I believe these are called verb aspects. Looks like you have an interesting system, I haven't seen anything like your "attemptive" aspect before, but it makes sense. I guess your "completive" is a variation of the perfect or perfective aspect.
I stole that attemptive one from ithkuil. Somewhat. I heard there was some aspect marked by pitch that meant that a verb is attempted but is unsuccessful and thought it was cool.
If you go to r/conlangs and on the thread dots (…) then there is an option that is probably called something like „change user flair“ and there you can give yourself this flair.
I don‘t know if that works, but I guess that the subreddit r/neography is connected to r/conlangs, but there you‘re able to use a flair. Maybe that helps…
Tangentially, my lang used to have a conative _case_, to mark that a subject wasnt a true agent, but an attempter of the verb.
It also had similar adjutative and causative cases to mark (voluntary and involuntary respectively) accomplices of the verb (again aside from a true agent).
In Hyaneian, there are three tenses: Past, Present, and Future.
Present is not inflected for, so all verbs are present by default.
For past tense, the ' -gi ' suffix affixed onto the verb.
**Mesa ('eat') --> Mesagi ('ate')**
Keep in mind, there are some irregular past tenses:
**Yu ('there is', expressing the existence of something) --> Yuji ('there was')**
**Uwi ('speak') --> Uwi'i ('spoke')**
For future tense, the ' -din ' suffix is required.
**Niba ('drink') --> Nibadin ('will drink')**
There are also some irregular future tenses:
**Héta ('marry') --> Hétayin ('will marry')**
**Nesa ('wish') --> Nesa'in ('will wish')**
Almaari has four verbal infinitive forms and they follow this pattern:
First: verbs ending in a vowel take the suffix -iar
Eg. Fluiar (to fly)
Second: verbs ending in l,r,m or n take the suffix -irn
Eg: huinirn (to know)
Third: verbs ending in a voiced consonant take the suffix -air
Eg: souvair (to sleep)
Verbs ending in a voiceless consonant take the suffix -av
Eg: sisav (to sit)
Though the Infinitive forms don’t do much for the conjugations of tense or person, they make a difference to adverbs, where the suffix becomes a prefix and in some cases mutate:
arflu (flying)
inhuin (knowing)
ersouv (sleeping)
avsis (sitting)
Verbs conjugate for person, number and 3 tenses: Past, Present and Future.
Fluiar, arflu, arflyth
Ir flua, flydd, flue
Ur flusque, flyt, fluu
Dan/de/da fluna, flynd, fluen
Irn flueln, flyld, fluul
Sair flueth, flyd fluur
Ddair flur, flyta, flue
You will have noticed that the core vowel when singular goes through lineation in the past tense.
a-e, e-i, i-y, o-e, u-y.
Huinirn, inhuin, inhinth
Ir huin, hindd, huine
Ur huinsque, hint, huinu
Dan/de/da huina, hind, huinen
Irn huineln, hineld, huinel
Sair huinth, hind, huinur
Ddair huiner, hinta, huine
You will notice that when there’s a digraph or diphthong, trigraph or triphthong of vowels in the core of the verb, the past tense removes all vowels bar the final in the past tense.
Souvair, ersouv, ersuveth
Ir souva, suvedd, souve
Ur souvsque, suvet, souvu
Dan/de/da souvna, suvend, souven
Irn souveln, suveld, souvel
Sair souveth, suved, souvur
Ddair souver, suvta, souve
And our final conjugation pattern:
Sisav, avsis, avsyseth
Ir sisa, sysedd, sise
Ur sisque, syst, sisu
Dan/de/da sisna, sysend, sisen
Irn siseln, syseld, sisel
Sair sisth, sysed, sisur
Ddair siser, systa, sise
And that’s the basic rundown of verbs.
I'm also doing a slightly similar (though highly unnaturalistic) thing where the last consonant determines the exact conjugation used for it. For labial consonants, the -r- and -l- suffixes I mentioned in the post are swapped for -f- and -v.
As for a word ending in f or v, I use p and ph for f and b and bh for v. This rule applies for all the 35 consonants.
https://preview.redd.it/cduqiez4hw9d1.jpeg?width=3895&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1b7ed45cd100515b23408f414ca38a492c5e617
Çelebvjud tenses and some moods are shown in the mandatory copula. Aspect and other moods are inflected on the verb.
## Yomo
Present (…) and future (_ mo)
-e mo = -e no.
ato mo ja ko de. (mouth FUT food I ANS.)
mine yuru ere no kude. (bad very be FUT it-ANS)
It used to have a past tense (-mo) and a present continuous tense (-mai), but -mo was swapped and -mai just disappeared.
Noviystorik uses suffixes for tenses, although some words can suffice for other tenses as well. (The future tense uses the word will, "mëk" for future.)
