# The perfect tense: really an aorist?



## Outsider

There seems to be a lot of dicussion and confusion regarding the value of the Latin perfect (or perfective? -- perhaps we'd better not open that can of worms). Since this ends up extending somewhat to other languages, in particular the Romance languages, I've grown curious about the matter.

Let me see if I got it straight:


Both Latin and Greek had tenses which have traditionally been called "*perfect*". (I'm thinking of the perfect indicative mostly, here.)
But modern linguists object to this terminology, arguing that the Latin tense actually had a very different value from the Greek one. They say that only one of the two tenses should be called "perfect", and the other should be called "*perfective*". Trouble is, they can't seem to agree on which should be the perfect and which should be the perfective. 
The Latin "perfect/perfective" was actually closer in meaning to another Greek tense (or mood -- another can of worms I don't wish to open!) called the *aorist*.
Is this right?


----------



## clara mente

Although I know next to nothing about Greek, perhaps this explanation of the Latin "perfect" will shed some light on this ambiguity. One of the main differences that exists between learning Latin in the structural manner vs. the traditional manner is it's definition of the perfect. In structural terminology the traditional perfect is not a "Tense" per se, but rather an "aspect" and therefore refered to as the "present perfect". This concept manifests itself in the sequence of tenses wherein the time aspect of the verb is scrutinized as to it's respect to the action of the verb in relation to "present" time. To explain further, when we translate the verb "lexit" do we mean "he read" or "he has read". This seemingly trivial detail in English was in fact critical to the Romans. The first being a action belonging to "past or finished time" and therefore treated as such in the sequence as would a "past imperfective" verb ala. "legebat" the latter would be treated as a "present perfect" such as "legit".


----------



## virgilio

Outsider,
The 'aorist' tense is the preterite (passé simple, passato remoto) tense of Greek. In Latin - as has happened largely  also in the spoken forms of modern French and Italian - the present perfect tense almost completely took over the functions of the Latin aorist tense. The latter however was still to be seen in its 3rd person plural form even in the classical period.
                 adsensere omnes et quae sibi quisque timebat
                  unius in miseri exitium conversa tulere          (Virgil)

The Greek adjective "aoristos" literally means "without boundaries", "limitless" and the special or peculiar function of this tense is to indicate that what happened was bound to happen, given the nature of things or of people. 
It is therefore a 'timeless' tense. In English we occasionally get a glimpse of a Greek-style aorist in phrases like:
"Faint heart never won fair lady"
although the adverb "never" does itself give this sentence a hefty shove in the direction of timelessness.
English normally expresses its aoristic ideas by either a present tense or a conditional.
Well, it would, wouldn't it!

Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

Thank you both for your replies. 



clara mente said:


> This seemingly trivial detail in English was in fact critical to the Romans. The first being a action belonging to "past or finished time" and therefore treated as such in the sequence as would a "past imperfective" verb ala. "legebat" the latter would be treated as a "present perfect" such as "legit".


But it's not a trivial detail in English, is it? The past simple / present perfect distinction is quite central and characteristic of English. And, if I may add, can be quite difficult to master for foreigners. I can say without false modesty that I am fluent in English, and generally feel comfortable expressing myself in it, yet the present perfect is the one tense which still makes me hesitate after all these years.

I am also intrigued by your definition of the imperfective as "past or finished time", because it doesn't seem to fit well the Romance imperfect tense, which I have always assumed behaved pretty much as the Latin imperfect. I say this because the Romance "non-perfect" (_passé composé_, _passato remoto_, etc.) can also speak of a past or finished time.


----------



## Flaminius

If I understand what I read in my Latin grammar correctly, perfect forms (-ī, -istī, -it, -imus, -istis, -ērunt) are basically present perfect; past experience being carried over to the time of utterance.  Salient examples are memin-ī (remember), ōd-ī (hate) and other verbs that, lacking present forms, make use of perfect forms in sense of present diction.  I think it is safe to assume, for example, it is because we had a bad experience in the past (present perfect) that we hate.  Ōd-ī morphologically captures that nuance.

Latin perfect forms are used in sense of historical past despite the basic meaning above.  Caesar said "veni, vidi, vici," way after the battle was over (said to be on a sign used for his triumphant procession), so we must admit that perfect forms are sometimes historic past.  It is argued that Latin perfect combines perfect and aorist of Proto-Indo-European.  
Affix -s-, used to derive Latin perfect stems and Greek aorist stems, is often cited as evidence to PIE aorist being merged into Latin perfect.


