I am really wondering whether the difference between tense and a

I am between beginner and intermediate but, here are some examples of aspects in Tagalog of mag-verbs:
lakad = root word of walking
naglakad = the walk was completed
naglalakad = the walk was started but not finished
maglalakad = the walk has not started yet
maglakad = to walk (infinitive)

At first, it looks like aspect and tense are interchangeable but they aren't. Once you get to more complex sentences, you will see the difference especially in the context of telling a story. You will see many "incomplete aspect" and "contemplated aspect" when narrating something that happened in the past.Example: Kumakain("present tense") ako kahapon(yesterday) nung dumating ("past tense") siya. I WAS eating yesterday when he arrived.Kumakain ako ng kanin. I am eating riceAs you can see, kumakain can be "I am eating" or "I WAS eating" depending on the context of the conversation/narration/story Kumakain ("present tense") ako kahapon nung tumawag("past tense") siya at sinabi ("past tense") niya na darating("future tense") siya. I was eating yesterday when he called and told me that he will be arriving.As a beginner, I think it is important to nail down the difference between aspect and tense so you won't get confused when you reach more advanced level.Tense does not exist the way in Tagalog the way it does in English. Tense in Tagalog is often conveyed through other words and contextExample: Estudyante ako. I am a studentEstudyante ako noon. I was a student/I used to be a student.As you can see, the tense of the sentence becomes different when "noon" was added. Noon is a word used to indicated something in the past (e.g. Noong panahon ni Cory Aquino - during Cory Aquino time/term/era)So, I think it's really critical to know the differences between tense and aspect and to not interchange the two at the beginner level.

Nothing alike in practice.

@JohnD "But my gut feeling as a beginner is that I have more important things to think about than aspect vs tense. I think that if I use the same aspect as I do tense, I will normally get things right."I disagree.

I understand what you are saying @Pinoy Taj. And I suppose to be honest, to be able to have this sort of conversation probably means that I actually do have a pretty good feeling for aspect
Your example of 'Kumakain ("present tense") ako kahapon nung tumawag("past tense") siya at sinabi ("past tense") niya na darating("future tense") siya' I think is the same as my example of 'When I was walking, I tripped over'. It is really interesting and is definitely an instance of where tense and aspect get you a different result. It always seems to be the 'when' clause that triggers it off.
Estudyante ako (I am a student) and Estudyante ako noon (I was a student) are brought about as Tagalog does not use a verb to be. And so the aspect has to be shown in another way by using a word that defines a time. We actually do this in English too. 'I am going there' is the present tense but 'I am going there tomorrow' uses the present tense to convey the future.
Very interesting stuff and thank you for taking the time to respond.

^ As you notice, English has WAS to indicate the tense. In Tagalog, there is no conjugation to indicate the tense, but rather the tense is context-dependentAs per your example: I WAS eating (Kumakain) versus I AM eating (Kumakain). So, the incomplete aspect (Kumakain) is not always present tense, but it can be past tense. The tense in Tagalog will be determined not by the conjugated word, but by the context and other words.This is what you see in the case of "I am a student" and "I WAS a studentI AM a student. Estudyante ako
I WAS a student. Estudyante ako noon.Trump WAS the president. Si Trump ang presidente noon.Biden IS the president. Si Biden ang presidente.The Tagalog aspect can be compared to the English aspect, but not to the English tense.Conjugations in Tagalog don't revolve around tenses but around was the action completed in the context of the story, was it accidental or deliberate (napatay vs pinatay), was it a request or command (pakibigay vs ibigay), reciproacal or not (nagsampalan vs sinampal)

@MagaaralTagalog Thank you. The Tagalog aspects here correspond exactly to the corresponding English tenses. And from what I have seen, this is true in the vast majority of instances.

@JohnD @JohnD .......... No they don’t and you must be a beginner to make such an assumption . Aspect is different than tense as it doesn’t rely on time but rather action .Ginawa naGinagawa paGagawin pa lamang .I recommend studying a Tagalog or Filipino bilingual model that students use in school. It explains it very well. English does poses aspect but it’s different from the aspect that languages like Russian and Tagalog use . At a beginning level a Tagalog teacher will link aspect with time to help you understand it better but as you get more advanced B1-C2 you will realize that seeing aspect as an equal to tense in Tagalog is just false and can hurt you in some areas because you will use the wrong verb aspect or not understand a sentence when a certain aspect is used .