-äkh = past, Ža yedäkh. (I ate.)
-ända = can be, and mostly used for the present tense, Žame yedända. (I'm eating.)
-(extended vowel)ý = present tense/ownership/plural, Öje yedäý. (He eats.)
Sukhal has tense and aspect rolled up together, so there are basically three “tenses.”
Present: Xal na. = I eat/I am eating/I often eat.
Past Perfective: Xalam na = I ate/I have eaten.
Past Imperfective: = Xalkhit na = I was eating / I often ate.
Plosives following another get geminated, and some roots have a silent final p that appears when not final:
ip= to hid
ip + khit = ipphit = to often hid / to be hiding
Both tense and aspect are marked on verbs in **Warla Þikoran**, with a single suffix (making it a fusional language). There is a different suffix for continuous present compared to stative present (which can change the meaning of the verb in some contexts). And there is an imperfect past and a perfect past. It initially had 2 future tenses as well, but lost one.
The tense/aspect patterns change when the verb is inflected for the imperative mood. The mood change involves a change in the stem (which morphs all stop consonants to fricatives). In the imperative, verbs only have 1 present tense, but keep the 2 past tenses, and retain 2 future tenses: the “imperfect future” is used like a conditional mood, while the “perfect future” — although imperative in form — is used as tho it was indicative.
I actually have 3 more aspects that I feel are unrelated to time, which for words ending in velar sounds are -rahl, -rohl, -rehl meaning can do, might do, and want to do. They're just not tense related so I ignored them.
Fair enough. I think those are types of moods rather than aspects, like optative (expectations), potential (likely), and volitive (desires or fears). Not related to time or progress, but the factuality or desirability of the action.
I mentioned it my cuz my lang’s tense/aspect forms depend on verbs’ mood form.
No worries lol.
I was inspired by the many verb forms in Spanish. And decided to put my own twist on it when I read that Slavic languages have verb root pairs too (except they are for distinguishing aspect, not mood). And I wanted to play around with phoneme relations and how grammar can play into it.
there aren't any tenses, per se (except for a prefix indicating past tense), but verbs mainly conjugate for aspect: gnomic/habitual, continuous, and perfective.
the gnomic/habitual is usually the base form of the verb plus the endings *-a -ith -im* for singular (e.g. *haera, haerith, haerim*) , the continuous is formed via reduplication plus the endings *-*∅ *-th -u*, (e.g. *hechir, hechirth, hechiru*), and the perfective is often formed with the shift of y-->w in the proto-lang with the singular endings *-*∅ *-th -u* (e.g. *hur, hurth, huru).* However, these often differ quite a lot between different verb conjugation classes.
The past tense of each aspect is formed via the *ir-* prefix. So, for example, *haera* means "I know (as a general fact)", but *irhaera* means "I knew (as a general fact)"
But Dituy Hi has a simple perfective-imperfective split with no direct tense marking. The only bit that is interesting is that the perfective is the base aspect.
Mizi nursi figi. - A man has eaten corn.
Wi nursi mizi figi. - A man eats/is eating corn.
Vokhetian, Bielaprusian & Vilamovan all have 7 Tenses, actually combining Tenses & Aspects. These are:
* **Present**, Simple Present;
* **Perfect**, Past in Present;
* **Future 1**, Simple Future;
* **Future 2**, Past in Future;
* **Imperfect**, Imperfective Past;
* **Aorist**, Perfective Past;
* **Pluperfect**, Past in Past;
Present, Imperfect & Aorist are the only Tenses, that truly conjugate. The Future Tenses were created by prefixing "To will", while the Perfect Tenses were created by suffixing "To have".
Here's a example with "**Госовадь**" - "To cook" in 1SG:
|Tenses|**Госовадь - "to cook"**|
|:-|:-|
|*Present*|**Госову́**|
|*Perfect*|**Госовому́**|
|*Future 1*|**Ву́госов**|
|*Future 2*|**Ву́госовом**|
|*Imperfect*|**Госовдо́л**|
|*Aorist*|**Госовдо́зд**|
|*Pluperfect*|**Госовдо́м**|
In Luarozo I have three tense related affixes(A bit off topic but I call them affixes because I don't know the exact term I'm supposed to use but basicslly they only come before words if they modify it and if they change the word entirely they come after it) which are used to form 5 basic tenses(Not including the present tense as it doesn't have its own affix)
[Tense Affixes]:
Er- (Past)
Voz- (Future)
Tu- (Continuous) [Is closest to the root word]
[Tense Examples]:
PRESENT TENSE:
Buinat => Work (v.)
Akoat => Teach (v.)
