Aorist question

brandrinn · Post by **brandrinn** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:21 am

It's been a while since i studied any Greek (or any other language that uses this aspect), so i've forgotten what exactly the aorist is. Wikipedia just said it was identitcal to the perfect. is this true? if not, what is the difference between the aorist and the perfective?

MUBA · Post by **MUBA** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:26 am

http://www.vandale.nl (Van Dale is the most populair Dutch dictionary):

ao?ris?tus (de ~ (m.), -ti)
1 [taalk.] tijd van het werkwoord die de handeling voorstelt als plaatshebbend in het verleden, maar zonder gedachte aan voltooiing of voortduring

Rougly translated (I'm not sure if I translated it correctly):

tense of the verb which presents the action as taking place in the past, but without mentioning completion or continuation

I hope this helps you.

brandrinn · Post by **brandrinn** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:29 am

MUBA wrote: tense of the verb which presents the action as taking place in the past, but without mentioning completion or continuation

isn't that just a tense? how is aorist an aspect, if this is true?

MUBA · Post by **MUBA** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:31 am

brandrinn wrote:isn't that just a tense? how is aorist an aspect, if this is true?

Dunno, to be hosest. The dictionary says "tijd van het werkwoord".

Well.
Werkwoord - verb
het - the
van - of
tijd - literally: time. But since verbs don't have time, I think it should be translated as tense.

brandrinn · Post by **brandrinn** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:44 am

oh well. thanks MUBA. can anyone support or reject this?

gach · Post by **gach** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:46 am

brandrinn wrote:
MUBA wrote: tense of the verb which presents the action as taking place in the past, but without mentioning completion or continuation
isn't that just a tense? how is aorist an aspect, if this is true?

Aorist has many meaning depending of the lang. It's used kind of as a trash bin term, if you don't know what to call a verb form call it aorist.

Zhen Lin · Post by **Zhen Lin** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:46 am

The verbal aspect is how time flows in the event with respect to others. Therefore "time" in context of verbs is aspect.

Velomil · Post by **Velomil** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:46 am

The aorist in Greek is a past tense with the aorist aspect. This means that the action is started in the past and that it has ended in the past. Also, the aorist is used in stories to describe the main action. So: "he dies" in the aorist can be translated as "he died (yesterday)"

The perfect in Greek is a present tense with the perfect aspect. It says something has happened in the past that has an influence on the present. So: "he dies" in the perfect can be translated as "he is dead".

(The other tenses are praesens and imperfect, both with the praesens aspect, and future (and future perfect) with the future aspect)

Twpsyn Pentref · Post by **Twpsyn Pentref** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:10 pm

Velomil wrote:...(The other tenses are praesens and imperfect, both with the praesens aspect, and future (and future perfect) with the future aspect)

Ummm... don't you mean "present"? And I don't think present and future are aspects...

pharazon · Post by **pharazon** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:32 pm

Twpsyn Pentref wrote:
Velomil wrote:...(The other tenses are praesens and imperfect, both with the praesens aspect, and future (and future perfect) with the future aspect)
Ummm... don't you mean "present"? And I don't think present and future are aspects...

Sometimes people still use Latin to refer to various grammatical features; it seems especially common in non-English-speaking countries (witness Velomil's location [EDIT: or not. pretty sure he's in the Netherlands though]). I've seen "plusquamperfect" even in English materials.

And I don't know that you're one to be commenting on that, Mr. Coniugation...

Trebor · Post by **Trebor** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:07 pm

Isn't the aorist for timeless truths, e.g. "I was born in 1990"?
Trebor

vohpenonomae · Post by **vohpenonomae** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:37 am

Trebor wrote:Isn't the aorist for timeless truths, e.g. "I was born in 1990"?
Trebor

That's the Quenya aorist. The Mohawk aorist, sometimes called the continuative, expresses that something is merely happening.

Xephyr · Post by **Xephyr** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:12 am

jsburke wrote:
Trebor wrote:Isn't the aorist for timeless truths, e.g. "I was born in 1990"?
Trebor
That's the Quenya aorist. The Mohawk aorist, sometimes called the continuative, expresses that something is merely happening.

Besides, "I was born in 1990." isn't a timeless truth. That'd be "I was, had been, am being, and always will be born in 1990", which is just silly.

Zhen Lin · Post by **Zhen Lin** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:50 am

It is an absolute factual truth (bearing in mind the frame of reference, since it is "I") -- it holds for any temporal context.

