I am aware that the aspects of Tagalog verbs are not really iden - Page 2

@Silverfoxdr Don't worry about it. I assure you that we Filipinos speak Filipino either based on Filipino grammar rules or on how we learned to speak it. We will survive without knowing anything about aspect or how it relates to tense.

@JohnD
I used "nang" because I was translating the use of the conjunction "when" in your sentence.I tripped over when I was walking.
Ako ay nadapa nang ako ay naglalakad. It would sound more natural in Filipino if "habang" (while) is used instead of "nang".Ako ay nadapa habang ako ay naglalakad. = I tripped over while I was walking."Kapag" is also "when", but in the "if and when" sense. If you replace "nang" with "kapag", it would be grammatically wrong in Filipino and if corrected, will give the meaning that you trip over every time you walk."Ako ay nadapa kapag ako ay naglalakad" as is, would sound like "I tripped over every time I am walking" to a Filipino. To correct it grammatically, "nadapa" should be "nadadapa".Ako ay nadadapa kapag ako ay naglalakad. = I trip over if and when / every time I walk.

Well, it seems like you have figured out some of this better than the rest of us, @Silverfoxdr ... I do wonder if you're trying too hard to map a different language's constructs onto Tagalog, and thereby overcomplicating things. Most fluent Tagalog speakers wouldn't understand what you're talking about above, and don't need to in order to be fluent in the language, right?

@JohnD But naglalakad is NOT simple present tense. It is imperfect aspect, meaning the action has started but not completed. That fits well with English preaent progressive tense (which seems to be a parallel construction of "ay naglalakad" to "is walking.") But it is being used to refer to a past action because the action was not finished in the time frame set with the other verb, which is NOT simple past tense, it is perfective aspect. I can not think of any cases of perfective aspect not referring to the past tense, but it could be possible.Russian has perfective and imperfective aspect verbs (not conjugations of the same root) and conjugations for tense that are different aspects: Russian perfect aspect verbs only have 2 tenses and the present tense conjugation endings of imperfective verbs are either the past or future tense endings of perfective aspect verbs (can't remember which) and perfective aspect verbs do not have a present tense (if I remember correctly.) The point being that aspect and tense can act independently and should not be equated with each other.

@Tagamanila Aspect and tense really are not different terms for same thing. Labeling the Tagalog aspects with tense names is one of those misguided attempts to make Tagalog seem more like English presumably to increase student comfort level or "simplify" that eventually causes confusion when the inaccurate labeling does not apply. If you think imperfect aspect is the same as English present tense, you will be totally confused when imperfect aspect is used for a past acton as in the example given, and probably other examples of mismatches.

@JohnD Thanks for that one example of Tagalog imperfect aspect being used in the English past tense. As a student of languages, I am very clear on what the difference is between aspect and tense, and that Tagalog verbs are conjugated for aspect. What I want is more examples or guidance as to how mislabeling the Tagalog aspects as English tenses explains the common errors of tense that Tagalog speakers make with English, and how to avoid making the same kinds of mistakes when using Tagalog.

"When I was walking, I tripped over = Nang ako ay naglalakad, ako ay nadapa. "Naglalakad" is simple present tense and "nadapa" is simple past tense. ... the tripping over must have happened within the time the narrator was walking."Thank you for translating Tagamanila. This is a great example of my understanding of aspect. As the tripping over happened within the time the narrator was walking, the walking is incomplete and so walking uses the incomplete (present) aspect - naglalakad. The tripping however started and finished and so the completed (past) aspect is used - nadapa.I get an inkling of what is going on here. But for me this is really refined Tagalog and way above my skill level. I need to concentrate on the basics such as why you used 'nang' for 'when' in this sentence whereas I would have used 'kapag'!

I do notice a difference between English tense and Filipino aspect, but it's hard to pin down for me. The important thing is to recognize the English tense and Filipino aspect don't always line up directly, and to keep an eye out for patterns where they diverge. These constructs usually trip me up:Inasahan kong darating ka kahapon.
I was hoping you would arrive yesterday....see the "darating"conjugation? That is the contemplated aspect conjugation, the aspect that corresponds with "Future tense" in English. But as an English speaker, I would never think to use "Future tense" in such a situation in English... ("I was hoping you WILL arrive YESTERDAY" ??) Calling that conjugation the "Contemplated" aspect makes more logical sense in this situation: the arrival neither started nor finished in actuality.

