Tense & Aspect

[Peter &/or Graham]

Miguel said:
>The question isn't *if* there was something distinguishing the
>three forms.  Of course there was, or we wouldn't have three
>*forms*.

The logic of this is open to dispute.   A language may have more than one
way of saying something without also having a formal distinction of meaning
between the various "forms".

Miguel continued:
> The question is *what* distinguished them.
>The imperfect vs. aorist distinction was one of (im)perfective
>aspect, that much is clear from the way it is formed (present
>stem vs. aorist stem) and the attested uses in Greek.

In general you are right, but different formation does not guarantee any
distinction whatever - for example the Latin perfects based on o-grade (PIE
perfect, singular) or on reduplication+zero grade (PIE perfect plural, or
aorist) or on +s- (PIE Aorist) are indistinguishable in meaning and
function.

Furthermore, the distinction in Greek is classical.  In Homer the
differences are much less clear.   Palmer (speaking of Homer) says "The
imperfect and the aorist are indistinguishable in function"  and he gives
examples where aorist and imperfect are used in the same place in a phrase,
sometimes in the same line, sometimes within two or three lines of each
other, without any distinction of meaning.   He also quotes a couple of
places in Homer where the aorist is "almost indistinguishable from the
perfect".   He points to Iliad 14:178ff where he calls the alternation of
tenses "bewildering".

Even in classical Greek prose there are surprises.   Plato (Phaedo) uses an
imperfect to say "we caught sight of ..."   How can that in any sense be
continuative?   (The usual explanation is that it is "infective" - that is
to say, it shows the beginning of the action.)    There are also cases where
the aorist indicative is used timelessly (as are the other non-indicative
forms).   This can point to a distinction not of aspect but of time marked
and non-time marked.

That may or may not be true, but my point is that the distinction of
imperfect / aorist / perfect, which is often so tidy and pleasing in the
books, is occasionally much muddier in the reality of actual usage.   This
might in turn indicate that it is a late development - hence its restricted
occurrence in IE languages.

Peter