Tense formations

I'm documenting Jameld's grammar, and I could do with your help,
terminology-wise.

Jameld is a slightly mangled West Germanic conlang, so in many ways it
follows the tense formations that English, Dutch, or German speakers would
be familiar with. For example:

(strong verb)             (weak verb)
to give  yiben            to love  liuben
I give   me yib           I love   me liub
I gave   me yeb           I loved  me liubta   (perfect past - right?)

So far, so hoopy. However:

I have given  me yibave   I have loved   me liubave  (imperfect?)
I had given   me yibaa    I had loved    me liubaa   (pluperfect?)

[BTW, to have: aven; have (present): ave; had (past): aa]

Here, instead of using the usual Germanic "have" + past participle, Jameld
derives these tenses from the imperfect infinitive (if that's a valid
terminology), here "yibaven" (to have given) and "liubaven" (to have loved).

But there's still something I always think of as a past participle; maybe
it's more of a verbal adjective. Help, I need technical terms! Compare:

(strong)
I have given it       me yibave iet
It was given by me    et wä yeban ük ime

(weak)
I have loved her      me liubave ies
She was loved by me   es wä liubi ük ime

What are "yeban" and "liubi" here? Have I used the right terms in this
email?

Thanks in advance.

James

 =========================================================================
james@zolid.com  James Campbell  Zeugma--Our Life Is Design  www.zolid.com
  Sponsored by zolid.com -- for all your household blithery requirements
 =========================================================================

Replies