Talk:Aorist/Archive 1

Is Aorist a tense?

This is weird. Why am I being redirected from "Aorist" to "Aorist tense" when the first thing the article tells me is that Aorist is not a tense??? 80.134.148.156 13:36, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Section removed

(To prove this to yourself, think about the sentences: "I'm seeing a bird", "I'm finding the truth", and "I'm hearing some music". None of them sounds quite right, as the verbs are aorist in nature and cannot be used as processes. If, however, you substitute "looking at", "searching for", and "listening to" for "seeing", "finding" and "hearing", the sentences sound correct, as the verbs do describe processes.)

This part needs reworking. It is not true that none of these sounds quite right; these forms can be used to emphasize the process being referred to. I can think of several examples where these sentences would be considered perfectly valid and grammatical constructions:

To a scientific researcher, who is receiving heavy ethical and moral criticism over questionable methodology:

"You can't do that! Just what are you doing with this research?"

"I'm finding the truth."

To a participant in a psychological experiment, who was previously shown a card bearing the image of a cow (for some reason), and is now being shown a card with a bird on it:

"And what are you seeing now?"

"Now I'm seeing a bird."

Someone is listening to radio noise from outer space, seeking signs of intelligent life. In astonishment, they say:

"Strange... I'm hearing some noise.. and now I'm hearing some music!"

Kwertii 23:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grammatical gender

Consider grammatical gender:

Gender = {masculine, feminine}

"neuter" is latin for "neither of the two". The neuter class stands outside the Gender system. It is not a Gender at all. It stands for the "null" gender. It means "no gender".

(There are languages where neuter functions as a grammatical gender equal to masculine and feminine. Russian is an example. This analogy does not make any sense.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.125.107 (talk) 24 June 2006

Now consider the Aspect system:

Aspect = {perfect, imperfect}

"aorist" is Greek for "undefined". The aorist class stands outside the Aspect system. Therefore aorist is not an aspect at all. It means "non-aspect", or "no-aspect", or "neither-of-the-two". It stands for the "null" aspect, just like neuter stands for the "null" gender.

[Both "neuter" and "aorist" refer to the null class, a singleton category (with just one instance, the null object). "Neuter" and "Aorist" are referring to the same thing, nothing.

The Null class is initially a typeless void, a pure abstraction, containing nothing, the very top of the classification system, the ontology, for lack of a better word, which is filled as the Universe is created. Null is defined like this:

null = {Gender, Aspect, Time, Tense, Person, Number, etc.} ]

Aspect was originally defined to compare the predicate with a circumstance involving time.

Time = {past, present, future}

Tense = {Aspect × Time}

There are four perfect tenses.

1) Past Imperfect

"I was eating, when the door bell rang."

"I was eating" is imperfect, an incompleted action which takes place "when the door bell rang." "Rang" is AORIST, it has no aspect. It is a pure tense, the simple-past, part of an adverbial circumstance.

[Of course, 'rang' is "completed" because it is "past", but it is not the predicate. It serves as the absolute (ablative absolute?) reference point, a circumstance. We are talking about "eating".]

2) Past Perfect

"I had eaten, when the door bell rang."

"I had eaten" is past-perfect i.e. it is past-by-perfect, past-times-perfect, the cartesian product of Aspect-perfect and Time-past. "Rang" is Aorist.

3) Future Perfect

"I will have eaten when the door bell rings."

"I will have eaten" is future-perfect. "rings" is AORIST, it is a pure tense, the "present" tense. Aspect does not apply. "rings" has no aspect. It is not the predicate. We are talking about "eating". It is merely a circumstance.

[Of course, 'rings' is "incomplete", because it is present, but it is not "imperfect".]

4) Present Perfect

"I have eaten" is present prefect, present-by-perfect. The aorist circumstance is undefined, but is conventially assumed to be something like "and I am not hungry".

That's about it. Those are all the perfect tenses.

Over time, the term "Aorist" has come to refer to the simple-past tense. Aorist is conventionally -- but not formally -- a tense, in the same way "Imperfect", an aspect, has become the common way to refer to the "past imperfect" tense.

You could call the past tense the "Past-Aorist" (vs the "Present-Aorist", i.e. the "present" tense.)

What about the future tense?

We'd have to start talking about Modalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.186.24 (talk) 12 January 2006

--- From those examples, it appears your definition of Aorist is "sometime during" an expressed time period. For example, "I was eating when the door bell rang." The door bell was ringing sometime during the time period when the person was eating. Another example: "I will have eaten when the door bell rings." In this case, the doorbell is going to be ringing sometime after the person has eaten. Hence, Aorist is not entirely unexplainable; it is just not set for a certain time period. It is sort of like the "has been" for the other tenses. That is, sometime during some time period in the past, present, or future. Anderocketech (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

Word change

I changed 'schizophrenic' to 'double' since, contrary to common usage, it does not refer to so-called 'split' or 'multiple' personalities. Linguists should feel free to change 'double' to something more appropriate. 207.176.159.90 23:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aspectual or temporal?

