On 5/1/06, Jens Wilkinson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> --- Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Yes, ilomi is having a rest. Here's why, and tell me
> > what you think:
> This may be nitpicking on some level, but one thing
> that I noticed as I started looking at your new plan
> is this:
> >hia = past tense
> >hie = present tense
> >hiu = future tense
> I sort of have two comments. Well, the first is a
> question: why does the present tense have to be
> marked?

These markers are highly optional and usually omitted. The unmarked
verb is tenseless, or rather, it takes its tense from context or
adverbs of time.

> I'm thinking that maybe you intended this to
> be the progressive, which would make more sense.

No, we haven't invented a progressive or continuous, but will need to do so.

> But I
> don't think languages usually mark the present, except
> in special situations like the English "do" in
> questions, for example.
> And then the other comment is, why did you choose
> nearly identical words for concepts that are so close?

When used, these tense words are used very deliberately -- almost
pausing in speech to emphasise them -- so it seemed acceptable not to
allocate the best and most distinct markers to these meanings. It
would also be reasonable not to use single-syllable particles for
them; that's how seldom I expect they would be used.