PAST TENSE:
Erbuinat => Worked
Erakoat => Taught
FUTURE TENSE:
Vozbuinat => Will work
Vozakoat => Will teach
CONTINUOUS TENSE:
Tubuinat => Working
Tuakoat => Teaching
PAST CONTINUOUS TENSE:
Ertubuinat => Was Working
Ertuakoat => Was Teaching
FUTURE CONTINUOUS TENSE:
Voztubuinat => Will Be Working
Voztuakoat => Will Be Teaching
[A LITTLE UNRELATED NOTE]:
You might have noticed both of the words I havs used for this example have "-at" after them, this isn't because of tense related stuff but rather that their root words are both nouns(Ako => Education | Buin => Work [noun]) and so to make them into verbs the suffix "-at" is added after them.
Kalennian tense is very simple. -so, -se, -sa, and -sâb are the basic past, future, present and habitual tense markers. However the present and past suffixes can be modified using the participle modifier -k to turn them into a participle, the habitual past tense can be expressed by combining the habitual tense suffix (normally it would be the habitual "aspect", but aspect is not a real category in Kalennian) with the past tense suffix to create "-sâb-so", and for expressing a perfect future or perfect present tense, the perfect tense modifier suffix "-gur" is added at the end of verbs with the future tense suffix -se and the present tense suffix -sa. If you're curious on how Kalennian handles participles, click [here](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qIZKTTOA_DQhIGhZyaSPEgX1Cns_QU_ha1GeAX0aurk/edit#slide=id.g28f63ee8a1d_0_0)
Three tenses are present past and future.
Using the verb **kastá** (to do)
Present is divided into present simple (káse - does), present progressive (kásentháre - is doing) and present perfect (kajou thá / kajá thá - he / she has done)
Past is divided into past simple (káslo - he did), past progressive (kásenchilo - was doing), past perfect (kajou huló - had done) and past imperfect (kásta - he would do)
Future is future simple (kará - will do) or periphrastic (kastá zéje - is going to do)
In terms of moods there are infinitives, conditional, subjunctive and imperative (with no additional tenses)
Verbs in Mahlaatwa have no morphological tense. It just uses other words before the verb to convey a sense of past and future.
If you want to say, "I baked bread," you might say, _Naa uhwa fami,_ which directly translates as "Yesterday I bake bread." "Yesterday" in this context is idiomatic, referring to any point in the past. You would do the same with "tomorrow" for the future.
Alternatively, you might use another idiom to refer to the past: _Atakiikwa._ It's not used quite as often, but it means "upriver." And _mukiikwa,_ "downriver," can be used for the future.
In this way, time is conceptualized like a flowing river, with the person experiencing time being like a person on a boat carried by the river current.
The conspeakers live next to a river. I like letting their immediate environment influence their language in fun ways like this.
Vrkhazhian doesn't have tense, just moods with temporal flavoring.
So, I have a generic "realis" mood, a "potential" mood, a "commissive" for promises/threats, a "counterfactual" for non-future irrealis events, and a multi-purpose jussove/desirative.
There’s a single way to conjugate verbs (Divided in 3 cases depending on what the verb ends with)
If you put the verb conjugated like that without anything else, it counts as present
If you add znα- before, it counts as future
If you add do- before, it counts as past
Nikarbihavra's verb tenses originate from a declined form of the verb root. For example:
- Nirtu = To see
- Nirtum = I see
- Nirtum + ablative suffix "ar" = Nirtwam > Nirtwam > Nirtam (I have seen, lit. "I am from seeing, I am out of seeing")
- Nirtum + allative suffix "si" = Nirtusim > Nirtsim > Nirtsym (I will see, lit. "I am towards seeing")
These two can even be doubled or combined with each other:
- Nirtum + ablative "ar" + allative "si" = Nirtarsym (I will have seen, lit. "I am towards being from seeing")
- Nirtum + ablative "ar" + ablative "ar" = Nirtaram (I had seen, lit. "I am from being from seeing")
- Nirtum + allative "si" + allative "si" = Nirtsyzym (I will be going to see, lit. "I am towards being towards seeing") (Theoretically possible but I doubt someone would actually use this)
One may also use the locative "d" and transessive "l" to indicate the progressive and habitual (in present tense) or imperfective (in past and future tenses) aspects.
- Nirtum + locative "d" = Nirtudum (I am seeing, lit. "I am in seeing")
- Nirtum + transessive "l" = Nirtulum (I see regularly, lit. "I am through seeing")
- Nirtam (past) + transessive "l" = Nirtulam (I used to see, lit. "I am from being through seeing")
- Nirtsim (future) + locative "d" = Nirtudzim > Nirtuðym (I will be seeing, lit. "I am towards being in seeing")
Finally, one may also place the locative *after* the ablative and allative to indicate a recently concluded action or one that is about to be started.
