Editing Umbrian language (section)

=== Verbal system ===

==== Conjugation ====
The Umbrian first conjugation is distinguished by the [[thematic vowel]] {{lang|xum|-ā-}} in the [[present]] [[Conjugation (grammar)|conjugation]], although it typically appeared throughout the various inflected forms for each conjugation rather than exclusively the present.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=161}} However, rare [[Perfect (grammar)|perfect]] and perfect passive forms without the [[morpheme]] {{lang|xum|-ā-}} are attested, such as the terms {{lang|xum|'''pruseçetu'''}}, {{lang|xum|'''prusekatu'''}}, and {{lang|la|'''portust'''}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=162}} This irregularity also appears in a select few first conjugation Latin verbs, such as the perfect form {{lang|la|domui}} from {{lang|la|domare}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=132}} The inflected forms of the first conjugation were formed via the addition of the various [[Suffix|suffixes]] that mark for [[Grammatical person|person]] and [[Grammatical number|number]] to the initial {{lang|xum|-ā}}, a transformation likely accompanied either by the [[Contraction (grammar)|contraction]] of the stem, leaving either {{lang|xum|-ā}} or {{lang|la|-ō}} before the suffix.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=161}} In Latin, second, third, or fourth conjugation verbs compounded with a preposition can transform into first conjugation verbs, consider the derivation of {{lang|la|dedicare}} ("to dedicate") from {{lang|la|dicere}} ("to say"). Likewise, the equivalent Umbrian verb {{lang|xum|dadíkatted}} derives from the verb {{lang|xum|deicum}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=131}}

The Umbrian second conjugation, like the Latin second conjugation, is identified by the presence of the long [[vowel]] {{lang|xum|-ē-}} in the present stem, although—like Latin—it is often absent from the perfect stem. In Latin, attested verbs such as {{lang|la|flevi}} from {{lang|xum|flere}} provide direct proof of the occasional, albeit rare, formation of perfect stem and passive participle with {{lang|xum|-ē}}; however, the existing Umbrian corpus provides no evidence of such irregularities. Another second conjugation verb, {{Lang|xum|'''tiçit'''}} (equivalent of Latin "{{Lang|la|decet}}," "[it] is suitable for"), suggests that the thematic vowel of second conjugation Umbrian verbs could have alternated to {{Lang|xum|-i-}}. It is also possible that {{Lang|xum|-ei-}} was a rare marker for the Umbrian second conjugation: it appears in one verb, {{Lang|xum|trebeit}}, although this term may have been a fourth conjugation verb.{{Sfn|deMello|2024|p=4}} The Umbrian third conjugation is marked by the short vowel {{lang|xum|-e}} just as in Latin, although Umbrian lacks third conjugation {{Lang|xum|-iō}} verbs, which appear in Latin in verbs such {{lang|la|facio}}, from {{lang|la|facere}}). These verbs, throughout all Italic languages, derive from the {{lang|itc|-jō}} variant verbs in Proto-Italic, each of which—likely through vowel [[syncopation]]—evolved into a largely regularly-conjugated third or fourth conjugation verb in Umbrian whereas in Latin they constitute their own unique class between the third and fourth conjugations.{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=132}} Examples of Umbrian verbs with [[Reduplication|reduplicated]] stems, akin to Latin verbs such as {{Lang|la|sisto}}, appear Umbrian third conjugation verbs such as {{Lang|xum|sestu}}, the exact equivalent of Latin {{Lang|la|sisto}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=163}} However, other Umbrian verbs potentially showcase the loss of reduplication; for instance, the verb {{lang|xum|'''restef'''}}, possibly from {{Lang|la|*re-sisto}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=163}} Fourth conjugation Umbrian verbs, like Latin, are marked by the [[phoneme]] {{Lang|xum|-ī}} in the present stem. Furthermore, like Latin, perfect forms may lack {{Lang|xum|-ī}}: Umbrian {{Lang|xum|fakust}} is a form of the fourth conjugation Umbrian verb {{Lang|xum|fasiu}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=133}} 

