Future

The primary future is the future relative to the time of the speech act. For most verbs, the future is realised usually by a 'future indicative' verb as in faciam ('I will do'), seldom by a 'present indicative' verb as in faciō (also translated as 'I will do'). In Early Latin, there was the 'sigmatic future indicative' faxō (also 'I will do')^{[lower-roman 16]}.

For verbs of recalling such as meminī ('I remember'), ōdī ('I hate'), nōvī ('I know') and verbs of resulting states such as mortuus est ('is dead') and dīvīsa est ('is divided'), tense inflections and periphrases that usually construe a past-in-future as in fēcerō ('I will have done') have their meanings reduced to a primary future as in meminerō ('I will remember', evolved from 'I will have memorized').

Present

The primary present is the present relative to the time of the speech act. Most often the present tense is construed by a 'present indicative' verb. For verbs of recalling such as meminī ('I remember'), ōdī ('I hate'), nōvī ('I know') and verbs of resulting states such as mortuus est ('is dead') and dīvīsum est ('is divided'), tense inflections and periphrases that usually construe a past-in-present as in ēgī ('I have done') and āctum est ('has been done') have their meanings reduced to a primary present as in meminī ('I remember', evolved from 'I have memorized').^{[lower-roman 17][lower-roman 18][lower-roman 19]}

In particular, the 'present indicative' auxiliary in "sum" perfect periphrasis as in mortuus est may represent either a past event ('he died') or a present state ('he is dead').^{[lower-roman 20]} Similarly, the 'present indicative' auxiliary in "habeō" perfect periphrasis as in habeō subōrnātum may represent either a present ownership of placed objects ('I own that clock placed over there') or the placement of owned objects with focus on the placement ('my clock is placed over there').^{[lower-roman 21]} In contrast, the 'present indicative' in "teneō" perfect periphrasis ('hold' or 'keep') represents the process of actively keeping an obeject in a given state while one speaks.

Past

The primary past is the past relative to the time of the speech act. In biographies, past events are usually represented by 'perfect indicative' verbs.^{[lower-roman 22]} In contrast, in narrative prose and poetry, past events are most often represented by 'present indicative' verbs as if these events were taking place at the time of narration.^{[lower-roman 23]} In particular, past speech acts are often represented by 'present indicative' verbs when the one saying something is not the speaker/writer: e.g. fidem dant 'they gave a pledge' or ōrant 'they begged'. More than half the 'present indicative' verbs for past events in Caesar's books are of this kind.^{[lower-roman 24]} However, in recounts of events long past at the time of narration, the 'imperfect indicative' is used instead of 'perfect indicative' or 'present indicative' as if these events were being vividly remembered by a story-internal observer in distress.^{[lower-roman 25][lower-roman 26][lower-roman 27]} As for word order, in Caesar's books, when a verb for a past event is placed initially in the sentence, as in the example below (videt imminēre hostēs), it is very frequently 'present indicative'.^{[lower-roman 28]}

For verbs of recalling such as meminī ('I remember'), ōdī ('I hate'), nōvī ('I know') and verbs of resulting states such as mortuus est ('is dead') and dīvīsa est ('is divided'), tense inflections and periphrases that usually construe a past-in-past as in fēceram ('I had done') have their meanings reduced to a primary past as in meminī ('I remembered', evolved from 'I had memorized').

In some contexts, the '"habeō" perfect periphrasis with present indicative auxiliary' is often interchangeable with 'perfect indicative' verbs. In later Latin the compound past with habeō became progressively more common, though still less common than the simple past with a 'perfect indicative' verb.^{[lower-roman 29]}

Secondary future

The secondary future is the future relative to a primary tense, which can be future, present, or past. Most often, the secondary future is realized by the periphrasis facturus + erō, sum, eram, fuī.

If applied to actions, the compound 'future in present' (e.g. factūrus sum, ‘am [going] to do’) represents a person's action that is future at an ongoing process other than the speech act such as tē absente ("while you are absent"). Similarly, the compound 'future in future' (e.g. factūrus erō, 'I will do') represents a person's action that will happen after a given future event. In contrast, the future periphrasis with an ‘imperfect indicative’ auxiliary (e.g. factūrus eram, ‘was about to do’) represents a person’s past plan of action. Although less common than the future periphrases with eram, future periphrases with a ‘perfect indicative’ auxiliary such as fuī are also found.^{[lower-roman 30]}

Secondary present

The secondary present is the present relative to a primary tense, which can be future, present or past. From these, 'present in present' is the rarest one. Theare are two secondary presents in Latin: the simple secondary present is realised by verbs with īnfectum aspect such as faciam^{[lower-roman 31]}, faciō, faciēbam and the compound secondary present is realised by the periphrasis facere + coeperō, coepī, coeperam.^{[lower-roman 32][lower-roman 33][lower-roman 34]} The verb group is often accompanied by spatial and temporal adjuncts such as ibī 'there', tum 'then', and eō tempore 'at that moment'.

