Is this any good?

[bradrn]

4. I think a few languages have a future/nonfuture split.

Hmm, which ones?

Imperative mood

I should note that it is extremely common to use the bare stem or at most a minimally-inflected form of a verb as its 2nd singular imperative, so I would hesitate to use a separate particle or auxiliary verb for expressing them.

Not universal, though! There are a surprising number of languages with a marked imperative (see e.g. WALS feature 70).

[chris_notts]

4. I think a few languages have a future/nonfuture split.

Hmm, which ones?

Bhat suggests Manipuri. Examples suggest that eventive/dynamic verbs distinguish future, (present?) progressive/durative, vs everything else (past/present habitual/...), whereas stative verbs just distinguish future vs non-future. But how much you can infer from a few examples is a good question.

[bradrn]

4. I think a few languages have a future/nonfuture split.

Hmm, which ones?

Bhat suggests Manipuri. Examples suggest that eventive/dynamic verbs distinguish future, (present?) progressive/durative, vs everything else (past/present habitual/...), whereas stative verbs just distinguish future vs non-future. But how much you can infer from a few examples is a good question.

Manipuri is its own special case; IIRC according to Dixon its alignment is purely semantic, rather than relying on syntactic roles.

[chris_notts]

Hmm, which ones?

Bhat suggests Manipuri. Examples suggest that eventive/dynamic verbs distinguish future, (present?) progressive/durative, vs everything else (past/present habitual/...), whereas stative verbs just distinguish future vs non-future. But how much you can infer from a few examples is a good question.

Manipuri is its own special case; IIRC according to Dixon its alignment is purely semantic, rather than relying on syntactic roles.

Bhat agrees! Sorry, I misunderstood the question and thought you just wanted examples where the tense distinction was fut vs non-fut, and not a tense conditioned alignment split.

[bradrn]

Bhat suggests Manipuri. Examples suggest that eventive/dynamic verbs distinguish future, (present?) progressive/durative, vs everything else (past/present habitual/...), whereas stative verbs just distinguish future vs non-future. But how much you can infer from a few examples is a good question.

Manipuri is its own special case; IIRC according to Dixon its alignment is purely semantic, rather than relying on syntactic roles.

Bhat agrees! Sorry, I misunderstood the question and thought you just wanted examples where the tense distinction was fut vs non-fut, and not a tense conditioned alignment split.

Ah, sorry for being unclear! As I recall, for a fut/nonfut distinction alone Finnish suffices. It’s the alignment split I was wondering about.