I would prefer not to introduce a separate Conditional Mood, our Subjunctive could perform as well those functions in principal sentences (almost in every situation when English uses "would"), like it functions now in el glheþ. To sum up:
[shadow=red,left,300]
la Moda Cünxhuntíu[/shadow]
1. Formation:The Past tense
-aß- is based on the historical form of the majority of romance languages, in order to make it genuine (eg: french je parlasse, italian io parlassi, spanish yo hablase, catalan jo parlés, occitan ièu parlèsse, from the latin subjunctive pluperfect parlavissem).
| Presaintsch | Praipaßat Simpil |
eu parladréu
tú parladrás
o parladra
noi parladrent
voi parladretz
os parladrent | eu tenadréu parlat
tú tenadrás parlat
o tenadra parlat
noi tenadrent parlat
voi tenadretz parlat
os tenadrent parlat |
| Paßat | Praipaßat Zisparat |
eu parlaßéu
tú parlaßás
o parlaßa
noi parlaßent
voi parlaßetz
os parlaßent | eu tenaßéu parlat
tú tenaßás parlat
o tenaßa parlat
noi tenaßent parlat
voi tenaßetz parlat
os tenaßent parlat |
2.1) In principal clauses it may have the following value:
2.1.1 exortative (a sort of imperative, more polite):
Squindadrás!2.1.2 optative (wish, hope or fear):
Dïeu te benedicadrás!2.1.3 esclamative:
Säpadrás që frumoaseu!2.1.4 dubitative:
Që venadrás aici?2.1.5 potential (
english conditional.):
2.1.6 unreal (
english conditional.):
2.1.7 eventual (
english conditional.):
2.2) In subordinate clauses it should always be introduced by the conjunction
që (with the exception of if clauses).
2.2.1 depending on verbs of Belief, Opinion, Persuasion (credarh, crezitarh, aceptarh, açeitarh, aðmiçarh, etc.) and sometimes verbs of Trust in the situation of positive believing (when the subject is trusting that something will happen it should take a "qe" and introduce a subjunctive clause, but when it is something as simple as "I trust you" there should be no qe and there is no subjunctive clause anyway) (trustarh, aßumarh, etc.):
Credéu që las moscas menxhadrent els eiafúnts.
Credéveu që las moscas menxhaßent els eiafúnts.2.2.2 depending on verbs of Wishing, Desire, Hope and Doubt (cherarh, desirarh, esperarh, etc.):
Esperéu që venadra.
Esperéveu që venaßa.2.2.3 Impersonal expressions (it's important that, it's necessary that) for the most part:
C'e neceßar që parladretz
C'esteva neceßar që parlaßetz.
2.2.4 Note that verbs of Perception and Judgement (vidarë, säparë, sovenênçar, xhuxhar, etc...) always require the Indicative in their subordinates.
2.2.5 In order to make the system easier the verbs which requires the subjunctive in their subordinates respect a "general rule": it's a verb inner meaning that requires a mood in subordinates, and not it's particular usage in a sentence, apart for verbs that exprime Trust in the so-called "positive believing".
2.3.) After some Conjuctions, as:
2.3.1
avant që, in cauça që, svo að që, salva që, províut që, quand që (used non-habitually).
2.3.2 In order to make the system easier, conjunctions leave the speaker both possibility, Indicative and Subjunctive. Obvioulsy the usage of Subjunctive is the most correct one, formal and arcaich.
3. Fraças sürinducticieasAbout Conditional Sentences, I've come up with this pattern (seen Latin, Italian, French and the fact that we don't have a conditional), the simplest I've ever seen:
| Type | Apodosis | Protasis (if +) |
| 1. Reality | Ind. Fütür Simpil | Ind. Fütür Simpil/Ind. Presaintsch |
| 2. Possibility | Cün. Presaintsch | Cün. Paßat |
| 3. Unreality | Cün. Praipaßat Simpil | Cün. Praipaßat Zisparat |
2. Compradréu'n auteu schi tenaßéu l'erxhent.
3. Tenadréu comprat ün auteu schi tenaßéu tenat (tenescù) l'erxhent.(the first sentence on 22.2 in la Scurznia should be "
Schi tenaßéu del erxhent, eu venadréu" and not "
Schi tenedréu"
4. Cünsequençù timpural (Syntax of Talossan Sentences)It's important to discuss this important feature of every language, and in romance ones this is essential seen their usage of the subjunctive, I'm talking about the
consecutio temporum. La Scurznia has only few lines in 17.4 ("Sequences of tenses"), but it should be discussed againg. The Latin pattern is pretty much preserved in all romance languages, and I used also French and Italian. This is what I thought for el glheþ, don't be afraid it's logic and simple. (the "strange" behaviour of the subjunctive in relation to a "future" tense in the principal, it's because in latin the consecutio temporum related to the subjunctive is divided in principal and historic tenses, and among the principal ones there are the ind. present, ind. logic perfect and the future tenses.)