----------



## Whodunit

To be honest, the aorist in Greek is a very interesting aspect. One could write pages about it. Interestingly, the so-called aspect (it is considered a tense in some books, though) is often treated contradictorily. The German Wikipedia about the aorist is full of examples in many languages that use it; unfortunately, the English explanation on it is very short. If you want to, I can translate some of the passages of the German Wikipedia for you.

Let's see what my _Ars Graeca_ textbook says about the aorist (it's discussed over several pages!):

First off, the Greek aorist is considered a tense (among present, imperfect, future I, perfect, pluperfect, and future II*). The seven Greek tenses can be devided into _main tenses_ and _augment tenses_; the aorist (among the imperfect and pluperfect) belongs to the latter. The aorist is defined as:

_In the indicative, it is the narrative tense corresponding to the Latin perfectum historicum _(later more).


The tense signal of the aorist is an -s- (-σ-) in the active and middle voice, and a thê (-θη-) in the passive voice. Tenses that follow these signals are called _weak tenses _(alias _tempora prima_):επαίδευσα (epaídeusa**) from παιδεύειν (paideúein) = weak aorist (= aorist I) = I brought up/educated​
The tenses that are formed without a tense signal are named _strong tenses_ (or also _tempora secunda_):έλιπον (élipon) from λείπειν (leípein) = strong aorist (aorist II) = I let (past tense)​What is by augment is the vowel before the verb stem. It indicates the past tense and appears in the indicative only. There are two kinds of it: The syllabic augment (verbs beginning with a consonant receive an e-/ε-) and the temporal augment (the initial vowel of verbs beginning with a vowel is lengthened [it would get off-topic to elaborate upon these changes]).

Back to the aorist: The aorist stem denotes completion and shortness in diverse modifications:

Completion (effective: the end):
*Έπειθον* (impf.) αυτούς, καὶ οὺς *έπεισα* (aor.) τούτους έχων επορευόμην.
*épeithon* autoús, kaí oús *épeisa* toútous échôn eporeuómên.
*I tried* *to convince* them, and with those *I had really convinced* I set off.
the imperfect is used, because the end is not implied
the aorist is used, because we can see the end in "had convinced"

Beginning (ingressive: the beginning):
Ὁι βάβαροι *εφοβήθησαν* καὶ *τραπόμενοι έφυγον*.
hoi bábaroi *efobếthêsan* kaí *trapómenoi éfygon*.
The Barbars *got a fright* and *began to "turn away to flee"*.
the aorist is used in both cases, because it is a sudden action

A unique or "uniform" historical event (= historical aorist):
Ὁ Κυπος *έθυσε* τὰ νομιζόμενα ἱερὰ.
ho Kyros *éthyse* tá nomizómena hierá.
Kyros *sacrificed* made the usual sacrifices.
the aorist tells us that is a historical event
-----------------------------------------
*εβασίλεθσε* πεντήκοντα έτη.
*ebasíleuse* pentếkonta étê.
*He was* *king* for 50 years.
the so-called _complex aorist_ can be seen as a historical unity

The gnomic aorist (sentences, aphorisms) affecting the present time:
Ἡ γλωσσα πολλοὺς εις όλεθρον *ήγαγεν*.
hê glôssa polloús eis ólethron *ếgagen*.
The tongue *already* *brought* disaster on many (people). (_lit._: The tongue has led many to disaster)

I think this should be enough for now. 

*they call it _futurum perfecti (= future of the perfect)_
**the _eu_ is pronounced like in German; like the English _oi_ in _c*oi*n_


PS: After this post and considering some other aspects in this thread, it should be moved to the Other Languages forum.


----------



## virgilio

Flaminius, 
You write:"Caesar said "veni, vidi, vici," way after the battle was over (said to be on a sign used for his triumphant procession), so we must admit that perfect forms are sometimes historic past".
 But how do you know whether Caesar meant those words as primary or secondary 'tonality' - in other words, why should we assume that by for example "veni" he meant "I came" rather than "I have come"?
 Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

Whodunit,
             Very kind of you to go to so much trouble and good of German Wikipedia to provide the material.  The only problem is that it reads rather like a User's Handbook for a person who has just bought his first PC. It's very useful, provided that you are already acquainted with the subject matter.
Would it not be more _useful_ - for someone not already so acquainted with the subject matter - to say that the aorist is the Greek preterite tense and that it gets its name from an occasional tendency to use the preterite tense to signify things which constantly recur in nature?
Wouldn't you agree?
Virgilio  
By the way, I have heard that the past tense in German is called das Imperfekt. Is this true?


