Languages with mood but not aspect or tense?

[Travis B.]

(To answer cntrational, who posted while I was writing all this, of course you can have all sorts of syntactic constructions, and it may even be useful to label some of them 'subjunctive'. But there are a lot of constructions in English, and there's really nothing special about those that happen to be lexical forms in Latin. E.g. in American English we can say "I was captured" or "I got captured". That is, we have at least two passive constructions. It's still not a reason to up the count of morphological forms.)

Except in your example you mention from English, that is reason to up the count of morphosyntactic forms; the be-passive is a static (or weakly dynamic) passive and the get-passive is a (strongly) dynamic passive, i.e. they are not interchangeable.

[Richard W]

With synthetic forms, like 'I have gone', we should remember that we have a mostly-synthetic language: there is no need to create a long list of paradigmatic forms as if we were speaking French— it suffices to give the rule for regular constructions.

Don't the same arguments apply to the French perfect and periphrastic passive?

(To answer cntrational, who posted while I was writing all this, of course you can have all sorts of syntactic constructions, and it may even be useful to label some of them 'subjunctive'. But there are a lot of constructions in English, and there's really nothing special about those that happen to be lexical forms in Latin.

'Morphological forms', not 'lexical forms'.

Actually, the old mood distinctions do seem to be different. And the English modal verbs form a complex system, although the complexities are semantic rather than morphological.

E.g. in American English we can say "I was captured" or "I got captured". That is, we have at least two passive constructions. It's still not a reason to up the count of morphological forms.)

Which forms of 'standard English' don't have both passives? Colloquial British English has both of them, and they have a subtle difference in meaning,

It makes sense to name both of them, even if you think it's no more significant than the difference between 1st and 2nd perfects in Greek - which often carried a semantic difference when both forms existed.

[Matrix]

Yeah, I think that "I was captured" and "I got captured" have slightly different meanings - "I was captured" is just a standard passive, being captured is just a thing that happened to me. "I got captured" is, I think, more like that I specifically did something wrong that resulted in my being captured.