Thank you for your kind reply. Judging from the sources I have, I think the concept of spatial tense is only relevant in the context of the artificial language Lojban. The statement that several natural languages have spatial tense as defined in the article is still an unsubstantiated claim, so imho it should be pulled out pending evidence. Part of the problem is the very name of the concept. 'Tense' has the connotation of 'time'. In fact, grammatical tense is frequently (if loosely) defined as 'location in time'. Thus, it doesn't really make sense to talk about 'spatial tense'; it would be like talking about 'temporal place'.
Since the only relevant use of the concept stems from Lojban grammar, I think it would be best to start the article out of the Lojban perspective, defining spatial tense as Lojban grammar defines it. And since spatial tense (according to Lojban grammar) is merely 'obligated expression of location', the broader context of the article should be the expression of space in language. And this is where observations about the connection between language and the way we perceive the world come in. The way I see it, the spatial cases of the Hopi language (one of the many languages that do very interesting things with space) don't really belong in an article about an invented, English-inspired, grammatical category. What we are really missing is a decent article about the way languages deal with location and space. Which is something I added to my to do list. —  (talk) 16:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)