean "he is famous for eating" as in "he enjoys it very much". But saying qappatalya will yield the sense "he is famous for eating" as in "he can't stop eating" or "he's a fat-ass". This ending used to be the much more formal, much older form of -l, used about people like the king "his majesty is most famous for defeating his enemies" and over time through popular usage it came to be pejorative but in a sense of excess.

Even if between friends you would tend to use -s the "fact evidential" it would be good to remind that when facing someone's father, for instance, it'd probably be better to use -sha "I believe". Even in the same example as before:

- Chaman koy?
- What is this?
- pilesha.
- I believe it is fish.

While you could answer pile or piles to a friend or acquaintance.

odanibeki las wile.
I'm happy for being with you.