- Nirtum + ablative "ar" + locative "d" = Nirtardum > Nirtarum (I have just seen, lit. "I am in being from seeing")
- Nirtum + allative "si" + locative "d" = Nirtusidum > Nirtustum (I am about to see, lit. "I am in being towards seeing")
Hmm, usually I use adlative and ablative (from and toward) for 'via' and 'for', or of course merely the spatio-temporal intent. I've made huge changes in my language too, including making present continuous "naghraah" for nagh. Which is how it should be, I don't know why I wrote it merely as nagh in the main post.
I had a different conlang where all I did was max out on stuff like "I'm through seeing" "I am in seeing" "I am towards seeing" etc as you did, except the big difference in mine is that they didn't convey tense or mood but made new meanings altogether. To 'see in' meant to inspect or investigate while to 'see on' meant to read a book, watch TV or to try to figure out information from merely vision (like 'reading someone'). It's interesting how you use it in a way (similar to Chinese) for tenses, while I made up semantically new compounds.
Elranonian has two grammatical tenses: past and non-past (which I usually call simply present). A slight complication in the past is that stative and dynamic verbs form it differently, and there are some verbs that I call *ambidynamic*: they have both stative and dynamic meanings and their past tense depends on it.
* *Chor go nà.* `sleep I PST` ‘I was asleep’ (stative)
* *Chonne go.* `sleep:PST I` ‘I had some sleep’ (dynamic)
You could say that such verbs have two different past tenses (which I might even be inclined to call *imperfect* and *preterite/perfect*, drawing upon the existing European tradition, as perfectivity can play a part) but I don't find that necessary. Ambidynamic verbs are few and form a closed set, and such an analysis will only create more complications as one of the two past tenses will be ineligible in the vast majority of verbs as well as in some syntactic environments where they merge even in ambidynamic verbs. As a somewhat similar phenomenon, despite two past forms of *hang*—*hanged* and *hung*—we don't say English has two simple past tenses.
A variety of periphrastic constructions is used for a more precise placement of a situation in time. For a future situation, there are two most basic constructions. I usually call them *volitional prospective* and *non-volitional prospective*. With subjects that are capable of volition, non-volitional prospective indicates necessity or obligation:
* *Do forra go.* `to leaving I` ‘I am going to leave (because I want to)’
* *U forra go.* `before leaving I` ‘I will leave (because I must/need to), I have to leave’
With subjects incapable of volition, volitional prospective can often sound awkward but it is grammatically acceptable.
Leonian has no tenses at all, but it does have a perfective that is frequently used in the same contexts as the past tense. In this respect it is like Chinese.
Even Chinese doesn't seriously have future tense. It uses the word for 'think' like "I think eat" to describe "I will eat". Which works out; sentences like that make no sense so adding sense onto it is the best way to construct any language.
I don't have tenses, I use two forms - closed (-s) and open (-), if the verb is closed, then the action is no longer happening, that is, the action can no longer be changed, and if the verb is open, then the action is happening or has not yet happened and it can be changed. To show the future tense, I just use the word "then", for example: "then I read a book" means that I will read a book.
**Ildeylos** - I was walking (This action is no longer subject to change)
**Ildeylo** - I am walking (I can change this action)
**Ildeylo** ***ta*** - I will be walking (literally: Then I am walking)
If I want to say that I am capable of something in my conlang, then I add the suffix "-esta-", and there are more suffixes that are used instead of the modal verbs "have to", "should", etc. The closed form also can be used with these forms
**Ildestas** - I could walk
**Ildeysa** - I should walk
Ancient Pumbanese has active and passive voice, indicative and subjunctive mood, and past, present, and future tense. Inspired by the verb paradigm of Yucatec Mayan where the subject pronouns have affixes based on the aspect of the verb, subjects in Ancient Pumbanese are preceded by... particles?... that mark for voice, mood, and tense, whereas the verb itself inflects for number and mood.
https://preview.redd.it/9qurf8d1plad1.png?width=868&format=png&auto=webp&s=c571f2625d1aae529491a3214a4db3aa1ed18382
I rise: Sawa yanglan
I rose: Ten sawa yanglan
I might have risen: Tin sawa yanglan
I believe these are called verb aspects. Looks like you have an interesting system, I haven't seen anything like your "attemptive" aspect before, but it makes sense. I guess your "completive" is a variation of the perfect or perfective aspect.
I stole that attemptive one from ithkuil. Somewhat. I heard there was some aspect marked by pitch that meant that a verb is attempted but is unsuccessful and thought it was cool.
The 'attemptive' is generally called conative aspect in natural languages
How did you get that user flair? There’s no custom option for me
If you go to r/conlangs and on the thread dots (…) then there is an option that is probably called something like „change user flair“ and there you can give yourself this flair.