Secondary past

The secondary past is the past relative to a primary tense, which can be future, present or past. There are three secondary pasts in Latin: 1. the simple secondary past is realised by verbs with perfectum aspect such as fēcerō, fēcī, fēceram; 2. the compound secondary past with "sum" is realised by the periphrasis factus + ero, sum, eram or fuī; and 3. the compound secondary past with "habeō" is realised by the periphrasis factum + habēbō, habeō, habēbam or habuī. In the secondary past, imperfect indicative auxiliaries such as eram and habēbam are more frequent than their perfect indicative counterparts such as fuī and habuī.^{[lower-roman 35]}

Tertiary past

If the secondary past applies to an event that had happened prior to a past point in time, the tertiary past applies to a third event that had happened earlier than that. The tertiary past is realised by a 'pluperfect indicative' auxiliary in either the "sum" perfect periphrasis or the "habeō" perfect periphrasis. Both the compound tertiary past with fueram and the compound tertiary past with habueram are uncommon tenses.^{[lower-roman 36]}

Formal descriptions

• De Melo, Wolfgang David Cirilo (2007a), The Sigmatic Future in Archaic Latin. in De Melo, Wolfgang David Cirilo, The Early Latin Verb System: Archaic Forms in Plautus, Terence, and Beyond Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.171–190

• De Melo, Wolfgang David Cirilo (2007b), Simple Future and Future Perfect in Archaic Latin. in De Melo, Wolfgang David Cirilo, The Early Latin Verb System: Archaic Forms in Plautus, Terence, and Beyond Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.21–50

• Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2006), Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016). On 'coepi'/'incipio' + infinitive: some new remarks. Chapter in Adams, James Noel and Vincent, Nigel. Early and late Latin: continuity or change? Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, p.246-264

• Haverling, Gerd V.M. (2002). "On the semantic functions of the Latin perfect". Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, Volume 10.

• Pinkster, Harm (1987). "The Strategy and Chronology of the Development of Future and Perfect Tense Auxiliaries in Latin". In Martin Harris and Paolo Ramat (eds.) Historical Development of Auxiliaries (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 35). De Gruyter Mouton.

• Rosén, Hannah (2012). "The late Latin coepī + infinitive construction: evidences from translated texts". in Classica et Mediaevalia, vol. 63, pp. 189-215

• Viti, Carlotta (2010). "The non-literal use of tenses in Latin, with particular reference to the praesens historicum". Revue de linguistique latine du Centre Alfred Ernout. (Posted at Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich).

Functional descriptions

• Aerts, Simon (2018). "Tense, Aspect and Aktionsart in Classical Latin: Towards a New Approach". Symbolae Osloenses 92(1):107–149.

• Haverling, Gerd V.M. (2012). "Actionality, tense, and viewpoint". In Baldi, Philip; Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds.) (2012). Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense. ISBN 978-3110205633, pp. 277–524.

• Schlicher, J. J. (1931). "The Historical Tenses and Their Functions in Latin". Classical Philology Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan., 1931), pp. 46–59.

Grammar books

• Touratier, Christian (2013). "Lateinische Grammatik - linguistische Einführung in die lateinische Sprache". WBG: Darmstadt

• Gildersleeve, B. L. & Gonzalez Lodge (1895). Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar. 3rd Edition. (Macmillan)

• Guerreira, Augustín Ramos (2021), “Tiempo y Aspecto” in José Miguel Baños Baños, “Sintaxis Latina”, Vol. I, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid. ISBN 978-8400108250

• Pinkster, Harm (1990), Latin Syntax and Semantics. Chapter 11: The Latin tense system.

• Rubenbauer, Hans & Hofmann, J.B. (2018) Lateinische Grammatik. Oldenburg Schulbuchverlag GmbH, Munich. ISBN 978-3-63706940-4