Re: Is this realistic?

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:08:49 EDT, David J. Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...>
wrote:

>Therefore, if you combined aorist and anterior, how could it be the
>perfective?   It'd be the anterior, wouldn't it?   Since aorist is the
unmarked form of
>the verb.   If you could, there'd be no way to form the anterior, via the
>scheme you set out.   To represent it graphically:
>
>maka = "to eat"
>na = anterior
>ki = "I"
>
>So...
>
>ki maka = "I eat" aorist
>
>na ki maka = "I ate/have eaten" perfective
>
>na ki maka = ? anterior
>
>Did I get that right, or did I miss something?   (And, just as a refresher,
>what exactly does "aorist" mean?   I've never been clear.   I still use
terms
>like "present", "past" and "future".)
>
>-David
Microsoft Encarta Online Dictionary defines "aorist" as "a verb tense used
to express a past action in an unqualified way, without specifying whether
that action was repeated, continuing, or completed or how long it lasted,
found especially in classical Greek."  So it appears that I used the wrong
term there.  I will use "punctual" instead.

The simple form of the verb, then, is concomitant tense, punctual aspect,
and indicative mood.  I would say that the imperfect would be formed first,
by anterior tense + progressive aspect.  Once this happened, anterior +
punctual would be reinterpreted as a perfect (i.e., an action completed in
the past, as in "I have eaten").

Using your words, let me add another formant _su_ meaning "progressive":

ki maka = I eat
ki makasu = I am eating
ki makana = I ate / I have eaten
ki makasuna ~ makanasu = I was eating

- Rob

Reply