I also went through the existing words, and decided to statistically bias some of them back towards slightly shorter variations, and therefor slightly shorter sentences, as a response to the feedback I regularly get about some of the sentences being too wordy. You’ll see the same in the earlier example, where we have some sets using the same short word twice to boost the chance of that word being selected (this is of course not an especially elegant way to do it, but let’s be honest: my programming is not known for its elegance). This should ensure that sentences will tend to be just a little shorter and a little less wordy, and I’m going to continue this trend of chopping out irrelevant words whilst maintaining sentence variety – though this is a tricky balance to strike.
To build upon that, one can assume scholars, priests, and some bureaucrats might use lengthier descriptions/sentences in general.
Or, a GREAT way to figure out someone's affinity: if you ask me about something random, you won't get much out of me. Ask me about a topic I like, and... Well... *points to wall of text in last comment*
If you're conversing with random person #12 and suddenly their answers go from curt to holy-shit-that-was-in-depth, chances are you struck a chord of which they're either highly knowledgeable or highly opinionated.
Thus, some guy from the culture who praises Keshua may give you the expected greeting out of custom, but a hardline fundamentalist or thoroughly devout follower might betray their religious zeal by adding more flavor and depth to anything that warrants a response based on faith.
The same goes for insults, compliments, and other questions.
Once you put in personality traits, someone with anger issues may go all-the-fuck-out with insults and threats, or be more likely to default to such things. Their opinion of you may be harder to shift into the positive, but far easier to sway toward the negative.
A kind, compassionate, humble, etc. insert-nice-guy-meme-here individual might be overly gentle and tread carefully in negative territory more as a general behavioral bias, and less a sign of implicit context.
I'm sure we all know people who will rarely mention something negative, but still hold negative or even aggressive opinions. All the same, there are those who will always find something negative to say about anything, and default to that.
Some people, well, they're just quiet. Or whatever the opposite of verbose is. They'll say far less, but not necessarily rush you to end the conversation. This accounts for people who aren't necessarily in some great rush to get elsewhere, but still have a solid reason for why they talk as they do.
Others, never shut the hell up. We ALL know someone like this. Get the bastard talking and you'll be the one having to suddenly remember an appointment.
OH. That reminds me.
How you choose to greet, or say goodbye to someone *should* have an impact on their opinion of you, and shift their behavior.
You could secretly be a follower of the Cult of Lazarus, which everyone hates. You *could* use that in a greeting, if you so choose to deviate from the basic *click greeting*, to test their opinion or see if your hunch about them also being a hidden cultist - and thus potential ally or source of information - is correct. Or, you just want to piss that self-righteous prick off. Who knows. If you get him to attack you, you have an excuse to defend yourself. Scratch one inconvenience, and without the law getting on your back.
If your cult is legal, they have no defense. Their opinion alone does not constitute an applicable reason to attack someone, so you effectively just baited them into criminal activity by taking advantage of their personal or cultural beliefs and opinions.
Good job!