Re: Auxiliary verbs

Definitely these forms have to be dealt with and all languages (I assume)
do in some way.

John I see has already mentioned the Finnish method.
In slavic languages two different verbs are used, for example in Czech
there is {smyet=be allowed} and {musit=must}, have to. Using the negative
ne- yields {nesmyet=must not} and {nemusit=don't have to} So the main
action is not typically negated.

In Ankanian these modals are part of the verb declension. They are
expressed by endings which occupy the same slot as the imperative (since
they are mutually exclusive). Thus -ö, imp.; -u, must; -i, must not.
With the negative -me there is -ume, don't have to; -ime, allowed, can.

Other auxilaries all have special prefix forms and opposite forms when
indicating that the main action is negative. exs: xol-, try to; yel-, try
not to, try to avoid. These prefixes do not technically have to be used
but are preferred (actually it would sound very odd if they weren't).
xoli veswe = xolvesi = tries to speak
xoli veswe-me = yelvesi = tries not to speak

Harold