Contrast "I was born 14 years ago".

So, I gather that aorist aspect is like oblique case -- anything else that doesn't fit.

Nuntar · Post by **Nuntar** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:09 am

Trebor wrote:Isn't the aorist for timeless truths, e.g. "I was born in 1990"?
Trebor

Fowler calls this the "gnomic aorist": "the use of the aorist, a tense usually referring to the past, to describe facts that are true of all time". The English example he gives is Shakespeare's "men were deceivers ever". As jsburke said, because of this use of the aorist many conlangs use the term "aorist" for a tense that has only this meaning.

Dewrad · Post by **Dewrad** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:10 am

Trebor wrote:Isn't the aorist for timeless truths, e.g. "I was born in 1990"?
Trebor

IIRC the etymology of "aorist" means "timeless" (could well be very wrong), so in any conlangs where I've used it this is essentially what it means- it is a "tense" which is unmarked for time. But, as gach says, it can be used to mean pretty much what you want it to mean. I've even seen the Sanskrit injunctive referred to as "aorist".

vohpenonomae · Post by **vohpenonomae** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:45 am

Ahribar wrote:
Trebor wrote:Isn't the aorist for timeless truths, e.g. "I was born in 1990"?
Trebor
Fowler calls this the "gnomic aorist": "the use of the aorist, a tense usually referring to the past, to describe facts that are true of all time". The English example he gives is Shakespeare's "men were deceivers ever". As jsburke said, because of this use of the aorist many conlangs use the term "aorist" for a tense that has only this meaning.

This brings up the distinction between tense and aspect, which is sometimes blurry; Mohawk verbs don't have tense strictly speaking, so the aorist is analyzed as an aspect. I analyze the Noyahotwa aorist (which I prefer to call the continuative) this way also; I say in the grammar:

"The continuative (which may also be called the aorist) implies that an action is ongoing, with no reference to its beginning or end or even the implication of a beginning or end. Continuative actions just are. A continuative action can be occurring in the present or can be expected to occur in the future; this ambiguity is possible because of the lack of reference to beginning/end points of an action."

Velomil · Post by **Velomil** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:08 am

pharazon wrote:
Twpsyn Pentref wrote:
Velomil wrote:...(The other tenses are praesens and imperfect, both with the praesens aspect, and future (and future perfect) with the future aspect)
Ummm... don't you mean "present"? And I don't think present and future are aspects...
Sometimes people still use Latin to refer to various grammatical features; it seems especially common in non-English-speaking countries (witness Velomil's location [EDIT: or not. pretty sure he's in the Netherlands though]). I've seen "plusquamperfect" even in English materials.

And I don't know that you're one to be commenting on that, Mr. Coniugation...

I do mean present, yes, but I am being academical

And I might not have put it very nice, but the present and future are tenses with certain aspects, which could be named by their principle tense name. And I do live in the Netherlands, indeed

In Ancient Greek, the tenses, and especially the past tenses, have more than one aspect. Aorist can be gnomic, past simple, past perfect and some other, and praesens (or present) can be present simple, praesens historicum, durative and some other. The context mostly explains what translation one should use.

Noriega · Post by **Noriega** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:37 am

Dewrad wrote:IIRC the etymology of "aorist" means "timeless" (could well be very wrong)

Actually, "limitless":

Horizon: "Greek horizon (kuklos), limiting (circle), horizon, present participle of horizein, to limit, from horos, boundary"

Aorist: "From Greek aoristos, indefinite, aorist tense : a-, not; see a?1 + horistos, definable (from horizein, to define; see horizon)."

Io · Post by Io » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:55 am

Actually, "limitless"

Or even: ındefınıte ? that's how I'd translate 'aorıstos'.

The pıcture can become clearer for those who are famılıar wıth the slavıc lanuages and theır termınatıve and untermınative (?) verb forms.

The greek aorıst corresponds to the slavıc past termınatıve verb forms... but not exactly. I thınk Velomıl gave the best descıptıon so far: past tense with the aorist aspect.

The aorıst refers to a termınatıve event ın the past whıch happened only once, for a repetıtıve actıon ın the past other tense ıs used.

The aorıst ın bulgarıan ıs called 'past termınatıve tense'.

kysmalte · Post by **kysmalte** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:48 am

Io wrote:
Actually, "limitless"
Or even: ındefınıte ? that's how I'd translate 'aorıstos'.

