A compound future may be formed by adding to the root with -jī the words dòkdòk-lo: lā thī-jī dòkdòk-lo, “he is just about to die”; àn chō-jī dòkdòk-lo, “it is near breakfast-time” (rice-eating); àn īk-jī dòkdòk-lo, “the rice is nearly all done.” A doubtful future may be expressed by -jī added to the present participle: konàt chainòng ā-òk-sī dàk-sī kedo-jī, “where should cow’s flesh be here?”
From the above it will be seen that there is much indefiniteness in the indications of time afforded by the Mikir verb: except tàng for the past complete, and -jī for the future, the other suffixes may, according to circumstances, be rendered by the past, present, or future; they may also on occasion be omitted altogether. But the context generally removes all ambiguity.
Conditional phrases are formed by putting -tē or -lē, “if,” at the end of the first member, and the second generally in the future with -jī or -po. Of the conditional future an example is nàng dàm-tē, nàng lā thèk-dàm-jī, “if you go, you will see him.” The conditional past inserts āsòn (“like, supposing that,”) before -tē: dohòn do-āsòn-tē, nē lā nàm-jī, “if I had money, I would buy it.” The conditional pluperfect modifies the second member thus: nàng dàm āsòn-tē, nàng lā lòng-lòk āpòtlo, “if you had gone, you would have got it”; nàng nē thàn āsòn-tē, nē lā klèm tàng-lo, “if you had explained to me, I would have done it.”
The imperative is, for the second person, the bare root, or more usually the root strengthened by the addition of nòn or thā, and dialectically of noi; nòn (= “now”) is the strongest form. The other persons are formed by the addition of nàng (a verb meaning “to be necessary”) to the future in -po or present in -lo: “let us go” is ī-tum dàm-po-nàng; “let us go to the field and plough,” rīt hai-bai dàm-lo-nàng. We may, for the third person, use the causative form of the verb: lā-kē pedàm-nòn, “let him go.”
Participles. The present participle has the form of the adjective, with the prefixed ke- (ki-) or kā-; as kedàm, “going,” kā-chirū, “weeping.” The past participle is the root or the present participle with tàng added: dàm-tàng, “gone,” thèk-tàng, “having seen,” kā-pàngtu-tàng, “fattened.”
Perhaps the most used form of the verb, especially in narrative, is the conjunctive participle, which is either the bare root, or the root with -sī; hèm che-voi-sī thèk-lo, “having returned home, he saw.” When the past is indicated, dèt is used, either with or without -sī, as chō-dèt jun-dèt, sārburā, tòn-ārlo kaibòng pātu-joi-sī, ī-lo, “having finished eating and drinking, the old man, having quietly hidden his club in a basket, lay down”; Tèntòn, dohòn-ālàngbòng lòng-sī, rīt dàm-dē-dèt-sī, kàt-jui-lo, “Tenton, having got the bamboo-joint with the money, without returning to the field, ran away.”
When the phrase in which the conjunctive participle occurs is terminated by an imperative, the suffix is not -sī but -rā: “having eaten your rice, go,” is àn chō-rā dàm-nòn; but “having eaten his rice, he went,” is ān chōdèt-sī dàm-lo. While -sī links together parts of a narrative, -rā links together a string of imperatives.
The infinitive or verbal noun is identical in form with the present participle; kum-kiròt tàngtē kekàn ārkī nàng ārju-lònglo, “he heard (got to hear) there (nàng) the sound (ārkī) of fiddle (kum) scraping (ki-ròt) and dancing (ke-kàn).” All words beginning with ke-, ki-, and kā- may therefore be regarded as (1) adjectives, (2) participles forming tenses of the verb, or (3) verbal nouns; and it will be seen from the analysis of the specimens how clearly this at first sight strange allocation of forms can be made to express the required sense.
In all Tibeto-Burman languages the passive voice is either non-existent or little used; a sentence which in English would be stated passively is turned the other way, and appears in an active form. Thus—“Four trees were uprooted by the wind” would be rendered tomòn thèngpī ròng-philī pi-pur-koi-lo, “the wind uprooted four trees”; “this house has been thrown down by an earthquake” is chiklī-sī lābàngsō āhèm pi-ru-hup-lo, “an earthquake has thrown down this house.” Sometimes a passive may be expressed by a periphrasis, as “I was beaten,” nē kechòk èn-tàng, lit. “I received a beating.” The only unquestionable example of a passive is in the case of past participles, and here the passive is expressed by the simple expedient of putting the participle before instead of after the noun: bàng kevàn āhòr, “the drink brought by people”; mājā kelòng ārlèng, “a man bewitched”; nē ke-pī ā-àn āhòr, “the to-me-given rice and beer.” This construction is exactly parallel to the method (explained above) of expressing the relative phrase by putting the adjective first, instead of after the noun, and is in fact another case of the same idiom. The participle, which may also (as just explained) be regarded as a verbal noun, comes before the subject of the sentence, because the action passes on to the subject, instead of emanating from it, as in an active construction. We are tempted to think that languages which lack what seems to European modes of thought such essential elements as a relative pronoun and a passive voice cannot be capable of any subtlety of expression; yet this phenomenon is common to forms of speech like Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese, which possess vast literatures dealing with all kinds of subjects, and in which it is possible to render ideas of the greatest complexity and variety. Even in Europe, the clearest and most logical of languages, French, prefers to use the active form of phrase (with on) rather than the passive.
The negative verb is a very interesting and remarkable feature of the language. A separate negative root, formed by prefixing or suffixing a negative particle, and conjugated in the same way as the positive, is indeed a common property of Tibeto-Burman speech; but in Mikir this secondary root is formed in a peculiar manner. The negating syllable -ē is added to the primitive, as un, “can,” un-ē, “cannot”; òng, “be much,” òng-e, “be not much”; ī, “lie down,” ī-ē, “not lie down.” But when the root begins with a consonant or a nexus of consonants, and is monosyllabic, the consonant or nexus is repeated before the added vowel: thèk, “see, be able”; thèk-thē, “not see, be unable”; dàm, “go,” dàm-dē, “not go”; kroi, “believe, obey,” kroi-krē, “disbelieve, disobey”; mèk-pràng, “eye-open, awake,” mèk-pràng-prē, “not awake.” When the verb is of two or more syllables, the last is chosen for reduplication: inghoi, “do,” inghoi-hē, “not do”; ingjinsō, “show mercy,” ingjinsō-sē, “not show mercy”; chini (Ass. loan-word), “recognise,” chini-nē, “not recognise.”