Present active [[infinitive]] forms in Umbrian took the ending {{Lang|xum|-om}}, which likely derived from a Proto-Italic accusative formation. However, perfect passive infinitive forms were created through the present infinitive of the Umbrian verb for "to be" with a perfect passive [[participle]]. For instance, the Umbrian perfect passive infinitives "{{Lang|xum|'''kuratu eru'''}}" (in Latin, "{{Lang|la|curatum esse}}") and "{{Lang|xum|ehiato erom}}" (in Latin, "{{Lang|la|emissum esse}}"), meaning "to be cared for" and "to be sent from" respectively.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=179}} There is limited evidence confirming the existence of [[supine]] forms in Umbrian akin to Latin: the only definitive example of a supine formation in Umbrian appears in the phrase {{Lang|xum|aseriato etu}}, equivalent to Latin "{{Lang|la|observatum it}}," meaning "[who] shall go to observe."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=179}}

==== Perfect formation ====

===== Perfect stem =====
Like other Italic languages, the Umbrian language merged the aorist and perfect tense found in [[Proto-Italic language|Proto-Italic]] and [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]], although the Sabellic languages, a language family of which Umbrian is a member, preserved the forms of the Proto-Indo-European athematic second aorist while Latin preserved the perfect forms of Proto-Indo-European. These etymological differences created numerous morphological discrepancies between the Sabellic languages and the Latino-Faliscan languages, the subgroup of Italic languages containing Latin. In Umbrian, the perfect subjunctive was marked by the addition of the vowel {{lang|xum|-ē-}} to the ending while in Latin, it was marked by the vowel {{Lang|la|-ī-}}.{{Sfn|Piwowarczyk|2011|p=107}} Umbrian perfect stems likely could be formed by 5 distinct types of modification applied to the present stem of the verb: reduplication, the simple perfect, k-perfect, f-perfect, and—a form exclusive to Umbrian—the nky-perfect.{{Sfn|Piwowarczyk|2011|p=107}} Reduplication was the most common method of forming the perfect in the original Proto-Indo-European language and it typically involved the addition of the vowel {{Lang|xum|-e-}} following the reduplicated syllable. Remnants of this technique appear in Umbrian verbs such as {{Lang|xum|peperscust}}, in which the initial consonant of {{Lang|xum|p-}} is reduplicated with an {{Lang|xum|-e-}} vowel added between the two letters. However, perfect forms that are—in origin—reduplicated perfects may not follow this pattern.{{Sfn|Piwowarczyk|2011|p=109}} This category, referred to as the "simple perfects," comprise verbs such as {{Lang|xum|dersicust}}, which likely derives from {{Lang|xum|*dedik-}}, the perfect stem of the Proto-Italic verb {{Lang|itc|*deikō}}. Although the original form was reduplicated according to the aforementioned pattern, the {{Lang|itc|-d-}} changed to {{Lang|xum|-ř-}} during the transition from Proto-Italic to Umbrian.{{Sfn|Piwowarczyk|2011|p=110}}

Umbrian perfect forms such as {{Lang|xum|andirsafust}} demonstrate the f-perfect, a type of modification that forms perfect stems through the addition of the consonant {{Lang|xum|-f-}}. The origin of this type of augment is unclear, although it may have derived from the [[univerbation]] of older terms. For instance, in the case of {{Lang|xum|andirsafust}}, the term may have originated from the {{Lang|itc|am-di-da-nt-s fust}}, although this etymology specifically is disputed.{{Sfn|Piwowarczyk|2011|p=113}} In Umbrian, perfect stems possibly could be marked through the addition of the consonant {{Lang|xum|-s-}}, a modification that likely originates from the original [[Sigma|sigmatic]] aorist of the Proto-Indo-European language. This form, the s-perfect, is entirely unattested in Umbrian with the possible exception of one form: {{Lang|xum|sesust}}. However, this form is more often interpreted as a reduplicated perfect, leaving no evidence of the existence of s-perfects in Umbrian and thus compelling some linguists to reject the existence of such forms in the language.{{Sfn|Piwowarczyk|2011|p=111}}  