@PinoyTaj
Sorry, I didn't explain myself well. I was just pointing out that the definitions given here are the same as the definitions that we would use for English tenses ie the past tense is when the walk has been completed, the present tense is when walking is under way and the future is when it has not started yet.
naglakad = the walk was completed.
naglalakad = the walk was started but not finished.
maglalakad = the walk has not started yetTagalog aspect is much more subtle than these definitions, I think, and as others have said depends very much upon context.My only point in starting this thread was that if I had to translate 'I walked' into Tagalog and I used 'Naglakad ako', I would be right in most instances. I am in no way suggesting that tense and aspect are the same - simply that there seems to be a very high correlation. And as a beginner, I think that I should therefore concentrate on other things which I stuff on a much more regular basis

^^ As PinoyTaj has said, aspect is not time dependent, but on the action. This part of Tagalog conjugation is more comparable to the English aspect but not the tense. While it may seem "easier" at first to equate Tagalog aspect to English tenses, this can pose a problem once you get to more advanced level .I'd liken this to some learners who equate the Tagalog object focus vs actor focus as "passive voice" and "active voice". On the surface it may seem like it, but once you introduce other focuses, this can confuse the learner who is used to equating focus to passive/active voice Say that this is what one who equate Tagalog focus to English "voice"Bumili ako ng regalo para sa babae. I bought a gift for the woman. "Active voice"Binili ko ang regalo para sa babae. The gift was bought for the woman. "Passive voice"Binilhan ko ng regalo ang babae. I bought a gift for the woman. What "voice"?Nabilhan ko ng regalo ang babae. I accidentally bought her a gift. What "voice"?Conjugations and markers are so powerful in Tagalog that using the wrong conjugation and placing the markers on the "wrong place" can change the sentence's entire meaning . Even using the wrong pronoun changes the meaning, not just the "subject" or "transitive object".Kinain KO ang isda. I ate the fishKinain AKO ng isda. The fish ate me.Ipinakain ako sa isda. I was fed to to fishPinakain ko ang isda. I fed the fishNagkainan kami ng isda. The fish and I ate each other.Nakain ko ang isda. I accidentally ate the fishNakain ako ng isda. The fish accidentally ate me.Nakapain ko ang isda. I accidentally fed the fishNakikain ako sa isda. I shared food/mean with the fishIkinain ko siya ng isda. I ate fish for her.

@Bituingmaykinang Thank you. Really good examples. And I confess that I also tend to compare object / actor with active/passive. But as a beginner it gets me going and also ensures that I use the correct pronouns.
You give some great examples of how powerful Tagalog is though with its verb prefixes. Way more powerful than English.
The accidentally one has always intrigued me though. Examples given are always with the most unlikely uses eg I accidentally bought something How on earth do you accidentally buy something But obviously there are many things that you can do accidentally - hence the use of the verb form.

For your benefit in the long run, it's best to not develop the habit of equating object/actor focus to passive active. Especially equating -in- to passive and -um- to active Take a look at these two -in- conjugations for KainK-in-ain ko ang isda. I ate the fishK-in-ain ako ng isda. The fish ate me.K-um-ain ako ng isda. I ate fishAs you can see in the -in- conjugation, changing the marker and pronoun marker changed the meaning. We're not talking about what I ate, but what ate me. Lol

@Bituingmaykinang
You are right of course, it is a bad habit.
But here is where it is useful.
I bought the fish. Bumili ako ng isda. Ako means I and ng is 'the' as an object.
The fish was bought by me. Binili ko ang isda. Ko means me and ang is 'the' as a subject.
This structure is completely consistent when using actor and object verbs.
So it has helped me to get the ako vs ko right and also the ang vs ng in object and actor focussed verbs.
Having got that fixed in my brain, I am now moving away from thinking of them as active and passive. It has served its purpose. Tagalog use the in form far more than English uses the passive from what I see. You can even issue commands using the in form which we certainly can't do with the passive! The command 'Binili mo ang isda' would be like saying 'Fish, get bought by the person I am speaking to'.

@JohnD Binili ako ng isda though is I was bought by the fish. Ako is "I" and ang is "the". In reality ang and ng aren't "the" but focus/unfocus markersThis is where -in- as "passive" starts to get messy because it isn't even "passive" but the meaning changes.

@JohnD Bilhin mo ang isda is the command .