This article desperately needs the attention of a trained Indo-European linguist. AFAIK, the distinction the aorist conveys is purely aspectual, not temporal.

Ancient Greek exemplifies aspect; in all moods the aorist tells you absolutely nothing about the action connoted by the verb other than that it was completed (Rijksbaron 2002 s. 1 ff). The real connection of the aorist to tense is that it expresses the relationships between verbs; using the aorist in subordinate clauses indicates action antecedent to that of the main verb whereas the "present" indicates action contiguous with that of the main verb. As I mentioned earlier, it also indicates that the action happened once and is now completed, but says nothing about the continuing consequences of that action (for that the Greeks used the perfect tense).

The linguists distinguish several different uses of the aorist (ingressive, complexive, resultative, gnomic, empiric, etc). One way or the other, the information contained in this article is hopelessly out of touch with modern linguistics and must be updated. Harry Schmidt 04:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

---

From my studies of Classical Greek, Aorist denotes punctual aspect without respect to time or a known beginning or end. In Greek, there are three aspects (so to speak): Progressive/Imperfective, Punctual, Perfective.

An example, using the verb "poreuw" (to ferry):
Επορευον (Imperfect Indicative, imperfective/progressive aspect): I was ferrying/I used to ferry
Επορευσα (Aorist indicative, punctual aspect): I ferried (Not saying how long it took or when it started/ended, just that it happened)
Πεπορευκα (Perfect indicative, perfective aspect): I have ferried (Indicating that it's finsihed now and that it happened in the past)

An example, showing use of all three tenses:

Εζετουν (imperfect) τοδε το βιβλιον τρεις ημερας και τελος ευρον, (aorist) ωστε νυν ευρηκα. (perfect)

"I kept looking (imperfect, Εζετουν) for this book for three days, finally I found (Aorist ευρον) it, so that now I have found (Perfect, ευρηκα) it.

The Imperfect emphasizes the ongoing, progressive nature of the looking action "Εζετουν".
The Aorist states that the book has been found, it doesn't say when, just that I found it. "ευρον".
The Perfect emphasizes the completeness of the finding. It's over and done with. It emphasizes the present result of finding the book (it is found). "ευρηκα"

Consider some verbs in English (which are similar in Greek), like "To die".
The Aorist would translate as "He died" (such as in "He died last week") (Απεθανον)
The Perfect would translate as "He is dead" (Emphasizing that he died and still is dead) (τεθνηκα) --142.177.213.95 11:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Taris on June 23, 2006

It doesn't seem completely accurate to say in the above example that the aorist says nothing about when the book was found--it conveys some notion of being in the past. This is not to say that, e.g., subjunctive aorists say anything about time, but in the indicative, the aorist does function as a tense as well as an aspect. --Poludamas 06:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

True enough. But if the action of finding the book is perfective in aspect, wouldn't it necessarily be in the past? Only in the Indicative Mood does the Aorist tense indicate past time. In the Subjunctive or Optative, you can't really distinguish between aspects in English translation, if I recall correctly. TarisWerewolf 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Aorist Tense/Aspect and the Future

In my study of Greek, I have found that the Future Tense can express either imperfective aspect or aorist aspect, because the Future is undetermined, having yet to occur. Additionally, I have been told by several of my professors that the Future Tense is in fact derived from the Aorist Subjunctive (compare the Future Indicative and the so-called Aorist short-vowel Subjunctive found in Homeric Greek), indicating an even closer relationship between those two, which should also be expressed in this article. Is there anyone who can develop these ideas into something worthy of mention in the article? If not, I will add them in a very brief section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KraDakar (talk • contribs) 2 July 2006

Aorist in Proto-Slavic

Article doesn't deal with this and it probably should. -iopq 16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aorist in Latin?

The article, as it stands, implies that Latin has an aorist. It does not, as the perfect has essentially "fused" with the aorist. Would someone who knows how to couch this in the proper terminology please change this?--Spurius Furius 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Aorist in Turkish

The "broad time" in Turkish is usually called aorist in Western grammars. Should there be a mention of this in this article?Mats 09:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so! I have just looked the article up, because I wanted to find some information about the Turkish tense.