It should be noted that we should deal with the lack of conditional (like Latin anyway which uses constructions with the future participle), and the ? means that I haven't found any solution satisfactory. (The pattern for the Indicative in Subordinate is pretty like the English one of course, and it's
exactly that one may desume from la Scurznia).
| Temporal nature | Indicative in Subordinate | Subjunctive in Subordinate |
| 1.A. contemporary to PRESENT | Ind. Presaintsch | Cün. Presaintsch |
| 1.B. anteriority to PRESENT | Ind. Paßat Conposuat | Cün. Praipaßat Simpil |
| 1.C. posteriority to PRESENT | Ind. Fütür Simpil/Presaintsch | Ind. Fütür Simpil/Presaintsch |
| 2.A. contemporary to PAST (pa.s. or pr.p.) | Ind. Paßat Simpil | Cün. Paßat |
| 2.B. anteriority to PAST (pa.s. or pr.p.) | Ind. Praipaßat | Cün. Praipaßat Zisparat |
| 2.C. posteriority to PAST (pa.s. or pr.p.) | Ind. Fütür Conposuat | Ind. Fütür Conposuat |
| 3.A. contemporary to FUTURE | Ind. Fütür Simpil/Presaintsch | Cün. Presaintsch |
| 3.B. anteriority to FUTURE | Ind. Fütür Conposuat | Cün. Present Perfect |
| 3.C. posteriority to FUTURE | ? | ? |
Eg:
1.A Credéu {1} qe las moscas menxhadrent {A}els eiafúnts.
1.B Credéu {1} qe el glhibreu tenadra estat apnat {B} quand qe en videßéu/vidéveu {A}.
1.C Credéu {1} qe demà ischéu/véu {C}àl már
2.A Crevéu {2} qe las moscas menxhaßent {A} els eiafúnts.
2.B Crevéu {2} qe el glhibreu tenaßa estat apnat {B} quand qe en videßéu/vidéveu {A}.
2.C Glhesterziua crevéu {2} qe ieiri tischéu venescu {C}àl már.Principal: {1} present {2} past
Subordinate 1°grade (to the Principal): {A} contemporary to the action in the principal {B} anterior to the action in the principal {C} posterior to the action in the principal
Subordinate 2°grade (to the 1°grade subordinate): {A} contemporary to the action in the subordinate (that is a "past" action, so we should look at 2.A in the chart)
5. Miscellaneous5.1.) It's interesting to note that 2 functions of
fostarh, necessity and supposition, are good exemple of a situation where we may aspect a talossan subjunctive.
5.2.2) The subjunctive of the Irregular verbs:5.2.1. Generally irregular verbs may form the Sub.Pass "regularly" on their infinitive stem (note
credarh that has:
creadréu and
credaßéu[/i]
5.2.2.
irh, moartarh, pevarh, scriúarh, tirh may have the Sub.Past based on their Sub.Present forms:
venaßéu, mortaßéu, povaßéu, scrivaßéu, tenaßéu.
5.2.3.
creatarh Sub.Past could be irregular:
creaßéu (for phono aestethic reason)
5.2.4. The verb "to be" actually has a Sub.Pres. regular
estadréu. For this important verb (and highly irregular in every romance language) i'd like a double form (like in the indicative past tense): one "archaic/poetic/formal" irregular stem (again inspired by romance languages: French sois/fusse, Italian sia/fossi Occitan siá/foguèsse, Catalan sigui/fos, Portoguese seja/fosse, Spanish sea/fuese(fuera) all from latin sub.pres sim and sub.pluperfect fuissem), and one "informal/common" regular (fictionally posterior). They are:
| Form | Sub. Present | Sub. Past |
| 1. | siéu, siás, sia, sient, sietz, sient | foßéu, foßás, foßa, foßent, foßetz, foßent |
| 2. | estadréu, estadrás, estadra, estadrent, estadretz, estadrent | estaßéu, estaßás, estaßa, estaßent, estaßetz, estaßent |
