having sung. When used with the preposition prieš (before), pusdalyvis and padalyvis denote a secondary action in future: Lauko darbus mes dirbome prieš dainuodami. – We were doing the field works before singing. Lauko darbus mes dirbome prieš dainuojant. – We were doing the field works before someone else started to sing. This table shows the participle usage in temporal adverbial phrases: {| class="wikitable" !!!Past action !Simultaneous action !Future action |- !Sentence subject is the agent |Past simple adjectival participle |Pusdalyvis |Prieš + pusdalyvis |- !Sentence subject is not the agent |Past padalyvis |Present padalyvis |Prieš + padalyvis |} Another function of the padalyvis is to explain (precise) another verb by indicating a secondary action of which the subject is not the agent: Vartydamas seną albumą, prisiminiau mus šiame ežere maudydavusis – While seing an old photo album, I remembered us having used to swim in this lake. If the subject is the agent, an adjectival participle must be used instead. This table shows the participle usage as an object.: {| class="wikitable" !!!Simultaneous action !Past action !Multiple actions in the past !Future action |- !Sentence subject is the agent |Present adjectival active participle |Past simple adjectival active participle |Past iterative adjectival active participle |Future adjectival active participle |- !Sentence subject is not the agent |Present padalyvis |Past padalyvis |Past iterative padalyvis |Future padalyvis |} The būdinys (the descriptive or intensifying participle) reinforces the meaning of the verb being described: Šaukte šaukiausi pagalbos, niekas neatsiliepė – I was shouting loudly for help, nobody answered. Type I būdinys is used relatively often in some written and colloquial speech. Type II būdinys is very rare and can only be found in literary language. Their primary function is the same. In some grammars they are not considered verbs, but adverbs derived from verbs. Grammatical aspect All Lithuanian verbs can be characterized by their aspect which can be either perfective or imperfective. Nevertheless, this important dichotomy is semantical, rather than expressed by purely grammatical means. Formally distinguishing an imperfective verb from its perfective counterpart is not possible, since those forms are not mutually exclusive or interdependent. Moreover, certain grammatical categories (like past iterative tense) automatically negate any perfectiveness a certain verb might have in infinitive or in other tenses. The opposite is true as well: a different tense (like an inchoative or perfect tense) of an otherwise imperfective verb automatically grants a perfective meaning. Contrary