Most verbs are inflected periphrastically by means of an auxiliary, but there is a small number number of verbs (around a dozen in the standard language)1 which have parallel synthetic forms for some values.2 There is one synthetic verb (-io- 'say') that lacks the non-finite forms used in periphrastic constructions, and hence, lacks those TAM values which can only be expressed through periphrastic constructions. Below, the paradigm for the normal synthetic verb 'bring' is given. The verb -io- 'say' then has only those forms corresponding to the ones found in the 'synthetic forms' column. (Other verbs of saying exist to take its place.)
synthetic
formsperiphrastic
formsIPFV PRS IND dakar ekartzen du ‘he brings /is bringing it' PFV PRS IND ekarri du ‘he (has) brought it' PROS PRS IND ekarriko du ‘he'll bring it' IPFV PST IND zekarren ekartzen zuen ‘he brought/was bringing it' PFV PST IND ekarri zuen ‘he brought it' PROS PST IND ekarriko zuen ‘he would bring it' PST HYP COND protasis ekarri balu ‘if he had brought it' PST HYP COND apodosis ekarriko zu(ke)en ‘he would have brought it' PRS-FUT HYP COND protasis balekar ekartzen/ekarriko balu ‘if he brought it' SBJV HYP COND protasis ekar baleza ‘if he brought it' PRS-FUT HYP COND apodosis ekarriko luke ‘he would bring it' SBJV HYP COND apodosis lekarke ekar lezake ‘he would bring it' PRS SBJV ekar dezan ‘so that he may bring it' PST SBJV ekar zezan ‘so that he might bring it; might have brought it' HYP SBJV ekar lezan ‘were he to bring it/have brought it' PRS SBJV POT dakarke ekar dezake ‘he can bring it' PST SBJV POT zekarkeen ekar zezakeen ‘he could bring it' HYP SBJV POT lekarke ekar lezake ‘he would be able to bring it' IMPV 3 ekar ezazu ‘bring it!' JUSS bekar ekar beza 'let him bring it!'
The verb -io- has the additional morphological peculiarity that both the form and position of the plural object marker are unusual; but then, there are a handful of other verbs for which the same can be said, and they are not defective (de Rijk 2008: 192).
1 This is an archaic category; their number has been declining over the centuries (Hualde et al. 2003: 195).
2 Though the paradigms given by Hualde et al. present the synthetic forms as morphological alternatives to particular periphrastic constructions, they do note that they may have different functions, e.g. the synthetic present expresses continuous aspect, while the periphrastic present has a habitual meaning (p. 251).
2 There is also a contracted imperative form (e.g. ekarzu 'bring it!'), which should not be confused with the synthetic forms.
Hualde, J.I., B. Oyharçabal and J. Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. Verbs/Structural analysis of the basic verbal paradigms/Tense, aspect and mood. In José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds) A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 195-284.
de Rijk, Rudolf P. G. 2008. Standard Basque: a progressive grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.