----------



## Whodunit

virgilio said:


> Flaminius,
> You write:"Caesar said "veni, vidi, vici," way after the battle was over (said to be on a sign used for his triumphant procession), so we must admit that perfect forms are sometimes historic past".
> But how do you know whether Caesar meant those words as primary or secondary 'tonality' - in other words, why should we assume that by for example "veni" he meant "I came" rather than "I have come"?
> Virgilio


 
In case you're interested, I just found the Greek equivalent for _veni, vedi, vici_, which is indeed ἦλθον, εἶδον, ἐνίκησα (élthon, eídon, eníkêsa) in the aorist.



virgilio said:


> Whodunit,
> Very kind of you to go to so much trouble and good of German Wikipedia to provide the material. The only problem is that it reads rather like a User's Handbook for a person who has just bought his first PC. It's very useful, provided that you are already acquainted with the subject matter.


 
Yes, but I know that we all here will understand it. 



> Would it not be more _useful_ - for someone not already so acquainted with the subject matter - to say that the aorist is the Greek preterite tense and that it gets its name from an occasional tendency to use the preterite tense to signify things which constantly recur in nature?
> Wouldn't you agree?


 
I will be thinking about it. I can't tell you for sure now.



> By the way, I have heard that the past tense in German is called das Imperfekt. Is this true?


 
I don't like that designation for the past tense, but it's ok and most people will understand it. I use _Präteritum_ for it. I use _Imperfekt_ for the Latin imperfect when I speak about Latin in German. The funny thing is that in Arabic, the _perfect_ is the past tense and the name _imperfect_ is used for the present tense. That can become quote confusing sometimes.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Whodunit said:


> **the _eu_ is pronounced like in German; like the English _oi_ in _c*oi*n_


 
But that would the German academic (or Erasmian) pronunciation of "eu", and English speakers would pronounce it like the "eu" in "feud." The original pronunciation was [eu] -- but can't think of any examples in any languages I know.



Outsider said:


> Is this right?


 
Just to add, although I think it was already said, but the Latin pefect seems to have combined the main uses of both the Greek aorist and perfect. I've also recently learned that some Latin perfect forms match up with Greek aorists (like dixi) and others with Greek perfects (like tetuli) so it's probably historically true that it is both.


----------



## Whodunit

modus.irrealis said:


> But that would the German academic (or Erasmian) pronunciation of "eu", and English speakers would pronounce it like the "eu" in "feud." The original pronunciation was [eu] -- but can't think of any examples in any languages I know.


 
You're right. I think it is easier to pronounce ελεύθερος as if it had an οί instead of εύ. 

That's at least how I have learned it, but that's obviously wrong.



> Just to add, although I think it was already said, but the Latin pefect seems to have combined the main uses of both the Greek aorist and perfect. I've also recently learned that some Latin perfect forms match up with Greek aorists (like dixi) and others with Greek perfects (like tetuli) so it's probably historically true that it is both.


 
Yes, the first example (_dixi_) is based on the _s_-aorist under lengthening the stem vowel unless it's a diphthong (mittere > mitt-s-i > misi; regere > reg-s-i > rexi) and the second* on the reduplication (dare > da+di > dedi; currere > cu+curri). There's also the lengthening of the present infinitive stem to form the perfect stem, which might go back to the Greek augmental aorist forms (agere > egi; facere > feci), but I'm not sure.

*Your _tetuli_ is interesting, because that's the Early Latin word for _tuli_. The forms of _ferre_ are interesting anyway.


----------



## virgilio

Whodunit,
             Perhaps the ancients used the same pronunciation as the modern Greeks "eleftheros".  very easy to say - which is what most nations finish up choosing anyway.
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

On the meaning of the Greek adjective αοριστος (aoristos) the initial alpha is a Greek negative prefix (like English un-) and the rest of the adjective is derived from the verb οριζω (horizo) "to limit" or "set a boundary", whose present participle is the English "horizon".
Hence the special function of the Greek aorist tense to indicate that what happened was bound to happen, given the nature of things, because the tense is an "unlimited" or "timeless" tense.