The perfect marker {{Lang|la|-nsi-}}, {{Lang|xum|-ns-}}, or {{Lang|xum|-nç-}} appears in Umbrian terms such as {{Lang|xum|'''purtinçus'''}} and {{Lang|la|purdinsiust}}.{{Sfn|Markey|1985|pp=261-262}} The etymological origins of this root are unclear, it may have emerged from a reconstructed Proto-Italic form {{Lang|la|*-nki-}}, itself possibly related to Proto-Indo-European {{Lang|pie|*h₁neḱ-}} ("to bear, to bring.").{{Sfn|Markey|1985|p=263}} This form was preserved into the Ancient Greek term {{Lang|grc|ἤνεγκα}} ({{Lang|grc|ḗnenka}}), the aorist form of {{Lang|grc|φέρω}} ("{{Lang|grc|phérō}}," "to bear," to "bring") and the [[Old Irish]] suffix {{Lang|sga|-icc}}, found as a marker of [[perfective aspect]] in forms such {{Lang|sga|do·uic}}, the perfect stem of {{Lang|sga|do·beir}} ("to give," "to bring").{{Sfn|Markey|1985|pp=263-264}} The linguist Kenneth Shields, Jr. argued that this perfect ending originated from the combination of third-person singular forms ending in {{Lang|pie|*-Ø-}}  with the [[Deixis|deictic particle]] {{Lang|pie|*-N}}, creating {{Lang|pie|*-Ø-N}}. According to Shields, this form was later reanalyzed to produce  {{Lang|pie|*-N-Ø-}} and was then suffixed with {{Lang|pie|*-ki}}, culminating in the form {{Lang|pie|*-N-Ø-ki}}. This form may have then been reanalyzed as {{Lang|pie|*-nky-Ø}}, concluding the process of evolution and creating the Umbrian perfect morpheme.{{Sfn|Shields|1989|p=79}} Shields proposes that the term may be cognate with the Lithuanian imperative suffix {{Lang|lt|-ki}} and that the deictic particle {{Lang|pie|*-k}} can be observed in terms such as Latin {{Lang|la|cis}} ("on," "to this," "on this side") or [[Ancient Greek]] {{Lang|grc|τῆτες}} ({{Lang|grc|têtes}}, "this year").{{Sfn|Shields|1989|pp=79-80}} The linguist David Jerrett, noting that perfect marker exclusively appears in [[Denominal verb|denominal verbs]], argued that the perfect stem originated from nouns combined with the perfect forms of an unattested Umbrian verb deriving from Proto-Indo-European {{Lang|pie|ḱey-}} (meaning, "to lie down, to settle"), which may have developed a new meaning akin to "to set in motion, be in motion." Such a semantic shift occurred in other Indo-European languages: the Ancient Greek verbs "{{Lang|grc|κινέω}}" ("{{Lang|grc|kīnéō}}," "to set in motion, stir, meddle") or "{{Lang|grc|κῐ́ω}}" ("{{Lang|grc|kĭ́ō}}," "to go") and the Latin verb {{Lang|la|cieo}} ("to set in motion, move, stir") all demonstrate this transformation.{{Sfn|Jerrett|1974|pp=174-175}} When certain nouns were used alongside this unattested verb in [[Periphrasis|periphrastic]] phrases, they may have merged together to create new verbs. Jerrett cites one possible example of such a development in the verb {{Lang|xum|combifiansiust}}, which may have originated from the reconstructed noun {{Lang|xum|*combifiam}} combined with the verb form 3rd person singular future perfect active form {{Lang|xum|siust}}.{{Sfn|Jerrett|1974|p=176}} Thus, Jerret proposes a semantic shift from "{{Lang|xum|combifiam}} {{Lang|xum|siust}}," meaning "has made an announcement," to "{{Lang|xum|combifiansiust}}," meaning "has announced."{{Sfn|Jerrett|1974|p=178}}

