Distance in change

[Peter &/or Graham]

Stev asked about the aorist

>.  If the aorist is found nowhere in the world
>but in this little corner of IE, then the possibility that both languages
>developed it independently would seem a little bit unlikely.

Do you mean form or function?

If form, then aorists are found scattered over the IE languages.   There are
root aorists, reduplicated aorists, thematic aorists, sigmatic aorists, and
aorists in -eh1.

Outside Greek & Ind-Ir we can find reduplicated aorist formations and
sigmatic aorist formations in Latin;  we find aorists in -eh1 in BS, root
aorists are found in Armenian, sigmatic aorists in Slavic, and so on.

If you are talking of function, then you need a little bit caution:  the
aorist in Sanskrit is certainly not the beast it is in Greek.   In Greek the
indicative is a past tense contrasting with the imperfect; and the forms
outside the indicative (generally) are timeless, contrasting with forms on
the present stem.

In Sanskrit the indicative is merely one way of making a past tense, and no
real distinction between imperfect, aorist, and perfect is recoverable from
the actual usage in the texts (I use Whitney and others for this).   The
grammarians make a fine distinction, but in practice it does not exist.
The word "aorist" in Sanskrit refers to the formation only, not to any
aspect.

So the languages have not developed "the aorist" independently, since (a)
the forms are inherited, and (b) the function is different.

Peter