The pıcture can become clearer for those who are famılıar wıth the slavıc lanuages and theır termınatıve and untermınative (?) verb forms.

The greek aorıst corresponds to the slavıc past termınatıve verb forms... but not exactly. I thınk Velomıl gave the best descıptıon so far: past tense with the aorist aspect.

The aorıst refers to a termınatıve event ın the past whıch happened only once, for a repetıtıve actıon ın the past other tense ıs used.

The aorıst ın bulgarıan ıs called 'past termınatıve tense'.

Hate to change the subject, but what's the deal with the dotlessness of <i> as <ı> in all of the posts above? Seems like it might be tedious to type.

Grath · Post by **Grath** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:01 pm

Shane wrote:
Io wrote:
Actually, "limitless"
Or even: ındefınıte ? that's how I'd translate 'aorıstos'.

The pıcture can become clearer for those who are famılıar wıth the slavıc lanuages and theır termınatıve and untermınative (?) verb forms.

The greek aorıst corresponds to the slavıc past termınatıve verb forms... but not exactly. I thınk Velomıl gave the best descıptıon so far: past tense with the aorist aspect.

The aorıst refers to a termınatıve event ın the past whıch happened only once, for a repetıtıve actıon ın the past other tense ıs used.

The aorıst ın bulgarıan ıs called 'past termınatıve tense'.
Hate to change the subject, but what's the deal with the dotlessness of <i> as <ı> in all of the posts above? Seems like it might be tedious to type.

Indeed! Get your tittles under control, young lady!
As for the aorist, I learnt in Greek that the aorist modus (I think that's what they call aspect) indicates punctuality as opposed to durativity. I can't think of the proper linguistic terms at the moment... But, for instance, epoioun (imperfect) means "I was making", while epoiesa (aorist) means "I made".

adder · Post by **adder** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:32 pm

As far as I know the Aorist was lost in most Slavic Languages, not counting Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbo-Croatian of course. and West Slavonic Upper and Lower-Sorbian.

However, other languages use only one old tense for both imperfective and perfective actions - it's the Perfect. Czech shows it the best but Polish does it the same way but the conjugation evolved:

Czech:
Jsem sp?l. - I slept/I was sleeping (imperfective)
Jsem usnal*. - I fell asleep (perfective)

*- please correct if this is wrong.

Analysis: It's well seen that Czech uses the present form of the verb 'to be' to form the Past Tense, both perfective and imperfective. It reminds of how the Perfect Tense is used in French, in Italian, or in German (using the verb 'to be', or 'to have').

The old Imperfect from Old Slavonic does not exist. This is the pure Perfect.

Polish:
Spałem. - I slept/I was sleeping (imperfective)
Zasnąłem. - I fell asleep. (perfective)

Notice: the ending of the verb = Czech declined 'to be'. It means some time ago, well, long time ago, Polish formed the Past Tense in a similar way Czech does it now.

'Spałem' was 'Spał jeśm'

Then two words blurred. In Polish, like in Czech, there is no other way to express the past but the Perfect for both perfective and imperfective actions.

Anyway, one can consider perfective and imperfective forms as tenses but they are only aspects since unlike German they are formed using only one tense (German clearly has Imperfekt and Perfekt).

EDIT: I will be probably pushed for omitting Russian so let me not do this.

Russian does it the same way Polish and Czech does but the auxiliary verb was lost and it is necessary to use Personal Pronouns (happens also in Ukrainian, Belarussian, and Kashubian-not always).

я чытаў

Io · Post by Io » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:20 pm

Macedonian language exists only in the sic minds of certain amount of people.

Adder, as far as I know all slavic languages (well, I know nothing about Kashubian, Sorbian and other exotic lingos) except BG use past participle + the verb 'to be' to form a past tense.

In russian 'I wrote' is 'ya pisal', in serbo-cro 'pisao sam', in slovenian 'pisal sem', in polish 'pisał + something' (sorry I don't have my polish grammer handy here).

All these ending with an L forms are past participle.

Now back to the GREEK aorist:
I checked my ancient greq textbook and it says that only the indicative aorist forms show past terminative action (as in 'I made'), the other aorist moods show present terminative action, for example the imperative form of 'to free' is λύσον and it means that YOU should free something/someone now and the action should be single i.e. it shan't be repeated.

zmeiat_joro · Post by **zmeiat_joro** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:20 am

Afaik there is another past tense in Serbian that's formed without 'to be', I can't remember if it was our past terminative or non-terminative, but using it reportedly looks very archaic.