===== Future perfect formation =====
Uniquely, Sabellic future perfects are marked with the ending {{Lang|xum|-us-}} and, in some cases, {{Lang|xum|-ur-}}. The "{{Lang|xum|-ur-}}" form appeared as, in Umbrian, intervocalic -{{Lang|xum|s}}- became {{Lang|xum|-r-}}.{{Sfn|Zair|2014|p=368}} Both forms are of disputed etymology: it is possible that it relates to the Proto-Italic form {{Lang|itc|fuiō}}, from the Proto-Indo-European form {{Lang|pie|bʰuH-}}. These verbs, both meaning "to be," evolved into the Umbrian form {{Lang|la|'''fust'''}}, which possibly predicated the development of the similar future perfect endings. However, the linguist Nicholas Zair suggests that, given the dual meaning of {{Lang|xum|'''fust'''}} as both a future and future perfect term,{{Sfn|Beeler|1980|p=3}} it is unlikely that it would evolve into an exclusively future perfect suffix. Furthermore, Zair considers it unlikely that the term would be reanalyzed into a unique suffix as it already consists of {{Lang|xum|*-fu-}} combined with the future marker {{Lang|xum|*-s}}.{{Sfn|Zair|2014|p=373}} One proposal to rectify these concerns suggests that the suffix may originate from a reduplicated future perfect stem {{Lang|xum|*fefus-}} , which, although formed from {{Lang|xum|*fe-fu-s}}, came to be reanalyzed as {{Lang|xum|*fe-f-us}}.{{Sfn|Zair|2014|p=373}} Alternatively, it may have emerged due to the generalization of the [[Zero grade|zero-grade]] [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] perfect active participle root {{Lang|pie|*-us-}} or the lengthened grade {{Lang|pie|*-uōs-}} , itself possibly from {{Lang|pie|*-uūs-}}. In either scenario, the forms would yield to {{Lang|xum|-us-}} in Umbrian due to inevitable loss of initial {{Lang|pie|*-u-}} after most consonants and the loss of long {{Lang|pie|*-ū-}} in Oscan-Umbrian in non-initial syllables.{{Sfn|Zair|2014|p=369}} However, the linguist [[Madison Beeler]] critiqued this theory, arguing that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a perfect active participle in any Italic language related to the Proto-Indo-European perfect active participle, and consequently no evidence for the existence of such a form of Proto-Italic.{{Sfn|Beeler|1980|p=4}} 

Another possibility is that this form is related the u-perfect in Latin, as seen in verbs such as {{Lang|la|habui}} or {{Lang|la|tenui}}.{{Sfn|Piwowarczyk|2011|p=115}} This theory holds that the original Sabellic future marker, {{Lang|xum|*-s-}}, likely combined with a perfect marker in {{Lang|xum|*-u-}} to form the Umbrian future perfect form {{Lang|xum|-us-}}.{{Sfn|Zair|2014|p=370}} Zair suggests that, although the Umbrian future perfect form was based on an original Sabellic perfect ending, it is entirely unrelated to the Latin {{Lang|la|-u}} perfect.{{Sfn|Zair|2014|p=370}} Instead, Zair argues that it was likely related to the possible [[South Picene language|South Picene]] {{Lang|xum|-ō-}} perfect formation, which is represented orthographically by {{Lang|spx|-ú-}} and may appear in terms such as {{Lang|spx|adstaíúh}} (meaning, "they set up").{{Sfn|Zair|2014|p=378}} According to Zair, the original Proto-Indo-European language formulated perfect terms through the reduplication of the initial consonant and the shift of the root into the o-grade, leading the creation of a perfect stem {{Lang|pie|*-ō-}} that was transformed into a future perfect stem in Proto-Sabellic through the addition of the morpheme {{Lang|xum|*-s-}}. Zair continues, proposing that the Proto-Sabellic language likely utilized the {{Lang|pie|*-ō-}} morpheme in its perfect and aorist tenses, although these were largely lost during the generalization of the perfect stems following the loss of the aorist tense, leaving the future perfect form as the only remnant of the original {{Lang|pie|*-ō-}} stem as there were no aorist parallels.{{Sfn|Zair|2014|pp=380-381}}

==== Voice ====
The Umbrian language inflected for two voices: the [[Active voice|active]], which concerned verbs performed by the subject, and the [[Passive voice|passive]], which concerned verbs performed upon the subject. In Umbrian, the passive voice may have additionally partially fulfilled the role of the [[Voice (grammar)|middle voice]]: The Umbrian verb {{Lang|xum|amparihmu}}, a passive form, was utilized to express the middle meaning of "to raise, elevate oneself;" "to rise." Like Latin, the Umbrian language contained [[Deponent verb|deponent]] verbs, verbs that—although passive in form—conveyed active meanings. However, terms that are deponent in Latin are regular in Umbrian and vice versa: the regular Umbrian verb {{Lang|xum|stiplo}} is contrasted with the deponent Latin verb {{Lang|la|stipulor}} whereas the Umbrian deponent {{Lang|xum|çersnatur}} is equivalent to the Latin active form {{Lang|la|cenaverint}}, an inflection oft the verb {{Lang|la|ceno}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=212}}

