19 Comments
The -ta- infix specifies the future tense, as compared to -na- for present tense.
Only in the present tense does the -a verb ending become -i in the negative. As this is future tense, the ending remains unchanged. Is that correct?
Yes, correct.
Also, negations are very easy in the future tense. Just change the subject prefix ( ni to si, u to hu, and so on), and that's it.
For other tenses the tense infix (i.e. -na-, -me-, -li-) changes in the negative, but not for the future tense.
this sentence should notbe in a lesson on present tense as it is a future!
True, but Ive found it quite helpful in pushing me to get to grips a bit with verbs!
They probably just didn't add it as an alternative because it's pretty stilted, old-fashioned usage that hardly anyone uses anymore.
"to lose" would be the intended spelling, I think. (Rhymes with "whose" and "two's" and "booze". Good job Swahili spelling is much more logical.)
441
This appeared for me in the 'Present 3' unit even though it's not in the present tense.
In Guarani, the future tense is marked by a ta affix, just as in Swahili!
In Guarani, however, it is a suffix ("ohóta, ahecháta, reguatáta"), while in Swahili is an infix ("tutacheza, nitapoteza, utasoma").
Now we are getting even further from examples of the present tense in Swahili ...
Why is it not sitapotei? Does the last a only turn into an i in the negative present?
Correct. As Juryrigging wrote above:
Only in the present tense does the -a verb ending become -i in the negative. As this is future tense, the ending remains unchanged.
But why is it then "hapotei" for "he will not get lost"? Would it not be hapotea then?