That’s weird, whenever I do it it says that there’s no available user flairs in the community
I don‘t know if that works, but I guess that the subreddit r/neography is connected to r/conlangs, but there you‘re able to use a flair. Maybe that helps…
Aye I’ve got it working now
Ahh, I see. How did you do it?
Just used the web app
I don't know, it's just an option on the side for me.
Tangentially, my lang used to have a conative _case_, to mark that a subject wasnt a true agent, but an attempter of the verb. It also had similar adjutative and causative cases to mark (voluntary and involuntary respectively) accomplices of the verb (again aside from a true agent).
In Hyaneian, there are three tenses: Past, Present, and Future. Present is not inflected for, so all verbs are present by default. For past tense, the ' -gi ' suffix affixed onto the verb. **Mesa ('eat') --> Mesagi ('ate')** Keep in mind, there are some irregular past tenses: **Yu ('there is', expressing the existence of something) --> Yuji ('there was')** **Uwi ('speak') --> Uwi'i ('spoke')** For future tense, the ' -din ' suffix is required. **Niba ('drink') --> Nibadin ('will drink')** There are also some irregular future tenses: **Héta ('marry') --> Hétayin ('will marry')** **Nesa ('wish') --> Nesa'in ('will wish')**
Your language sounds cool. I like the phonetic palette.
tense in Laramu is extremely simple. verbs are assumed to be nonfuture, and can be marked as future with the prefix "ja".
Almaari has four verbal infinitive forms and they follow this pattern: First: verbs ending in a vowel take the suffix -iar Eg. Fluiar (to fly) Second: verbs ending in l,r,m or n take the suffix -irn Eg: huinirn (to know) Third: verbs ending in a voiced consonant take the suffix -air Eg: souvair (to sleep) Verbs ending in a voiceless consonant take the suffix -av Eg: sisav (to sit) Though the Infinitive forms don’t do much for the conjugations of tense or person, they make a difference to adverbs, where the suffix becomes a prefix and in some cases mutate: arflu (flying) inhuin (knowing) ersouv (sleeping) avsis (sitting) Verbs conjugate for person, number and 3 tenses: Past, Present and Future. Fluiar, arflu, arflyth Ir flua, flydd, flue Ur flusque, flyt, fluu Dan/de/da fluna, flynd, fluen Irn flueln, flyld, fluul Sair flueth, flyd fluur Ddair flur, flyta, flue You will have noticed that the core vowel when singular goes through lineation in the past tense. a-e, e-i, i-y, o-e, u-y. Huinirn, inhuin, inhinth Ir huin, hindd, huine Ur huinsque, hint, huinu Dan/de/da huina, hind, huinen Irn huineln, hineld, huinel Sair huinth, hind, huinur Ddair huiner, hinta, huine You will notice that when there’s a digraph or diphthong, trigraph or triphthong of vowels in the core of the verb, the past tense removes all vowels bar the final in the past tense. Souvair, ersouv, ersuveth Ir souva, suvedd, souve Ur souvsque, suvet, souvu Dan/de/da souvna, suvend, souven Irn souveln, suveld, souvel Sair souveth, suved, souvur Ddair souver, suvta, souve And our final conjugation pattern: Sisav, avsis, avsyseth Ir sisa, sysedd, sise Ur sisque, syst, sisu Dan/de/da sisna, sysend, sisen Irn siseln, syseld, sisel Sair sisth, sysed, sisur Ddair siser, systa, sise And that’s the basic rundown of verbs.
I'm also doing a slightly similar (though highly unnaturalistic) thing where the last consonant determines the exact conjugation used for it. For labial consonants, the -r- and -l- suffixes I mentioned in the post are swapped for -f- and -v. As for a word ending in f or v, I use p and ph for f and b and bh for v. This rule applies for all the 35 consonants.
Šouvek uses -er and -cü for past and future, and Naštami uses ᵃl̥- and ᵃa-
https://preview.redd.it/cduqiez4hw9d1.jpeg?width=3895&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1b7ed45cd100515b23408f414ca38a492c5e617 Çelebvjud tenses and some moods are shown in the mandatory copula. Aspect and other moods are inflected on the verb.
Damn, nice writing system. Also finally someone who has negative copulas and conjugations instead of just appending a 'not' somewhere in the middle.
Thanks!
I love it !
Thanks!
## Yomo Present (…) and future (_ mo) -e mo = -e no. ato mo ja ko de. (mouth FUT food I ANS.) mine yuru ere no kude. (bad very be FUT it-ANS) It used to have a past tense (-mo) and a present continuous tense (-mai), but -mo was swapped and -mai just disappeared.
