El Glheþ sè süstem verbal els ça'ns cünsetüds.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

That's something I'm playing with since a long time. As I've said elsewhere SG in the verbal system is simply providing a code morfology, but leaves tenses usages in the Limbo... no talossan syntax. Thats' a simple table for the indicative mood (in the second column there are compound tenses) where i've tried to make the usage "rational" according with the few informations in the SG, on Romance languages and english as well.

indicatíu

presaintsch	paßat conposuat
(a) Gnomic (b)Present tense: An action in the present; a state of being; an habitual action both non progressive and progressive with emphasis on the action itself, and not its progressiveness. (c)Future tense: An action occuring in a percived near future and clearly temporally determined.	(a)Perfective aspect: An action taken once in the past that was completed at some point in the past, with emphasis on the relative or percived nearness of an action (b) Perfect aspect: A past action with present relevance or a present state resulting from a past action.
paßat simpil	praipaßat
(a) Perfective aspect: An action taken once in the past that was completed at some point in the past, with emphasis on the remoteness of an action (b) Imperfective aspect: An action that was happening, used to happen, or happened regularly in the past and on going. A physical or mental state or condition in progress in the past. Often used with verbs of being, emotion, capability, or conscience.	(a) Perfective aspect: An action taken once in the past that was completed at some point in the past, before another past action. (b) Perfect aspect: A past action with posterior relevance but anterior to present, or a past state resulting from an anterior action
fütür simpil	fütür conposuat
	(a) Perfective aspect: A future action that will be completed before another future action. (b) Perfect aspect: A future action with posterior relevance (both to present and to the future action) or a future state resulting from an anterior action but posterior to present.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

This looks useful, I'll have to examine it side-by-side with SG. Why is the future simple box empty? And where do you find the imperfective aspect of the simple past (or do you mean it's an analytical category not reflected in the verb morphology)?

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jun 17, 2008 16:26:47 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

I'll have to examine it side-by-side with SG.

You'll not find everything there, since that table is meant also to cover (with logic and coherence) its gaps.

Why is the future simple box empty?

Because there's no need to specify its usage, as future meanings of "present" and "future composed" have been alredy specified: the simple future shall be used in all the other situations, apart from the special "constructions" (like § 21.3 which could be called "fütür proxim").

And where do you find the imperfective aspect of the simple past

SG § 20.3