I'm having a lot of trouble deciding on the aspect system in one of my conlangs. One of the central points of contention is how to mark habituals and "doer" nouns. (First of all, habituals and doer nouns will probably have the same form, since the language doesn't really distinguish nouns from verbs.) On one hand, I could let habituals be expressed by the bare verb stem, and mark verbs occurring at a specific time specially. I somewhat like this idea, because the "nouns" in this language are mostly built up of verbal roots, and if I decided to have an affix for habituality, way too many nouns would end up with this affix as well. (Of course, this could just be an accepted part of nominal morphology, just as there are a huge number of o- and a-stem nouns in Indo-European languages.) On the other hand, this seems way too much like English to me, in which the habitual is plain (well, except for some verbs like verbs of perception, opinion, and knowledge) while the present tense is generally marked with a periphrastic "progressive." But when I think about it, most Indo-European languages seem to leave habitual verbs unmarked - even in languages where the true present tense is also unmarked. So one basic question I have is: what are some different ways of marking habitual events? And how common is it to have *no* special marking for it? Another issue concerns conflation of aspect with stativity*. I have seen a few conlangs, and at least one reconstructed natlang (PIE according to one analysis), where the perfect aspect of eventive verbs is conflated with the stative verb derived from the eventive. I.e., stative verbs and eventive perfects have the same form. I like this idea quite a bit, but again I would like to ask how common a pattern it is. However, another idea I've had is for the *habitual* of eventive verbs to have the same form as stative verbs. Are there any languages that do this? This way, a noun which is eventive at its core, e.g. "speaker = one who habitually speaks," would be formed parallel to a noun which is stative at its core, like "red thing", or nominal at its core, such as "person." Another thing that occurs to me is to mark ability rather than, or in addition to, habituality. The two concepts overlap quite a bit, I think; a "writer" is someone who *can* write. What are some ways this is grammaticalized in languages? (In fact, as I've read recently, a verb originally meaning "to know" can evolve into an auxiliary to mark habituality.) *sigh* Since it's hard to decide, maybe I could just have a stativish derivation which can apply to all verbs, but whose actual semantics are determined by the particular verb. Perhaps "kill[+STAT]" would be "killer = one who has killed" (certainly in English one only needs to have killed once to be called a killer!), while "speak[+STAT]" would be "speaker = one who can speak", and "write[+STAT]" would be "writer = someone who writes habitually." I just have to be careful not to let English semantics have too much influence. Also, while I'm thinking about it, have there been any classifications or analyses of verbs which posit a kind of verb intermediate between eventive and stative? I've been thinking about the verb "to rule," which doesn't seem to quite fit into either category to me (except in the case of specific decisions made by a court). * Is there a better word than "stativity"?