It is often mentioned in older grammar outlines of both Bikol and Tagalog that these languages have tenses. Shown below are the conjugation of two verbs in Bikol and Tagalog following these descriptions.
|English Gloss||“to hear”|
|English Gloss||“to insert”|
Even Jason Lobel, in his book “An Satuyang Tataramon” published in 2000, mentioned in page 86 that Bikol has 4 tenses: past, present, future and infinitive/imperative. The Wikipedia entry as April 10, 2009 for Tagalog makes a slight improvement by saying that Tagalog verbs do not conjugate for tense. It says there that there are 4 aspects: infinitive/imperative, perfective, imperfective and contemplative. I think both these descriptions are incorrect because (1) neither infinitive nor imperative are tenses, and (2) neither infinitive, imperative or contemplative are aspects. Aspect is what both these languages have and not tense.
A better explanation is given by Paul Kroeger in his book, “Analyzing Grammar, An Introduction” published in 2005. On pages, 162-163, he said and I will quote at length:
“To conclude our discussion of aspect, let us consider some tense-aspect combinations in Tagalog. Each Tagalog verb has three basic finite forms which are often referred to as past tense, present tense, and future tense. But this labelling is misleading. The “present tense” form could be used as a past progressive (“She was singing the Ave Maria when I arrived”) as well as a present progressive (“She is singing the Ave Maria”) or present habitual (“She sings the Ave Maria beautifully”). Similarly, the Tagalog “past tense” form can be used like the English simple past (“She sang”), present perfect (“She has sung”), or past perfect (“She had sung”).
These three forms involve two different affixes: (1) a nasal infix -in- (realized as initial /n/ in active voice formations beginning with mag-); and (2) reduplication (see chapter 16). The infinitival form of the verb lacks both of these, though it is marked for voice. Some examples of these forms are shown in (38): 6
|bigy-an||b[in]igay-an||b[in]i-bigy-an||bi-bigy-an||“to be given”|
|gawa-in||g[in]awa||g[in]a-gawa||ga-gawa-in||“to be made, done”|
A number of authors have pointed out that this four-way contrast can be analyzed in terms of two fundamental distinctions. The infix -in- marks action as having been begun, which corresponds nicely to the contrast between REALIS vs. IRREALIS tense. CV reduplication marks actions as being non-completed; verbs which lacks this reduplication are in COMPLETIVE aspect, while the reduplicated forms are NON-COMPLETIVE.
The following table shows how these two categories combine to produce the forms in (38). The “past tense forms are those which are both begun and completed, i.e. realis tense and completive aspect. The “present tense” forms are those which are begun but not yet completed, i.e. realis tense and non-completive aspect. The “future tense” forms are those which are neither begun nor completed, i.e. irrealis tense and non-completive aspect. Of course, something which is not begun cannot be completed, so the combination of irrealis tense and completive aspect should be impossible. In fact, this combination, which corresponds to the morphologically unmarked form, is used for “tenseless” categories such as infinitives and imperatives.
|Realis (-in)||Irrealis (Ø)|
Although Paul Kroeger’s description is better in that it recognizes these as the interplay of 2 distinctions, its not entirely correct as well: (1) Realis and Irrealis are not tenses, (2) the -in- infix does not actually mark action whether its been started, and (3) the aspectual distinction conveyed by reduplication and its absence is not between uncompleted and completed, respectively, thus the terms completive and non-completive are misleading aspect labels here. Talmy Givon, in her book, “Syntax, An Introduction” published in 2001, gives a better explanation of -in- or n- (Kroeger’s nasal infix -in-) as modal distinction, and is quoted in pages 359-360 as follows:
“Austronesian is one language family in which most irrealis clauses share a morphological marker, and can be then further marked for other distinctions, as can also realis clauses. Indeed, the realis-irrealis modal distinction is the major dichotomy in the Austronesian T-A-M system, and all other tense or aspect distinction are secondary elaborations added to it. This pattern may be illustrated with data from Bikol (Philippine), interpreted here as a nominative language.
The main distinction in Bikol verbal prefixes, which conflate grammatical voice and modality, is between realis and irrealis. Both the perfective/past and the progressive/present share the realis prefix nag-. The progressive is then further marked by first-syllable reduplication. Realis subordination clauses display the same nag- prefix as realis main clauses. Thus (M. Factora, i.p.c.):
(37) a. Perfective/past
|‘the man bought a book’|
|‘the man is buying a book’|
c. Complement of implicative modality-verb
|‘the man finished buying a book’|
d. Complement of implicative manipulation-verb
|‘the man forced the woman to buy a book’|
e. Complement of factive cognition-verb
|‘the man knows that the woman bought a book’|
f. Realis Adv-clause
|When I came (here), I took a swim’.|
In contrast, most irrealis clauses share the prefix mag-. Thus compare:
(38) a. Future
|‘the man will buy a book’|
b. Subjunctive-imperative (polite)
|‘Buy a book!’|
|‘Lets (all) buy books!”|
d. Non-implicative modality-verb complement
|‘the man wants to buy a book’|
e. Non-implicative manipulation-verb complement
|‘the man told the woman to buy a book’|
f. Non-factive cognition-verb complement
|‘the man thought that the woman bought a book’|
g. Irrealis Adv-Clause
|kung||mag-digdi [5▼]||ako,||mag-karigos [3▼]||ako|
|If I come (here), I’ll take a swim.|
A fairly similar grammatical distribution of a single irrealis marker, also covering the habitual, has been described in another Austronesian language, Fijian (Dixon, 1988). A similarly wide distribution of a single irrealis marker, also covering negative clauses, has been reported for Caddo and Northern Iroquois languages (Chafe 1995). Finally, the entire Mixtecan family in Mexico displays a similar wide distribution of a sigle irrealis prefix, also covering the negative clauses (Bradley and Hollenbach (eds 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992).”
Although I do not agree with her that Bikol is a nominative language, by and large, her description is quite correct. There are a few typographical errors (see the notes I provided below) which I think are mainly due to an oversight.
I will post my own description of Bikol Mood and Aspect in the following days.
[5▲] For the same reason stated in note#3, the proper verb form form here is “ma-digdi” (IRR/AGT-come) and “ma-karigos” (IRR/AGT-swim) if the English gloss is to stay. Otherwise, the gloss wouldn’t make any sense “If I to come (here), I to swim..” as the sentence is using a non-finite form for what should be a finite form slot.