The first conjugational distinction:

1. Something permanent about the whole thing (e.g., 彼はサッカー選手です)
2. Something permanent about part of the whole thing
3. Something temporary about the whole thing (e.g., 彼はサッカー選手として活躍しています)
4. Something temporary about part of the whole thing

Put differently: There’s the temporal aspect, which can either be “whole-whole” or “whole-part,” and there’s also the spatial aspect, which can also either be “whole-whole” or “whole-part.” To be temporally whole-whole is to be permanent in the delimited context of the utterance, and to be temporally whole-part is to be temporary in the delimited context of the utterance. For example: (a) “He’s the goalkeeper” (his whole temporal existence being as the goalkeeper in the delimited context of the utterance, i.e. the present game of soccer). (b) “He’s reading a book” (only part of his whole temporal existence being reading the book, in that it’s natural to imagine, say, asking him a question, which would make him take a break from reading). Furthermore, to be spatially whole-whole is for the whole of the spatial existence of the subject to be such that the predicate describes it, and to be spatially whole-part is for only part of the whole of the spatial existence of the subject to be such that the predicate describes it. For example: (a) “That’s a house” (every spatial point making up the referent of the subject being a house). (b) “That house has a chimney” (only some of the spatial points making up the referent of the subject being the house’s chimney).

For clarity, and to recap, the first conjugational system again, put appositionally:

1. Temporal whole-whole (i.e., permanent), spatial whole-whole
2. Temporal whole-whole (i.e., permanent), spatial whole-part (e.g., 彼は鼻が高いです)
3. Temporal whole-part (i.e., temporary), spatial whole-whole
4. Temporal whole-part (i.e., temporary, spatial whole-part

The second conjugational distinction:

1. Past
2. Present
3. Future

The third (and final) conjugational distinction:

1. Static
2. Dynamic
3. Static, agent-oriented
4. Dynamic, agent-oriented
5. Static, patient-oriented
6. Dynamic, patient-oriented

For a verb to be static is for the verb to describe an unchanging state, and for a verb to be dynamic is for the verb to describe a change of state. For example: (a) “The mouse is dead.” (b) “The mouse died.” Furthermore: For a verb to be agent-oriented is for the verb to describe what the agent did (which had an effect on the patient). And for a verb to be patient-oriented is for the verb to describe what the effect on the patient was. For example: (c) “The man shot the woman” (shooting being what the agent did, with the effect left unspecified). (d) “The man killed the woman” (being killed being what happened to the patient, with the cause left unspecified).

Interestingly, it’s possible in English to put the agent-oriented and the patient-oriented together. For example: “I sang her to sleep.” Here the agent sang to the patient, which had an effect; the effect was sleep. Analogously: “He shot her dead.”

I should also be clear that whether agent-oriented or patient-oriented, what’s static or dynamic is the patient’s state. Either the patient’s state is kept the same, if static, or made to change, if dynamic. For example: In “I sang her to sleep,” the verb “sang” is dynamic and agent-oriented, for singing is what the agent did that changed the state of the patient, and the verb “sleep” is dynamic and patient-oriented, for sleeping is what the state was that the patient changed to.

To recap:

1. Static (e.g., これは赤い)
2. Dynamic (e.g., これは赤くなった)
3. Static, agent-oriented
4. Dynamic, agent-oriented (e.g., “the man shot the woman”)
5. Static, patient-oriented
6. Dynamic, patient-oriented (e.g., “the man killed the woman”)