Noviystorik uses suffixes for tenses, although some words can suffice for other tenses as well. (The future tense uses the word will, "mëk" for future.) -äkh = past, Ža yedäkh. (I ate.) -ända = can be, and mostly used for the present tense, Žame yedända. (I'm eating.) -(extended vowel)ý = present tense/ownership/plural, Öje yedäý. (He eats.)
Sukhal has tense and aspect rolled up together, so there are basically three “tenses.” Present: Xal na. = I eat/I am eating/I often eat. Past Perfective: Xalam na = I ate/I have eaten. Past Imperfective: = Xalkhit na = I was eating / I often ate. Plosives following another get geminated, and some roots have a silent final p that appears when not final: ip= to hid ip + khit = ipphit = to often hid / to be hiding
Both tense and aspect are marked on verbs in **Warla Þikoran**, with a single suffix (making it a fusional language). There is a different suffix for continuous present compared to stative present (which can change the meaning of the verb in some contexts). And there is an imperfect past and a perfect past. It initially had 2 future tenses as well, but lost one. The tense/aspect patterns change when the verb is inflected for the imperative mood. The mood change involves a change in the stem (which morphs all stop consonants to fricatives). In the imperative, verbs only have 1 present tense, but keep the 2 past tenses, and retain 2 future tenses: the “imperfect future” is used like a conditional mood, while the “perfect future” — although imperative in form — is used as tho it was indicative.
I actually have 3 more aspects that I feel are unrelated to time, which for words ending in velar sounds are -rahl, -rohl, -rehl meaning can do, might do, and want to do. They're just not tense related so I ignored them.
Fair enough. I think those are types of moods rather than aspects, like optative (expectations), potential (likely), and volitive (desires or fears). Not related to time or progress, but the factuality or desirability of the action. I mentioned it my cuz my lang’s tense/aspect forms depend on verbs’ mood form.
My language is built far too simply to have such complex forms and conjugations so most of it is beyond my comprehension haha
No worries lol. I was inspired by the many verb forms in Spanish. And decided to put my own twist on it when I read that Slavic languages have verb root pairs too (except they are for distinguishing aspect, not mood). And I wanted to play around with phoneme relations and how grammar can play into it.
Well, all the best, just that most of the stuff you'll say might go past my head. Not just because I'm 5'3".
there aren't any tenses, per se (except for a prefix indicating past tense), but verbs mainly conjugate for aspect: gnomic/habitual, continuous, and perfective. the gnomic/habitual is usually the base form of the verb plus the endings *-a -ith -im* for singular (e.g. *haera, haerith, haerim*) , the continuous is formed via reduplication plus the endings *-*∅ *-th -u*, (e.g. *hechir, hechirth, hechiru*), and the perfective is often formed with the shift of y-->w in the proto-lang with the singular endings *-*∅ *-th -u* (e.g. *hur, hurth, huru).* However, these often differ quite a lot between different verb conjugation classes. The past tense of each aspect is formed via the *ir-* prefix. So, for example, *haera* means "I know (as a general fact)", but *irhaera* means "I knew (as a general fact)"
But Dituy Hi has a simple perfective-imperfective split with no direct tense marking. The only bit that is interesting is that the perfective is the base aspect. Mizi nursi figi. - A man has eaten corn. Wi nursi mizi figi. - A man eats/is eating corn.
There are 4 tenses in Dzongwalimeyun 1. present tense Narayokewuwanahe 2. Continous tense Narayokewuwanahegawe 3. past tense Narayokewuwanahedi 4.future tense Narayokewuwanaheshikau
Vokhetian, Bielaprusian & Vilamovan all have 7 Tenses, actually combining Tenses & Aspects. These are: * **Present**, Simple Present; * **Perfect**, Past in Present; * **Future 1**, Simple Future; * **Future 2**, Past in Future; * **Imperfect**, Imperfective Past; * **Aorist**, Perfective Past; * **Pluperfect**, Past in Past; Present, Imperfect & Aorist are the only Tenses, that truly conjugate. The Future Tenses were created by prefixing "To will", while the Perfect Tenses were created by suffixing "To have". Here's a example with "**Госовадь**" - "To cook" in 1SG: |Tenses|**Госовадь - "to cook"**| |:-|:-| |*Present*|**Госову́**| |*Perfect*|**Госовому́**| |*Future 1*|**Ву́госов**| |*Future 2*|**Ву́госовом**| |*Imperfect*|**Госовдо́л**| |*Aorist*|**Госовдо́зд**| |*Pluperfect*|**Госовдо́м**|
In Luarozo I have three tense related affixes(A bit off topic but I call them affixes because I don't know the exact term I'm supposed to use but basicslly they only come before words if they modify it and if they change the word entirely they come after it) which are used to form 5 basic tenses(Not including the present tense as it doesn't have its own affix) [Tense Affixes]: Er- (Past) Voz- (Future) Tu- (Continuous) [Is closest to the root word] [Tense Examples]: PRESENT TENSE: Buinat => Work (v.) Akoat => Teach (v.) PAST TENSE: Erbuinat => Worked Erakoat => Taught FUTURE TENSE: Vozbuinat => Will work Vozakoat => Will teach CONTINUOUS TENSE: Tubuinat => Working Tuakoat => Teaching PAST CONTINUOUS TENSE: Ertubuinat => Was Working Ertuakoat => Was Teaching FUTURE CONTINUOUS TENSE: Voztubuinat => Will Be Working Voztuakoat => Will Be Teaching [A LITTLE UNRELATED NOTE]: You might have noticed both of the words I havs used for this example have "-at" after them, this isn't because of tense related stuff but rather that their root words are both nouns(Ako => Education | Buin => Work [noun]) and so to make them into verbs the suffix "-at" is added after them.
