> So, with thanks to you all for your comments, I'll try again:

I have to just make a few comments.

> (strong verb)             (weak verb)
> to give  yiben            to love  liuben      (infinitive)
> I give   me yib           I love   me liub     (present)
> I gave   me yeb           I loved  me liubta   (imperfect)

I don't think that imperfect is the right term for this one.  Imperfect
indicates an ongoing, non-momentary action, usually in the past,
translated in English as "I was doing" or "I used to do."  What you have
here would probably be called the "preterite" in traditional grammar.

> to have given yibaven     to have loved  liubaven   (perfect
> infinitive)
> I have given  me yibave   I have loved   me liubave  (perfect)
> I had given   me yibaa    I had loved    me liubaa   (pluperfect)
> I have given it       me yibave iet         (perfect)
> It was given by me    et w yeban k ime    (yeban: past participle)

Here again, past participle is inappropriate.  The form used in English
here is the past participle, but the Jameld form seems to indicate only
passive, not past.  Is this form used in any past constructions, or only
in the passive?  If it's not used in the past, I would call it the
passive participle.

Jesse S. Bangs     Pelran
"There is enough light for those that desire only to see, and enough
darkness for those of a contrary disposition."  --Blaise Pascal