Sanskrit Tense & Aspect

[Peter &/or Graham]

Miguel said of imperfect, aorist, and perfect in Skt and Greek:
>the three categories can be described
>conveniently as "aspects", since they are all "past" in terms of
>tense.

I wonder if Miguel is bending the meaning of "aspect" beyond its usual
function here.   They would be "aspects" (in its usual meaning) if there
were something about the way in which the action were done, quite apart from
the time of them, which distinguished these three forms.

Miguel also said:
>There is no difference between
>Latin dixi (formally an s-aorist) and pependi (formally a
>reduplicated perfect), etc.  There *is* a difference between pf.
>nina:ya and aor. anais.i:t (and impf. anayat).

The difference in Sanskrit is slight, at best.   I quote Stenzler, (1997):
"In Classical Sanskrit the aorist is used in narrative as a past tense
alongside the imperfect and perfect, without any distinct function."   There
is a slight difference in time of reference, (recent or more remote past)
but this is not aspect.   Perhaps it is different in Vedic, although my
Vedic grammar tells me the names refer to the formation, and not to the use
of the tenses.

It is Latin and Greek which show the aspectual distinction of continuative /
punctative.   Sanskrit has no tense at all like the imperfect in Latin or
Greek.

Peter