Virgilio


----------



## modus.irrealis

Whodunit said:


> You're right. I think it is easier to pronounce ελεύθερος as if it had an οί instead of εύ.
> 
> That's at least how I have learned it, but that's obviously wrong.



For me, I've decided there's no such thing as a wrong pronunciation of a dead language, just that different groups have different traditions of how to pronounce them, although some are more historically accurate than others.



> Yes, the first example (_dixi_) is based on the _s_-aorist under lengthening the stem vowel unless it's a diphthong (mittere > mitt-s-i > misi; regere > reg-s-i > rexi) and the second* on the reduplication (dare > da+di > dedi; currere > cu+curri). There's also the lengthening of the present infinitive stem to form the perfect stem, which might go back to the Greek augmental aorist forms (agere > egi; facere > feci), but I'm not sure.
> 
> *Your _tetuli_ is interesting, because that's the Early Latin word for _tuli_. The forms of _ferre_ are interesting anyway.


What you say about _dixi_ and the s-aorist is what I read -- for _tetuli_, the _u_ is believed to come from an original _o_, and the o-sound with reduplication is very characteristic of the Greek perfect (e.g. λέλοιπα 'I have left'). In fact the forms _tetuli_ has a cognate in Greek, τέτληκα, but it doesn't have exactly the same formation.


----------



## Whodunit

virgilio said:


> Whodunit,
> Perhaps the ancients used the same pronunciation as the modern Greeks "eleftheros". very easy to say - which is what most nations finish up choosing anyway.
> Virgilio


 
Yes, that reminds me of the BrE pronunciation of _lieutenant_, but that's obviously not from Greek. 

However, I think that the pronunciation of ευ was like the _eu_ in German Entst*ehu*ng (the h is not pronounced).



modus.irrealis said:


> For me, I've decided there's no such thing as a wrong pronunciation of a dead language, just that different groups have different traditions of how to pronounce them, although some are more historically accurate than others.


 
Good call. I couldn't agree more. 



> What you say about _dixi_ and the s-aorist is what I read -- for _tetuli_, the _u_ is believed to come from an original _o_, and the o-sound with reduplication is very characteristic of the Greek perfect (e.g. λέλοιπα 'I have left'). In fact the forms _tetuli_ has a cognate in Greek, τέτληκα, but it doesn't have exactly the same formation.


 
I assume the word τέτληκα is the perfect of τλῆναι. Would you, by the way, call τέθνηκα a reduplication of θνῃσκω?


----------



## modus.irrealis

virgilio said:


> On the meaning of the Greek adjective αοριστος (aoristos) the initial alpha is a Greek negative prefix (like English un-) and the rest of the adjective is derived from the verb οριζω (horizo) "to limit" or "set a boundary", whose present participle is the English "horizon".
> Hence the special function of the Greek aorist tense to indicate that what happened was bound to happen, given the nature of things, because the tense is an "unlimited" or "timeless" tense.



I've always thought "aorist" was a poor term and wondered why it was chosen -- in most uses of the aorist, especially outside the indicative mood, it just represents the perfective aspect which seems to be the exact opposite of unbounded. And even if the name was originally given just to the indicative mood, the only timeless use of it is the relatively rare gnomic use Whodunit mentioned before (and of which you gave a really good English example, which I'll have to keep in mind -- the only other similar example I've seen is "curiosity killed the cat"), but it's predominant use was just a past tense with perfective aspect, which again is something I can't really see being called unbounded.



Whodunit said:


> I assume the word τέτληκα is the perfect of τλῆναι. Would you, by the way, call τέθνηκα a reduplication of θνῃσκω?


Yes to both questions, and for the latter of course you have τε instead of θε because of the rule in Greek against aspirated consonants in consecutive syllables. Although it might be more accurate to say that it's a reduplication of the root θαν- (clearly seen in the aorist ἔθανον), since the present has the (ι)σκω addition, and clearly it's more than just a reduplication.


----------



## Flaminius

Moderation Note
Discussions about aspect have been moved to an OL thread.  Please be reminded that the theme of the current thread is Latin perfect forms (and its aoristic use).  If agreeing upon the definition of the linguistic term _aspect_ is a prerequisite for furthering the discussion of Latin perfect, feel free to quote your conclusions from the OL thread.


----------