==== Moods ====
The Umbrian language inflects for three grammatical moods: [[Realis mood|indicative]], [[Subjunctive mood|subjunctive]], and [[Imperative mood|imperative]]. In the Umbrian language, [[Relative clause|relative clauses]] are exclusively attested as utilizing the indicative; although, evidence from the closely related Oscan language indicates that it may have been possible to employ the subjunctive in relative clauses that expressed characteristic.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=217}} Like Latin, the Umbrian subjunctive comprises the old functions of the original Proto-Italic [[Optative mood|optative]] and subjunctive, which fused together during the transition from Proto-Italic to Latin and Umbrian. Both the Latin and Umbrian languages exclusively preserved traces of the original optative in subjunctive inflections of verbs that derive from [[Thematic vowel|athematic]] Proto-Italic verbs:{{Sfn|Buck|1904|pp=231-232}} the athematic irregular Proto-Italic verb {{Lang|itc|*esom}}, with the optative 3rd person singular inflection {{Lang|itc|*siēd}}, evolved into Latin {{Lang|la|sit}} and the equivalent Umbrian form {{Lang|xum|si}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=134}} Umbrian and Latin are largely identical in their choice of derivation from either the Proto-Italic subjunctive or optative for their subjunctive forms respectively, although the Umbrian perfect subjunctive forms derive from the Proto-Italic subjunctive whereas in Latin they derive from the optative.{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=135}} Umbrian and Latin both contain the vowel {{Lang|xum|-ā}} in the endings for the subjunctive forms of the second, third, and fourth conjugations (compare Latin {{Lang|la|terreat}} and Umbrian {{Lang|xum|terisandu}}), while first conjugation verbs shift the {{Lang|xum|-ā}} vowel in the stem to {{Lang|la|-ē}}.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=135}} One possible exception to this rule appears in the Umbrian verb {{Lang|xum|heriiei}}, which may constitute an {{Lang|la|-ē}} subjunctive of a third conjugation {{Lang|xum|-iō}} verb, although this form may be explained as a perfect indicative form based on the perfect stem of the verb.{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=135}} The Umbrian present imperative is exclusively attested in two first conjugation forms: {{Lang|xum|aserio}} ("observe") and {{Lang|xum|stiplo}} ("bargain"), both substituting the final {{Lang|xum|-ā}} for {{Lang|xum|-ō}}. All other known Umbrian imperatives represent the future imperative.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=175}} 

The Subjunctive in Umbrian could also be used to express orders; the subjunctive of command is the most frequently appearing usage of the subjunctive in the Umbrian corpus. This jussive function of the subjunctive appears throughout the Iguvine tablets, which decree "{{Lang|xum|fust eikvasese Atiierier, ere ri esune '''kuraia''', '''prehabia''' pife uraku ri esuna}}," meaning "[the [[Flamen]]] '''shall have the care''' of the sacred affair; he '''shall furnish''' whatever is necessary."{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=138}} [[Carl Darling Buck]], an American [[Philology|philologist]], argued that, in the attested Umbrian corpus, the jussive subjunctive and the imperative were used largely interchangeably.{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=139}} However, the linguist D.M. Jones suggests that, while the imperative considered specific instructions, the jussive subjunctive was largely limited to descriptions of duties or punishments for officials.{{Sfn|Jones|1962|p=215}} Thus, the aforementioned sentences utilized the subjunctive as they were outlining ritual practices for Flamini, while statements such as "{{Lang|xum|'''di grabouie pihatu'''}}" (Jupiter Grabovius, purify!) utilize the imperative.{{Sfn|Jones|1962|p=214}} In negative commands, which call for something to not occur, Umbrian primarily utilizes the imperative, although the subjunctive form {{Lang|xum|'''neiřhabas'''}} appears in one inscription to mean "let them not use."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=215}} Furthermore, this term appears to violate the previously established distinction between the subjunctive and the imperative, as it used as an explicit instruction. The full sentence, reading "{{Lang|xum|huntak piři prupehast eřek ures punes '''neiřhabas'''}}," may translate to "When he has purified the jar, thereafter '''they shall not use''' any of that mead."{{Sfn|Jones|1962|p=218}} This interpretation proposes that the subjunctive form constitutes a special instruction outside of the original description of the ritual, thereby fitting the standard pattern of subjunctive use. However, Jones instead opts to resolve this anomaly with the translation "during the preliminary purification of the {{Lang|xum|huntak}} the aforesaid mead '''is not to''' '''be used'''." Jones argues that this interpretation is not just a more accurate translation but also ensures consistency with the standard rules of the Umbrian subjunctive as—in his version—the prohibitive command is distinct from the actual section of the description of the ritual that first mentions the mead, and thus, there is some level of discontinuity between the two pieces of the text.{{Sfn|Jones|1962|pp=218-219}} The Umbrian subjunctive and imperative also seemingly shared the capacity to express optative meanings, a function that—in Latin—is fulfilled by the subjunctive of wish. The Iguvine tablets contain the phrase "{{Lang|xum|fos sei, pacer sei}}," reading "may you be favorable, be propitious," which utilizes the subjunctive forms for optative meanings. However, it later contains a phrase of identical meaning which employs the imperative: "{{Lang|xum|futu fos pacer}}."{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=140}}