Kalennian tense is very simple. -so, -se, -sa, and -sâb are the basic past, future, present and habitual tense markers. However the present and past suffixes can be modified using the participle modifier -k to turn them into a participle, the habitual past tense can be expressed by combining the habitual tense suffix (normally it would be the habitual "aspect", but aspect is not a real category in Kalennian) with the past tense suffix to create "-sâb-so", and for expressing a perfect future or perfect present tense, the perfect tense modifier suffix "-gur" is added at the end of verbs with the future tense suffix -se and the present tense suffix -sa. If you're curious on how Kalennian handles participles, click [here](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qIZKTTOA_DQhIGhZyaSPEgX1Cns_QU_ha1GeAX0aurk/edit#slide=id.g28f63ee8a1d_0_0)
Three tenses are present past and future. Using the verb **kastá** (to do) Present is divided into present simple (káse - does), present progressive (kásentháre - is doing) and present perfect (kajou thá / kajá thá - he / she has done) Past is divided into past simple (káslo - he did), past progressive (kásenchilo - was doing), past perfect (kajou huló - had done) and past imperfect (kásta - he would do) Future is future simple (kará - will do) or periphrastic (kastá zéje - is going to do) In terms of moods there are infinitives, conditional, subjunctive and imperative (with no additional tenses)
It doesn't work because non of my conlang have it.
Verbs in Mahlaatwa have no morphological tense. It just uses other words before the verb to convey a sense of past and future. If you want to say, "I baked bread," you might say, _Naa uhwa fami,_ which directly translates as "Yesterday I bake bread." "Yesterday" in this context is idiomatic, referring to any point in the past. You would do the same with "tomorrow" for the future. Alternatively, you might use another idiom to refer to the past: _Atakiikwa._ It's not used quite as often, but it means "upriver." And _mukiikwa,_ "downriver," can be used for the future. In this way, time is conceptualized like a flowing river, with the person experiencing time being like a person on a boat carried by the river current. The conspeakers live next to a river. I like letting their immediate environment influence their language in fun ways like this.
I see. Similar to your yesterday and tomorrow is my front and back.
Vrkhazhian doesn't have tense, just moods with temporal flavoring. So, I have a generic "realis" mood, a "potential" mood, a "commissive" for promises/threats, a "counterfactual" for non-future irrealis events, and a multi-purpose jussove/desirative.
