Editing Umbrian language (section)

==== 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}}