The Maya or Yucatecan language has a special pronoun which added to any noun forms a sentence with it, and possesses the power to add the idea of the verb; Pedro en, I am Pedro. But when it stands alone, without a predicate, it loses this power, as en alone does not mean, “I am.”
In the Beto language there is, indeed, no special pronoun of this kind, as the one used is also a possessive. Its position, however, makes the difference. When it is prefixed, it is the possessive, but when suffixed it carries with it the power of the verb: humani rru, man I (am); fofei rru, bad I (am). In a similar manner this tongue forms a substantive verb, ajoi rru. The meaning of the root is not given, but it seems to mean something present, at hand. It is suggestive that in these phrases the accent is always on the pronoun, as if to signify that that is the important element.
It is very common in American languages to find the noun and the verb using the same pronouns, with the former to indicate possession, with the latter the subject. This might be explained by supposing that the action is regarded as the possession of the agent. But it is simpler to suppose that in each case the connection of the person with the noun and the verb is in the thoughts, and this relation is recognized in expression.
In this way the Mbaya language has a sort of descriptive conjugation; connecting the participles with possessive pronouns; i-iligodi, I (am) explaining; but no doubt less definitely, “my explaining,” “I to explain.”
The language of the Abipones slightly alters the possessive pronouns in some persons and uses them in a similar manner: ri-aal, I am lazy; yo-amkata, he is good.
When the verbal pronoun is used in such expressions, it is entirely identical with the verb.
This is the case with the Mexican, where the verbal pronoun united to the participle forms a sentence: ni-tlaçotlani, I (am) a lover. This expression differs from the present indicative only in the form of the root-word, ni-tlaçotla; but it cannot form another tense or mode. The grammarians call such an expression a tense indicating habit. This, however, would not be a tense but a mode, and, in fact, the term rests on a misunderstanding. That such expressions indicate habit is shown by the fact that they do not apply, like the present of the verb, to the temporary action, but convey that it is a custom, or a business; not that I am loving just now, but that I am habitually a lover.
An entirely similar instance occurs in the North Guaranay language, which also permits, besides the regular conjugation, a union of the root of the verb with a pronoun, the verb being omitted. The grammarians of that tongue say that this adds extension and emphasis to the sense of the verb. The real difference, however, is that this procedure treats the verb as a noun, and the extension comes from considering the action expressed by the verb to have become a permanent quality; a poro iuca, I kill men (ordinary conjugation); xe poro iuca, I (am) a man-killer (form with the possessive pronoun); I kill men as my business.
In both these languages, therefore, what have been represented as peculiar and separated forms, tenses indicating habit, or forms of extension, are simply erroneous explanations of quite simple constructions. In Mexican the correctness of this explanation is confirmed by the forms of the vocative, which are identical with this supposed tense, in ti tlatlacoani, O thou sinner; literally, thou who (art) a sinner.
In the above examples the verbal power lies in the pronouns. But the Mbaya language constructs verbal sentences by adding the sign of the future to any adjective without a pronoun. This sign is de, or before a vowel d: de liidi, it will be pleasant to the taste; d otiya, he will be fat. I do not find other examples, and am uncertain whether other tenses and modes are thus formed. In that case the pronouns would have to be added, and the expression would lose its peculiarity, which is that the tense sign alone carries with it the notion of Being.