Finite verbal forms
Mongolic languages have complex systems of simple finite verbal forms (indicative and imperative), supplemented by simple non-finite forms (so-called ‘participles’ that can also act as action nouns) in finite use. Additionally, there are many different periphrastic forms (aktionsart, modals, evidentials, etc.).
The indicative comprises:- the durative form expressing the general present or a proximate future, e.g., in Buryat huu-na-b, ‘I sit’;
- the terminative form expressing the past tense, e.g., huu-ba-b, ‘I sat’ in Buryat;
- confirmative (also analyzed as first-hand evidential) that is obsolete in modern Buryat but active in Kalmyk and Khalkha;
- past resultative (also analyzed as indirect evidential), absent in modern Buryat;
- participles in finite use expressing different temporal, aspectual, and modal characteristics of the action.
Table: Finite indicative verbal forms in Khalkha, Buryat, and Kalmyk
| denotations | tense/aspect values | Khalkha | Buryat | Kalmyk | |
| Simple finite | terminative | -v | -bA | -v | |
| resultative (indirect evidential) | -ž/-žee | − | -ž | ||
| confirmative | -lAA | -lAi | -lA | ||
| durative | -nA | -nA | -nA | ||
| Polyfunctional ‘participles’ in finite use | past participle | completed past | -sAn | − | (-sn) |
| past participle + particle yum / mön | factive past | -sAn yum | -hAn yum | -smn | |
| habitual participle | habitual / generic present | -dAg | -dAg | -dg | |
| potential participle | possibility | (-mAAr) | -mAAr | -m, -mAAr | |
| imperfective participle | uncompleted past action continued into present | -(g)AA | -(g)AA | -(h)A | |
| uncompleted past action referred to the moment in the past | − | -(g)AA hen | − | ||
| passive-resultative participle | resultative | − | -(g)AAtAi | -AtA | |
| future participle + poss. markers | close future (+ necessity) | − | -xA (-mni, -šni, -ny) | − | |
| future participle + pers. markers | general future | − | -xA (-b, -š, -∅) | -x |
The negation of the indicative forms in Buryat is suffixal (the marker -güi). In contrast, the indicative forms in Khalkha and Kalmyk can not be negated directly, for this purpose analytical constructions are used, they are based on participles and an auxiliary verb combined with the negative particle -güi in Khalkha and uga/-go in Kalmyk.
Imperatives in all three languages express a variety of different modal shades such as command, request, wish, willingness, intention; there is a core consisting of common Mongolic forms plus several special forms in each separate language (see the table below). In all three languages, the unmarked verbal stem itself serves as the principal imperative form expressing a command directed at the second person. All other forms of the imperative paradigm are suffixally marked.
Table: Imperatives
| Imperative forms | person / number | Khalkha | Buryat | Kalmyk |
| simple imperative | 2p. | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ |
| benedictive | 2p. | -gtUn | -gtii | -tn |
| prescriptive | 2p. sg/pl | -(g)AArAi | -(g)AArAi | − |
| precative | 2p. sg | -AAč | -(g)ii | -i |
| optative | 1p. sg/pl | (-sUU) | -hUU | -s |
| optative expanded | 1-3p. | -(g)AAsAi | -hAi | -sA |
| jussive | 3p. sg/pl | -g | -g | -g |
| jussive potential | 1-3p. | − | − | -txA |
| -mz | − | -mzA | ||
| apprehensive | 1-3p. | -UUzAi | -(g)UUžAn | -vzA / UzA |
| hortative | 1p. pl | -yA | -yAA | -ij |
Most of the imperative forms in Buryat and Kalmyk take predicative personal markers, with exception of the benedictive and permissive that remain systematically unmarked. For voluntative, optative and prescriptive, personal marking is optional. The usage of the personal markers with the imperative forms goes back to Proto-Mongolic, which developed a fixed connection of the imperative forms with a certain subject person, and in some cases with a certain subject number (Janhunen 2003: 22).
In contrast to Buryat and Kalmyk, Khalkha has no personal markers attached to the imperative (as well as the indicative) forms. Only the precative contains -č that is the remnant of personal predicative marker of the second person singular; the marker -t encoding the second person plural that is no longer actively used in Khalkha.
All imperative forms are negated by the prepositional prohibitive particle bitgii/büü (archaic) in Khalkha, bü/büü in Buryat, and bičä in Kalmyk.
In periphrastic verbal forms with aspectual, temporal, directional, modal, or evidential meaning the lexical verb takes one of the non-finite forms combined with auxiliaries (verbs or modal adjectives, which in turn may combine with a copula for tense, aspect and evidentiality marking). Auxiliary and copular verbs take one of the finite markers. Different periphrastic forms can be combined with each other, so that highly complex predicates consisting of several components can be built. Each construction lies within the scope of the subsequent construction, e.g., in Kalmyk [[[[xuld-ž av]-l uga bää]-ž bol]-š-go bol-v] ‘it turned out that it became impossible to buy for oneself...’: -ž av- denotes an action beneficial to the actor, -l uga bää- (negative progressive) expresses the prolonged absence of an expected action, -ž bol- has the meaning of circumstantial possibility, -š-go bol- (negative prospective) indicates that the state-of-affairs is such that the action is not expected, and -v locates the whole event in the past.