Momentary-Durative

[petegray]

Nath said:

> Does this mean present tense arose only after the aorist formations,
> including thematic and sigmatic, became established?

My reading of the literature is that there is a fairly wide general
agreement, that at first a tenseless verb was used with endings -m, -s, -t
and so on.    The precise formation of it may be more argued, so thematic -
or especially sigmatic - aorists may be later than athematic and asigmatic.

Then the endings -mi, -si, -ti and so on develop, as part of the need to
mark present action, as a tense-based system gets going.   Various devices
were also used to mark the stems with continuity or incohativity or various
other things, all being non-completed.   One of those devices was accent on
the stem, which produce full grade.   Hence the appearance in Sanksrit of
root accented presents with full grade beside zero grade presents with
accented thematic vowel.   The appearance of the accented augment in
Sanskrit and Greek allows zero grade aorist stems.

> If so, why is the latter formation, the present, use the bare root in even
> one case?

I don't quite understand your question.   Zero grade presents do occur,
where the accent is not on the root.   Sanskrit tud'ati, or Greek grapho <
*grbh-.   They are very rare.

Also remember that the only distinction between an aorist and an imperfect
in Sanskrit, and between a second aorist and an imperfect in Greek, is
whether or not a present stem of that form exists!   No present, and we call
the past form an aorist.   When there is a present, we call it an imperfect.
Does this answer your question why there are no presents from aorists?   If
there is a present, in Sanskrit at least, the tense is not called aorist.

>> Besides, most so-called "root" presents have an -e- vowel, which
>> would distinguish them at least from thematic aorists, which have zero
>> grade.

> Why the ``so-called'' and quotation marks around root?

The full grade is already a marker of something, even if it is conditioned
by presence of the accent.   I was wanting to distinguish the handful of
presents which were simply the bare root, from those that carried this or
any other marker of the present.

>> Sanskrit, in as much as it shows it all, has
>> the aorist playing the role of the Greek perfect.

> In what way?

Greek uses the perfect for the present state which results from a previous
action.  Tethne:ka ("I have died") actually means the present state, "I am
dead".    In some parts of Sanskrit literature, it is the aorist which
carries this meaning, not the perfect.  Elsewhere aorist and perfect are in
practice indistinguishable, and the perfect drops out of use.

Hope that answers your questions
Peter