Instances of a subjunctive of cause, in which the subjunctive is used in tandem with clauses of cause and result, are also attested in Umbrian. These clauses are typically introduced with the term {{Lang|xum|pusi}}, the Umbrian equivalent of Latin {{Lang|la|ut}}, meaning—in such clauses—"so that."{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=141}} However, such clauses can also be introduced without the [[Conjunction (grammar)|conjunction]]: the phrase {{Lang|xum|stiplo aseriaia}}, reading "demand that I observe," expresses a meaning that can be translated into English utilizing the word "that," but lacks the equivalent Umbrian conjunction.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=216}} Another Umbrian conjunction, {{Lang|xum|sue}} or—alternatively—{{Lang|xum|sve}}, meaning "if" (compare Latin "{{Lang|la|si}}"), was involved in indirect questions: the Umbrian sentence "{{Lang|xum|Sve mestru karu fratru Atiief iu, pure ulu benurent, prusikurent kuratu rehte neip eru, enuk fratru ehvelklu feia fratreks ute kvestur, panta muta arferture si}}." reading "if the greater part of the Atiedii brothers announce it to not be properly cared for, then the magister or the quaestor should ask the brothers how many flamini there are."{{Sfn|Buck|1895|p=217}} The conjunctions {{Lang|xum|sue}} and {{Lang|xum|sve}} were also often used to introduce [[Latin conditional clauses|conditional]] clauses, which typically contained two components: a main verb in the imperative or subjunctive of command, followed by a secondary statement completed with a verb in the future or future perfect tense. However, scant evidence has been preserved indicating that the present or perfect subjunctive may have also fulfilled this function.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=220}} One example of a conditional clause without an introductory conjunction appears in the Iguvine tablets, which stipulates "{{Lang|xum|Heriiei façiu arfertur... kurçlasiu façia tiçit}}," meaning "if the flamen wishes to make the sacrifice, it is proper."{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=221}} Jones suggests that the uses of the subjunctive may have extended to invocation, citing another passage from the Iguvine tablets which reads "{{Lang|la|'''di grabouie tio subocau'''}}." According to Jones, this statement utilizes a subjunctive form of "{{Lang|la|'''subocau'''}}" to mean "[[Jupiter (god)|Jupiter]] Grabovius, I invoke thee."{{Sfn|Jones|1962|p=214}}

==== Participles ====
The Umbrian language contained a [[present active participle]] attested in a handful of words, including "{{Lang|xum|'''zeřef'''}}" ("sitting") and "{{Lang|xum|'''restef'''}}" ("standing, stopping").{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=243}} Umbrian also contained a [[gerundive]], a future passive participle, with forms marked by {{Lang|xum|-nn-}} in contrast to the Latin gerundive marker {{Lang|la|-nd-}}. Few gerundive Umbrian forms are attested, although the terms "{{Lang|xum|pihaner}}" ("which is to be appeased"), {{Lang|xum|'''pelsans'''}} (possibly means "which is to be buried"), and "{{Lang|xum|anferener}}" ("which is to be carried around") are known.{{Sfn|Buck|1904|p=181}} Perfect passive conjugations in Umbrian were formed via the combination of the perfect passive participle with the present form of the verb "to be." For instance, the Umbrian perfect passive formation "{{Lang|xum|screhto est}}" ("it has been written"). Likewise, Umbrian future perfect passive conjugations could be formed via the combination of the perfect passive participle with the future form of the verb "to be." For example, the Umbrian phrase "{{Lang|xum|'''pihaz fust'''}}," meaning "it will have been appeased." It is also possible that, like in Latin, Umbrian future perfect passive forms could be generated through the combination of the passive participle with the future perfect form of the verb "to be." Such as feature may be attested in the phrase "{{Lang|xum|'''urtu fefure'''}}," possibly meaning "it will have arisen."{{Sfn|Zair|2014|p=375}} However, Zair postulates that the term {{Lang|xum|'''fefure'''}} may be alternatively interpreted as an orthographical mistake: the author may have intended to write {{Lang|xum|'''fure'''}} but began writing {{Lang|xum|'''fetu'''}}, a term which appears in the ensuing sentence.{{Sfn|Zair|2014|p=375}}  [[Vittore Pisani]], an Italian linguist, suggested the form may have been perfect form marked by the suffix {{Lang|xum|-'''re'''}}, equivalent to the Latin third-person plural active perfect suffix -{{Lang|la|ere}}, although Zair considers a perfect formation semantically unfeasible given the context of the sentence. Another proposal suggests that the term may have constituted an imperfect subjunctive equivalent to Old Latin {{Lang|la|foret}}, although such a usage of the imperfect subjunctive in the context of the statement is not paralleled in other Italic languages.{{Sfn|Zair|2014|p=376}}