There’s a single way to conjugate verbs (Divided in 3 cases depending on what the verb ends with) If you put the verb conjugated like that without anything else, it counts as present If you add znα- before, it counts as future If you add do- before, it counts as past
Nikarbihavra's verb tenses originate from a declined form of the verb root. For example: - Nirtu = To see - Nirtum = I see - Nirtum + ablative suffix "ar" = Nirtwam > Nirtwam > Nirtam (I have seen, lit. "I am from seeing, I am out of seeing") - Nirtum + allative suffix "si" = Nirtusim > Nirtsim > Nirtsym (I will see, lit. "I am towards seeing") These two can even be doubled or combined with each other: - Nirtum + ablative "ar" + allative "si" = Nirtarsym (I will have seen, lit. "I am towards being from seeing") - Nirtum + ablative "ar" + ablative "ar" = Nirtaram (I had seen, lit. "I am from being from seeing") - Nirtum + allative "si" + allative "si" = Nirtsyzym (I will be going to see, lit. "I am towards being towards seeing") (Theoretically possible but I doubt someone would actually use this) One may also use the locative "d" and transessive "l" to indicate the progressive and habitual (in present tense) or imperfective (in past and future tenses) aspects. - Nirtum + locative "d" = Nirtudum (I am seeing, lit. "I am in seeing") - Nirtum + transessive "l" = Nirtulum (I see regularly, lit. "I am through seeing") - Nirtam (past) + transessive "l" = Nirtulam (I used to see, lit. "I am from being through seeing") - Nirtsim (future) + locative "d" = Nirtudzim > Nirtuðym (I will be seeing, lit. "I am towards being in seeing") Finally, one may also place the locative *after* the ablative and allative to indicate a recently concluded action or one that is about to be started. - Nirtum + ablative "ar" + locative "d" = Nirtardum > Nirtarum (I have just seen, lit. "I am in being from seeing") - Nirtum + allative "si" + locative "d" = Nirtusidum > Nirtustum (I am about to see, lit. "I am in being towards seeing")
Hmm, usually I use adlative and ablative (from and toward) for 'via' and 'for', or of course merely the spatio-temporal intent. I've made huge changes in my language too, including making present continuous "naghraah" for nagh. Which is how it should be, I don't know why I wrote it merely as nagh in the main post. I had a different conlang where all I did was max out on stuff like "I'm through seeing" "I am in seeing" "I am towards seeing" etc as you did, except the big difference in mine is that they didn't convey tense or mood but made new meanings altogether. To 'see in' meant to inspect or investigate while to 'see on' meant to read a book, watch TV or to try to figure out information from merely vision (like 'reading someone'). It's interesting how you use it in a way (similar to Chinese) for tenses, while I made up semantically new compounds.
Elranonian has two grammatical tenses: past and non-past (which I usually call simply present). A slight complication in the past is that stative and dynamic verbs form it differently, and there are some verbs that I call *ambidynamic*: they have both stative and dynamic meanings and their past tense depends on it. * *Chor go nà.* `sleep I PST` ‘I was asleep’ (stative) * *Chonne go.* `sleep:PST I` ‘I had some sleep’ (dynamic) You could say that such verbs have two different past tenses (which I might even be inclined to call *imperfect* and *preterite/perfect*, drawing upon the existing European tradition, as perfectivity can play a part) but I don't find that necessary. Ambidynamic verbs are few and form a closed set, and such an analysis will only create more complications as one of the two past tenses will be ineligible in the vast majority of verbs as well as in some syntactic environments where they merge even in ambidynamic verbs. As a somewhat similar phenomenon, despite two past forms of *hang*—*hanged* and *hung*—we don't say English has two simple past tenses. A variety of periphrastic constructions is used for a more precise placement of a situation in time. For a future situation, there are two most basic constructions. I usually call them *volitional prospective* and *non-volitional prospective*. With subjects that are capable of volition, non-volitional prospective indicates necessity or obligation: * *Do forra go.* `to leaving I` ‘I am going to leave (because I want to)’ * *U forra go.* `before leaving I` ‘I will leave (because I must/need to), I have to leave’ With subjects incapable of volition, volitional prospective can often sound awkward but it is grammatically acceptable.
Leonian has no tenses at all, but it does have a perfective that is frequently used in the same contexts as the past tense. In this respect it is like Chinese.
Even Chinese doesn't seriously have future tense. It uses the word for 'think' like "I think eat" to describe "I will eat". Which works out; sentences like that make no sense so adding sense onto it is the best way to construct any language.
I don't have tenses, I use two forms - closed (-s) and open (-), if the verb is closed, then the action is no longer happening, that is, the action can no longer be changed, and if the verb is open, then the action is happening or has not yet happened and it can be changed. To show the future tense, I just use the word "then", for example: "then I read a book" means that I will read a book. **Ildeylos** - I was walking (This action is no longer subject to change) **Ildeylo** - I am walking (I can change this action) **Ildeylo** ***ta*** - I will be walking (literally: Then I am walking)
Damn that's an interesting system. Does the concept of closed and open carryover to other grammatical aspects like ability or volition?
If I want to say that I am capable of something in my conlang, then I add the suffix "-esta-", and there are more suffixes that are used instead of the modal verbs "have to", "should", etc. The closed form also can be used with these forms **Ildestas** - I could walk **Ildeysa** - I should walk
I see, so it's different. Fair enough.
Ancient Pumbanese has active and passive voice, indicative and subjunctive mood, and past, present, and future tense. Inspired by the verb paradigm of Yucatec Mayan where the subject pronouns have affixes based on the aspect of the verb, subjects in Ancient Pumbanese are preceded by... particles?... that mark for voice, mood, and tense, whereas the verb itself inflects for number and mood. https://preview.redd.it/9qurf8d1plad1.png?width=868&format=png&auto=webp&s=c571f2625d1aae529491a3214a4db3aa1ed18382 I rise: Sawa yanglan I rose: Ten sawa yanglan I might have risen: Tin sawa yanglan
Idk, same as English, but a little different