Chapter 108Time, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality

108.1 Time reference without obligatory tense inflection

Ainu verbs do not obligatorily distinguish past, present, and future through inflection. A clause's time reference can come from context, a temporal expression, or a construction with aspectual or modal meaning Nakagawa (2024: 434).

Tense concerns location in time; aspect concerns the temporal course of a situation; modality concerns possibilities, intentions, judgments, and related meanings. Evidential constructions present information in relation to perception, report, or inference. These distinctions help organize the descriptions, although a single Ainu form can have more than one function Takahashi (2022: §§1–3)Yoshikawa (2022: §5).

108.2 Several construction types

The table collects constructions described by Bugaeva, Nakagawa, and Yoshikawa Bugaeva (2012: 493–497)Nakagawa (2024: 434–443)Yoshikawa (2022: §§2–5). Their different positions and morphology matter. A preverbal prohibitive and a following existential verb do not occupy one common auxiliary slot.

108.3 A and aan: forms before analysis

Descriptions of a differ. Satō calls it a past/perfect auxiliary, often connecting an earlier event with its present relevance while acknowledging examples where that connection is less clear Satō (2008: 187–188).

Yoshikawa proposes a contrast between perfective a and perfect aan, further associating the former with direct evidence and the latter with indirect evidence. The account treats recollection, certainty, and mirative readings as related extensions. Its conclusions concern usage trends in chiefly fourth-person Saru and Chitose narratives, with explicit limits on their application to other varieties Yoshikawa (2022: §§4–5). The following chapters examine the examples and competing accounts in more detail.

108.4 Existential combinations and participant identity

Combinations with an or its plural counterpart often express continuation. Their interpretation depends on whether the first predicate describes an activity, a state, or a change. Yoshikawa therefore calls them forms capable of aspectual interpretation and keeps the boundary with accompanying circumstances open Yoshikawa (2022: §§2–3, 5).

Person marking helps identify the participants in each predicate. Nakagawa analyzes ku=tere wa k=an ‘I am waiting’ as linked predicates, each carrying its own person form Nakagawa (2024: 442). With a transitive first verb, the subject of the existential can instead be the affected object.

Dialect restrictions also matter. Takahashi describes Tokachi progressive kor an as excluding first-person subjects, with kan an available for first-person ongoing activity Takahashi (2022: §4). This restriction belongs to the reported Tokachi system.

108.5 Modality, evidentiality, and sentence type

Prospective kusu ne, desiderative rusuy, and inferential or reported-content constructions must be read in their own frames. Chapter 107 (Kuni, Indirect Complements, and Purpose Clauses) shows why kuni is not uniformly future or obligatory. Likewise, the meanings of formal-noun endings depend on the construction and the source's analysis.

Their order has specific restrictions. Nakagawa permits a and nankor after ruwe ne, while allowing kusu ne ruwe ne and rejecting the reverse sequence Nakagawa (2024: 378, 393–394). These facts constrain particular combinations without supplying a universal order for every tense, aspect, modal, and evidential form.

Commands add another distinction: an ordinary singular imperative lacks subject person marking, but a transitive command can retain an object marker. Negative commands use preverbal iteki, and plural or polite commands can have final yan Bugaeva (2012: 496–497). Sentence type therefore interacts with person marking as well as with clause endings.