==== Endings ====
Verbs in Umbrian are inflected for the following categories:{{sfn|Wallace|2007|p=27}}
* [[Grammatical tense|Tense]] (present, future, perfect, and future perfect)
* [[Grammatical voice|Voice]] (active, deponent/passive)
* [[Grammatical mood|Mood]] (indicative, imperative, subjunctive)
* [[Grammatical person|Person]] (1st, 2nd, 3rd)
* [[Grammatical number|Number]] (singular, plural)

Present, future and future perfect forms in the active voice use the following set of personal endings (primary):{{sfn|Buck|1904|p=151}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! Singular !! Plural
|-
! 1st 
|| ''-ō'' || 
|-
! 2nd  
|| ''-s'' ||
|-
! 3rd 
|| ''-t'' || ''-nt''
|}

Perfect indicative and all tenses of the subjunctive in the active voice use a different set of endings (secondary):{{sfn|Buck|1904|p=151}}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! Singular !! Plural
|-
! 1st 
|| ''-m'' || 
|-
! 2nd  
|| ''-s'' ||
|-
! 3rd 
|| ''-∅'' || ''-ns''
|}

Passive endings are attested only for the 3rd person: singular primary ''-ter'', singular secondary ''-(n)tur'', plural ''-endi''.{{sfn|Wallace|2007|p=28}}

Perfect stems are derived from the present stem in different ways. Latin ''-vī-'' perfects are not attested in Umbrian.{{sfn|Buck|1904|p=169}} Instead, Umbrian uses its own set of forms, including reduplicated perfects such as ''dede'' 'gave', the -s- suffix, as in ''sesu-s-t'' 'will have sat', and the ''-nçi-'' suffix, as in ''purdi-nçi-ust'' 'will have presented'. Some verbs also use suppletive forms.{{sfn|Wallace|2007|p=29}}

Other tenses are formed by suffixation:{{sfn|Wallace|2007|p=30}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Mood !! Tense !! Stem !! Suffix !! Example
|-
| rowspan=2 | Indicative || Future || Present || ''-(e)s-'' || ''prupeha-s-t'' 'piabit'{{sfn|Buck|1904|p=160}}
|-
| Future perfect || Perfect || ''-us-'' || '''fak-us-t''''{{sfn|Buck|1904|p=158}}
|-
| rowspan=2 | Subjunctive || Present || Present || ''-iā-'' (for a-stems), ''-ā-'' (for other stems) || '''habi-a'' 'should hold'
|-
| Perfect || Perfect || ''-ē-'' || '''heriiei'''{{sfn|Buck|1904|p=159}}
|}

The following non-finite forms are attested (all of them are based on the present stem):{{sfn|Wallace|2007|p=33}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Form !! Suffix !! Example
|-
| Present active participle || ''-nt-'' || '''kutef''' 'murmuring' (''-f'' < *''-ns'' < *''-nts'')
|-
| Past participle || ''-to-'' || '''çersnatur''' 'having dined' (Nom.pl. masc.)
|-
| Present active infinitive || ''-om'' || ''er-om'' 'to be'
|-
| Present passive infinitive || ''-fi''/''-fir'' || ''piha-fi'' 'to be expiated'
|-
| Supine || ''-to(m)'' || ''aseriato'' 'for the purpose of observing'
|-
| Gerundive || ''-nno-'' || ''pihaner'' 'purify' (Gen.sg. masc.) 
|}