imperfect

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

"Peter &/or Graham" <petegray at btinternet.com> wrote:

>Miguel asked about an inherited root "aorist":

>>>Did it become an
>>>imperfective/habitual past in pre-Vedic (e.g. proto-Indo-Iranian)
>>>like the Greek imperfect, or did it remain a simple aspectless
>>>narrative past?  And if the latter, what about marked
>>>"imperfects" like <agacchat>?

>The question only makes sense if there is a genuine distinction between
>imperfect and aorist in Vedic.   In fact, (despite some grammars too heavily
>influenced by Greek), there is no clearly discernible difference in meaning
>between the two.   The labels are taken from Greek and refer to the
>formation, not the function.   If a root-stem past tense has a corresponding
>present, it is called "imperfect" - otherwise it is called "aorist".

Anadyatana ("not of today") and adyatana ("of today") in Panini's
terms.  Panini *does* distinguish between the two.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam