Aorist(/ˈeɪərɪst/AY-ər-ist;abbreviatedAOR)verbforms usually expressperfective aspectand refer topast events,similar to apreterite.Ancient Greekgrammar had the aorist form, and the grammars of otherIndo-European languagesand languages influenced by the Indo-European grammatical tradition, such asMiddle Persian,Sanskrit,Armenian,theSouth Slavic languages,Georgian,Pontic Greek,andPashto,also have forms referred to as aorist.
The word comes fromAncient Greekἀόριστος(aóristos'indefinite'),[1][2]as the aorist was theunmarked(default) form of the verb, and thus did not have the implications of theimperfective aspect,which referred to an ongoing or repeated situation, or theperfect,which referred to a situation with a continuing relevance; instead it described an action "pure and simple".[3]
Because the aorist was the unmarked aspect in Ancient Greek, the term is sometimes applied to unmarked verb forms in other languages, such as thehabitual aspectinTurkish.[4]
Indo-European languages
editProto-Indo-European
editInProto-Indo-European,the aorist appears to have originated as a series of verb forms expressingmanner of action.[5]Proto-Indo-European had a three-way aspectual opposition, traditionally called "present", "aorist", and "perfect", which are thought to have been, respectively,imperfective,perfective,andstative(resultant state) aspects. By the time of Classical Greek, this system was maintained largely in independent instances of the non-indicative moods and in the nonfinite forms. But in the indicative, and in dependent clauses with thesubjunctiveandoptative,the aspects took on temporal significance. In this manner, the aorist was often used as an unmarked past tense, and the perfect came to develop aresultativeuse,[6]which is why the termperfectis used for this meaning in modern languages.
Other Indo-European languages lost the aorist entirely. In the development of Latin, for example, the aorist merged with the perfect.[7]Thepreterites(past perfectives) of the Romance languages, which are sometimes called "aorist", are an independent development.
Greek
editInAncient Greek,theindicativeaorist is one of the two main forms used in telling a story; it is used for undivided events, such as the individual steps in a continuous process (narrative aorist); it is also used for events that took place before the story itself (past-within-past). The aorist indicative is also used to express things that happen in general, without asserting a time (the "gnomicaorist "). It can also be used of present and future[8]events; the aorist also has several specialized senses meaning present action.
Non-indicative forms of the aorist (subjunctives, optatives, imperatives, infinitives) are usually purely aspectual, with certain exceptions includingindirect speechconstructions and the use of optative as part of thesequence of tensesin dependent clauses. There are aorist infinitives and imperatives that do not imply temporality at all. For example, theLord's Prayerin Matthew 6:11 uses the aorist imperative in "Give(δόςdós) usthis dayour daily bread ",[9]in contrast to the analogous passage in Luke 11:3, which uses theimperfectiveaspect, implying repetition, with "Give(δίδουdídou,present imperative) usday by dayour daily bread. "[10]
An example of how the aorist tense contrasts with the imperfect in describing the past occurs inXenophon'sAnabasis,when the Persian aristocrat Orontas is executed: "and those whohad been previously in the habit of bowing(προσεκύνουνprosekúnoun,imperfect) to him,bowed(προσεκύνησανprosekúnēsan,aorist) to him even then. "[11]Here the imperfect refers to a past habitual or repeated act, and the aorist to a single one.
There is disagreement as to which functions of the Greek aorist are inherent within it. Some of the disagreement applies to the history of the development of the various functions and forms. Most grammarians differentiate the aorist indicative from the non-indicative aorists. Many authors hold that the aorist tends to be about the past because it is perfective, and perfectives tend to describe completed actions;[12]others that the aorist indicative and to some extent the participle is essentially a mixture ofpast tense and perfective aspect.[13]
Hermeneutic implications
editBecause the aorist was not maintained in either Latin or the Germanic languages, there have long been difficulties in translating the GreekNew Testamentinto Western languages. The aorist has often been interpreted as making a strong statement about the aspect or even the time of an event, when, in fact, due to its being theunmarked(default) form of the Greek verb, such implications are often left to context. Thus, within New Testamenthermeneutics,it is considered anexegeticalfallacyto attach undue significance to uses of the aorist.[14]Although one may draw specific implications from an author's use of the imperfective or perfect, no such conclusions can, in general, be drawn from the use of the aorist, which may refer to an action "without specifying whether the action is unique, repeated, ingressive, instantaneous, past, or accomplished."[14]In particular, the aorist does not imply a "once-for-all" action, as it has commonly been misinterpreted, although it frequently refers to a simple, non-repeated action.[15]
Sanskrit
editAlthough quite common in older Sanskrit, the aorist is comparatively infrequent in much of classical Sanskrit, occurring, for example, 66 times in the first book of theRāmāyaṇa,8 times in theHitopadeśa,6 times in theBhagavad-Gītā,and 6 times in the story ofŚakuntalāin theMahābhārata.[16]
In the later language, the aorist indicative had the value of apreterite,[clarification needed]while in the older language it was closer in sense to the perfect.[16]The aorist was also used with the ancientinjunctive mood,particularly in prohibitions.[17]
Slavic languages
editThe Indo-European aorist was inherited by theSlavic languagesbut has survived intact only in theSouth Slavic languages.It retains its function entirely in theEastern South Slaviclanguages,BulgarianandMacedonian.However, inWestern South Slaviclanguages it has become, along with theimperfectandpluperfect,largely obsolete in daily parlance and mostly superseded by theperfectandcircumlocution.The aorist is part of thestandardized varietiesofSerbo-Croatianbut is no longer part of standardSlovene.In both languages, the aorist appears mostly in older literature, scripture, religious services and legislation and so carries an archaic tone. In Serbo-Croatian, aorist finds natural use only in certain locales while it is completely supplanted by the perfect in others. As such, its use in formal settings can be construed as either pretentious and bombastic or conversely as rustic and unsophisticated, depending on locale. Its disuse does not cause ambiguity, as Slavic verbs have distinctgrammatical aspectsto convey related yet distinct meaning.
The prevalence of the aorist varied widely by region prior to the grammatical changes during thecommunists' rise to power inSFR YugoslaviaafterWorld War II.Historically, in Croatia and Croatian dialects, the aorist was naturally displaced by the perfect in most dialects (Chakavian,KajkavianandShtokavian).[18][unreliable source?]In Serbia and Serbian dialects, the aorist was historically commonly used to describe the past. In 1933, the Serbian linguistAleksandar Belićwas tasked by the authorities of theKingdom of Yugoslaviawith creating a formal grammar for the new Serbo-Croatian standard. He decided to curb the use of the aorist by noting that there were many speakers of the language "in Yugoslavia who rarely use aorist, or do not use it at all", alluding to primarilyCroats,Slovenes,BosniaksandSerbs of CroatiaandBosniawhose dialects had long since done away with aorist altogether; Belić redefined aorist as a tense that described an action that happened "immediately before the moment of speech" despite the fact that aorist never carried such a meaning inherently among native speakers.[18][unreliable source?]In an effort to reinforce the use of the unified and standardized language in public discourse and education, the usage of the aorist gradually became prescriptively stigmatized by the communist regime and filtered from official use inPR SerbiaandPR Montenegro.Belić's redefinition and use of aorist in fiction writing was tolerated due to abundance of its use in older literature.[18][unreliable source?]Nevertheless, aorist is still widespread in rural parts of Serbia, especially among the older and less educated part of the population.[19][unreliable source?]In standardized forms, the aorist is used for witnessed actions from a specific time in the past, mostly with verbs of perfective aspect.
In modern forms of communication, the aorist has experienced something of a revival among younger speakers in Serbia, as its forms are simpler and shorter to type out than the perfect.[20]
In Bulgarian, which has produced a new regular formation, the aorist is used inindirectand in presumptive quotations.[21]Bulgarian has separate inflections for aorist (past imperfective) and general perfective. The aorist may be used with the imperfective to produce a compoundperfective–imperfective aspect.[22][23]
The aorist in Macedonian is called the "past definite complete tense" (минато определено свршено време) and refers to a completed action in the past tense. It most often corresponds to the simple past tense in English:I read the book, I wrote the letter, I ate my supper,etc. In contemporary standard Macedonian, the aorist is formed almost exclusively from perfective verbs. The formation of the aorist for most verbs is not complex, but there are numerous small subcategories that must be learned. All verbs in the aorist (exceptсум) take the same endings, but there are complexities in the aorist stem vowel and possible consonant alternations. All verbs (exceptсум) take the following endings in the aorist:[24]
| јас-в | ние-вме |
| ти-∅ / -ше | вие-вте |
| тој-∅ / -ше | тие-а / -ја |
(The sign ∅ indicates a zero ending: nothing is added after the stem vowel.)
Morphology
editIn theIndo-European languagesGreekandSanskrit,the aoriststemis marked by several morphological devices (the aorist indicative also has the past-tenseaugmentἐ-e-,whichcontractswith the initialvowel). Three aorist morphological devices stand out as most common:
| Morphology | Description, examples of aorist tense and aorist imperative |
|---|---|
| suffixingofs[25] | The first, weak,s-, orsigmaticaorist is the most common in Greek.
|
| zero-grade ofablaut, lack of suffix /nasal infix[26][27] |
The second or strong aorist uses the barerootof the verb without theeof ablaut or the present-tense suffix or nasal infix. |
| reduplication[28][29] | Reduplicationis more common in the perfect, but a few Greek verbs use it in the aorist. The reduplicated aorist is more common inSanskrit,e.g.ájījanam"I gave birth."[16]
|
South Caucasian languages
editInGeorgianandSvan,the aorist marks perfective aspect. In the indicative, it marks completed events. In other moods, it marks events that are yet to be completed.[30]
InMingrelianandLaz,the aorist is basically a past tense and can be combined with both perfective and imperfective aspects as well as the imperative and the subjunctive moods.[31]
Northeast Caucasian languages
editInKhinalug,the aorist is a perfective aspect, and the two terms ( "aorist" and "perfective" ) are often used interchangeably.[32]
InUdi,the aorist is an imperfective aspect that is usually a past tense but can also replace the present tense.[33]
Turkish
editInTurkish,the aorist (Turkish:geniş zaman,literally "broad time" ) is ahabitual aspect[4]and is similar to the Englishpresent simple.[34]For example, the statementEt yemem( "I do not eat meat" ) informs the listener that the speaker is a vegetarian and not merely that he happens not to be eating meat at that very moment. To convey the latter message, thepresent progressiveEt yemiyorum( "I am not eating meat" ) would be appropriate. The Turkish aorist is commonly used in enquiries about someone's wishes, as inBir şey yemek ister misiniz?( "Would you like to eat something?" ). That makes a question likeDomuz eti yer misiniz?ambiguous, as the listener may interpret it as an informational question ( "Are you someone who eats pork"?) or as an offer ( "Would you [like to] eat pork?" ).[34]
Constructed languages
editInJ. R. R. Tolkien'sconstructed languageQuenya,the aorist is agnomictense orsimple presentthat expresses general facts or simple present actions.[35]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ἀόριστος.Liddell, Henry George;Scott, Robert;A Greek–English Lexiconat thePerseus Project
- ^Liddell, Henry George;Scott, Robert(1992).A Greek - English Lexicon.Oxford: Clarendon Press. p.173– viaInternet Archive.
- ^Beetham, Frank (2007).Learning Greek with Plato.Bristol Phoenix Press. p. 362.ISBN978-1-904675-56-3.This does not mean, however, that the aorist was aspectually neutral, seeNapoli, Maria (2006).Aspect and Actionality in Homeric Greek.Milano: FrancoAngeli. p. 67.ISBN88-464-7836-3.
- ^abLewis, Geoffrey (2000).Turkish Grammar(2nd ed.). Oxford.ISBN0-19-870036-9.
{{cite book}}:CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Michael Meier-Brügger, Matthias Fritz, Manfred Mayrhofer,Indo-European Linguistics,Walter de Gruyter, 2003,ISBN3-11-017433-2,pp. 173–176.
- ^Teffeteller (2006). "Ancient Greek".Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics(2nd ed.).ISBN0-08-044299-4.
- ^Palmer, L. R.(1988).The Latin Language.Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press. p.9.ISBN0-8061-2136-X.
- ^Herbert Weir Smyth,Greek Grammar,sect. 1934, citing Euripides,Alcestis,386 "I am destroyed (aorist indicative) if you will leave me".
- ^Matthew 6:11, KJV.In Greek:Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον.
- ^Luke 11:3, KJV.In Greek:τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ' ἡμέραν.
- ^F. Kinchin Smith and T.W. Melluish,Teach Yourself Greek,Hodder and Stoughton, 1968, p. 94.
- ^Egbert Bakker, 1997,Grammar as Interpretation: Greek literature in its linguistic contexts,p 21;
Constantine Campbell, 2007,Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament,chapter 4;
Donald Mastronarde, 1993,Introduction to Attic Greek;
Buist M. Fanning,1990,Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek,p 67;
Heerak Kim, 2008,Intricately Connected: Biblical Studies, Intertextuality, and Literary Genre;
Maria Napoli, 2006,Aspect and Actionality in Homeric Greek;Brook Pearson, 2001,Corresponding Sense: Paul, Dialectic, and Gadamer,p 75;
Stanley Porter, 1992,Idioms of the Greek New Testament;
A.T. Robertson, 1934,A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research;
Max Zerwick, 1963,Biblical Greek. - ^Martin Haspelmath, ed., 2001,Typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques,1:779;
Roger Woodward, "Attic Greek", inThe Ancient Languages of Europe,p 33;
see also discussion in Stanley Porter, 1992,Idioms of the Greek New Testament,p 38 - ^abD. A. Carson,Exegetical Fallacies,Baker Book House, 1984,ISBN0-8010-2499-4,p. 70.
- ^Grant R. Osborne,The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation,2nd ed., InterVarsity Press, 2006,ISBN0-8308-2826-5,p. 69.
- ^abcWilliam Dwight Whitney,Sanskrit Grammar: Including both the Classical Language and the older Dialects, of Veda and Brahmana,Oxford University Press, 1950,pp. 297-330.
- ^T. Burrow,The Sanskrit Language,Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2001,ISBN81-208-1767-2,p. 299.
- ^abcAco Nevski,'Past Tenses in Serbian language and modern trends of their use'
- ^Ацо Невски,'Аорист као псовка'(Serbian)
- ^Dr Branko Tošović,Zbornik Matice srpske za slavistiku, knjiga 71-72, p. 393ArchivedMarch 15, 2012, at theWayback Machine(Serbian only)
- ^The Slavonic languagesed. Bernard Comrie, Greville G. Corbett,passim,esp. p.212ff.
- ^Bernard Comrie,Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems,Cambridge University Press, 1976,ISBN0-521-29045-7,p 12.
- ^Östen Dahl,Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe,Walter de Gruyter, 2000,ISBN3-11-015752-7,p. 290.
- ^Christina E. Kramer(1999),Makedonski Jazik(The University of Wisconsin Press).
- ^Smyth.A Greek Grammar for Colleges.§ 542:first aorist stem.
- ^Smyth.A Greek Grammar for Colleges.§§ 546,547:second aorist stem, o-verbs.
- ^Anna Giacalone Ramatand Paolo Ramat (eds.),The Indo-European Languages,Routledge, 1998,ISBN0-415-06449-X,pp. 248–251.
- ^Smyth.A Greek Grammar for Colleges.§ 494:reduplication.
- ^Smyth.A Greek Grammar for Colleges.§§ 549.1:reduplication in2nd aorist.
- ^Heinz Fãhnrich, "Old Georgian",The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Volume 1, The Kartvelian Languages(1991, Caravan Books), pp. 129-217.
Howard I. Aronson, "Modern Georgian",The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Volume 1, The Kartvelian Languages(1991, Caravan Books), pp. 219-312.
Karl Horst Schmidt, "Svan",The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Volume 1, The Kartvelian Languages(1991, Caravan Books), pp. 473-556. - ^Alice C. Harris, "Mingrelian",The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Volume 1, The Kartvelian Languages(1991, Caravan Books), pp. 313-394.
Dee Ann Holisky, "Laz",The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Volume 1, The Kartvelian Languages(1991, Caravan Books), pp. 395-472. - ^A.E. Kibrik, "Khinalug",The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Volume 4, North East Caucasian Languages, Part 2(1994, Caravan Books), pp. 367-406.
- ^Wolfgang Schulze-Fürhoff, "Udi",The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Volume 4, North East Caucasian Languages, Part 2(1994, Caravan Books), pp. 447-514.
- ^abYavaş, Feryal (1979)."The Turkish Aorist"(working paper). Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics.4.Linguisitcs Graduate Student Association, University of Kansas: 41–49.doi:10.17161/KWPL.1808.656.hdl:1808/656.
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^Helge Fauskanger.Ardalambion.Quenya - The Ancient Tongue.The Verb.
External links
edit