On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:21:24 -0000 Fabian <rhialto@...> writes:
> Well, here is the Maltese version of aspect and tense. Not Hebrew I
> know,
> but then, you know Hebrew so much better than I.
.
I may know it, but i sure don't understand it :-) .
> maltese essentially has aspect in the verbs, perfective and
> imperfective.
> There is also a separate imperative form.
> He wrote - kiteb
> he writes - jiktbu
> write - iktbu
.
In Hebrew, this would be equivalent to (phonemically, disregarding
allophones):
he wrote - katab
he will write - yiktob
write! - ktob
> The perfective is geneally equivalent to the English past (in its
> many
> forms), the imperfective to the English present and future tenses.
> Auxiliaries determine the remainder of the fine graduations of
> meaning, such
> as:
>
> ser jikteb - he will write
.
Does _ser_ mean anything by itself?
> jrid jikteb - he wants to write (he wants he writes)
.
In hebrew this would be _hu rotze liktob_, with KTB in an infinitive
form.
> (There are a small number of 'future tense particles' which mark
> varying ranges of future time)
>
> kellu jikteb - he had to write (he had he writes)
> ghandhu kiteb - he has/had written (he has he wrote)
> ghandhu jikteb - he must/has to write (he has he writes)
> ikollu jikteb - he will have to write (he will_have he writes)
.
Do _kellu/ikollu_ and _ghandhu_ mean the same thing? Is _ikollu_ an
actual future form?
> kien kiteb - he had written (he was he wrote)
> ikun jikteb - he habitually writes (he will_be he writes)
> kien jikteb - he used to write (he was he writes)
> kien qed kiteb - he was writing (past continuative)
> qed jikteb - he is writing (present continuative) (1)
> ghadu ma kitibx - he has not yet written
.
Does "to be" have true past and future forms, or is the future just the
imperfect?
> Maybe there are a few mistakes in this list - it was a quick review
> of my grammar books.
>
> ---
> Fabian
-Stephen (Steg)
"Eze-guvdhab wa'hrikh-a tze, / "zhoutzii wa'esh," i eze-mwe."