@JohnD I do not know if they teach aspect in Filipino subjects now. When I was still in school, it seemed to me like Filipino tenses were also just simply "pangnagdaan" (past), "pangkasalukuyan" (present), and "panghinaharap" (future). In my case and that of most of my classmates then, maybe not much information or details were necessary anymore for us to learn Filipino because we already speak it. Tagalog is the first language of almost all of us and Filipino is practically Tagalog. Assuming that my understanding of aspect is correct, I think that in Filipino, it is understood or shown through a time cue and by changing the verb form. For example, using the present tense for the aspects:Simple/Indefinite: NAGLALAKAD ako papunta sa tindahan. = I WALK to the store. (If I am saying this at the moment, it will be understood as habitual action and, therefore, in the simple present tense).Perfect/Completed: NAKALAKAD ako papunta sa tindahan kahapon. = I HAVE WALKED/was able to walk to the store yesterday.Progressive/Continuing: NAGLALAKAD ako papunta sa tindahan ngayon. = I AM WALKING to the store right now.Perfect Progressive: NAGLALAKAD ako pupunta sa tindahan tuwing umaga mula pa noong isang taon. = I HAVE BEEN WALKING to the store every morning since a year ago.The thing is, Filipino does not have the equivalent of the verb "to be", but aspect in English grammar heavily relies on that verb. When we translate a Filipino sentence into English, we just have to make use of the to-be verb whenever it is needed as dictated by English grammar. We are able to figure out which form of the to-be verb to use simply based on the time cue of the Filipino sentence. It is possible that this to-be verb now becomes a problem for English speakers when they try to make a back translation. "When I was walking, I tripped over" = "Nang ako ay naglalakad, ako ay nadapa". "Naglalakad" is simple present tense and "nadapa" is simple past tense. From the perspective of a Filipino, the narrator could only be referring to a past event and the tripping over must have happened within the time the narrator was walking. That is all that we need to know and we understand it in Filipino in exactly the same way as you would understand that as "When I was walking, I tripped over" in English. In Filipino that sentence might just be like "As I walk, I tripped over", and the corresponding aspect would just naturally settle in.

I am in a similar position to you Tagamanila. At school doing English and Latin, it was all about tenses. I have also heard that Tagalog uses aspect and not tense and have also tried to get my head around aspect.
But coming back to the basics of simple past present and future, I find that if I translate English into Tagalog, the English tense and the Tagalog aspect are pretty much 100% the same. But occasionally I find a difference and it is usually in the sort of compound sentence I mentioned earlier where English uses the past but Tagalog the present. Sentences along the lines of "When I was walking, I tripped over". I don't have any specific examples but I know that there is a difference somewhere there and I suspect it is to do with aspect versus tense.
An interesting subject. Still for Tagalog beginners such as myself, just using tenses works.

@JohnD When I was young I LIVED in England. = Noong bata ako TUMIRA ako sa England.When I was young I WOULD OCCASIONALLY LIVE/BE LIVING in England. = Noong bata ako TUMITIRA ako sa England.When we were taught English in school, and we were using American books and workbooks then, everything was called "tense" - past, present, future, perfect, progressive, and perfect progressive. This concept of aspect is rather new to me. I only encountered it when I started participating in language learning sites like this. I did some research on "aspect" then and what I gathered was that they are just categories of those same tenses. The aspect categories are simple, perfect, progressive, and perfect progressive. However, some months ago, there was a native-English-speaker member here who said that the Filipino language does not have tenses, only aspects. That got me to thinking that I might have misunderstood this concept of aspect in the first place. Hence, every time someone talks about aspect here, I just keep quiet, as much as possible. 😀 It would be better for me to keep away, and so as not commit a mistake, from explaining English grammar in Filipino terms to a native English speaker.😎