Re: THEORY: Auxiliaries

I've chosen the uses of some auxilaries in my conlang and I'd like you to
comment them

Firts thing: the moods and all the aspects but one are represented by
markers before the verbs

The type and the transitivity are on a prefix on the verb

The types are:

"w-": feeling, state, description
"z-": action
"v-": predicative, auxilaries
"n-" impersonnal

The voice is an infix placed after the first vowel of the root

But the tenses, the continuative aspect, the insistence (a little like the
auxilary "do" used positively), the negative, and two other things are made
by auxiliaries

the 5 first auxiliaries are:

be = va-tha -> insistence
become = va-bo -> futur
stay = va-mu -> continuative
~ have become = va-gwe -> past

to love = /we-khate

I love you = \du /me /we-khated

I do love you = \du /me va-thad /we-khate
I loved you = \du /me va-gwed /we-khate
I will love you = \du /me va-bo /we-khate
I still love you = \du /me va-mu /we-khate


thew two last auxiliaries are:

~ seem -> va-zdego -> something seen by the talker
~ heard about -> va-degwo -> something the talker heard about


these two last, when not used as auxiliaries are hard to translate and don't
have equivalents in English:

/de    va-zdegod    \ho   /mda
you-nom.  ~seem  a-acc.  father
I've saw you're a father

/de    va-degwod    \ho    /mda
you-nom.  ~heard about  a-acc.  father
I've heard you're a father


and in auxiliaries

I've heard you love me
/du \me va-dwegod /we-khate
you-nom.  me-acc.  ~hard about  to love


what do you think of these auxiliaries?

- Max