--eike 16:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Tag

Is the tag factual accuracy tag on the main page still necessary? It seems the concern mentioned has been addressed already. 131.215.220.112 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have begun a rewrite. The article badly needs examples and references to the aorist in other languages. Radagast3 (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am more confused now after reading it. Msml (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. It's a confusing concept (since "aorist" refers to both a tense and an aspect), but how do you think we can make it clearer? Radagast3 (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfective or not perfective?

In the article, it states that the aorist is neither perfective nor imperfective. However, in the examples, and in the examples on this page above, it appears to be universally perfective. But the use of the term for the Swahili gnomic does support the non-(im)perfective tradition. Can we clarify? kwami (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not perfect. It may be perfective, depending on the definition used. Some clarification may be useful there (at present we only have a "see also").

I'm not familiar with Swahili, but I'm pretty sure it's not Indo-European, and "aorist" may have a different meaning in relation to it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Comrie Aspect gives aorist as a prototypical example of PFV in Anc. Greek, Bulgarian, & Georgian. I'll clarify the article accordingly. kwami (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So, Radagast, you're saying that in Greek it is sometimes past perfective, but sometimes just plain old perfective? kwami (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the imperative example given is the aorist aspect, but not past tense. -- Radagast3 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Better explanations needed

This article needs a much better explanation of what "aorist aspect" means. It talks a lot about what aspects in general are (which really ought to be at grammatical aspect), and never really says what an aorist aspect is, or how it is different from imperfective and perfective aspects. Kwertii 22:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article also really needs a list of what languages still have this aspect or treat it separately in a grammatical sense. In English, it exists, but requires different vocabulary, not grammatical changes like a verb tense would. | Keithlaw 02:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There should be examples for every concept, if there are English equivalents. Msml (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the examples of perfect aspect, imperfective aspect, etc. should be in the articles on those topics. Radagast3 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No! Since the aorist daily gets confused with the (im)perfective aspect, these examples should definitely be HERE so that people do not have to read 3 articles simultaneously to comprehend what the difference is. -andy 212.114.254.107 (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, against my better judgement, I've included an example of the perfect -- the imperfect was already there. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks! -andy 212.114.254.107 (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Aorist Tense/Aspect and Korean

In my study of Biblical usages of Greek Aorist, I have found that the Aorist is using the same case in Korean. Aorist means simply a truth, a fact, an action, a priciple, a condition, a situation, the state itself. Korean verbs have the Aorist. Korean verb aorist has used in several cases; in the Bible, the Sutra, the Koran, the Confusion Scriptures, historic records, a diary, a journal, an assembly record, a proverb, a principle, news paper's head line, etc. Especialy in instruction-form the aorist seems as '-(ne)nira'-form.

Ex1) -(ha)nda; present

   -(hayo)ssda; past
   -(ha)l gosida; future
   -(ha)da; aorist

Ex2) In KRV Rom 6:16, an aorist word is translated '-nenira'-form.

Nam kil, joh (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the Korean tense you describe is exactly the same as the aorist, and attempting to draw the connection seems to breach the Wikipedia:No_original_research rule. In any case, I can't see any aorist verbs in Rom 6:16. Radagast3 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: IF ANYONE HAS COMMENTS ON THIS, PLEASE ADD THEM AFTER THIS POINT. PLEASE DO NOT ALTER COMMENTS MADE IN 2008. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hermeneutics - New Testament

Someone has put in a questionable section on why the aorist should be ignored in New Testament hermeneutics, apparently merely to counteract the contradiction in the Lord's Prayer earlier in the article. Should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.216.161 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your problem: the section on hermeneutics is sourced. Nor do I see any "contradiction" in the Lord's Prayer section. Nor do I see how one applies to the other, given that one of the Lord's Prayer versions is imperfective, and that comparing the two versions would rely on more than just the verb tense. Nor do I see how you can infer a motive for the contribution of the hermeneutics section. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not surprising, given you added both sections. I vote that the section on hermeneutics is inappropriate here and that this page ought not to be so dominated by Radagast3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.44.35 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And because I added both sections (although they were reworded by another editor) I know the assumption about motivation was incorrect. I also don't see any problem with the hermeneutics section, which is solidly referenced. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I vote that the section on hermeneutics is inappropriate here and that this page ought not to be so dominated by Radagast3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.44.35 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I heard you the first time, but I just don't like it isn't actually an acceptable argument in content discussions. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not addressing Radagast3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.44.35 (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Wikipedia operates by building consensus, not by voting. You have two choices at this point: 1. edit the article yourself and be prepared to justify your edits if/when they get reverted, or 2. assume a little good faith and with a pinch of civility, try to convince the rest of us that the section needs to be changed. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Verb pairs and aorist-like forms

Hello, i am not an english native-speaker but I believe that at the verb-pairs (hear-listen etc) the former DOES NOT indicate an AORIST LIKE FORM. I think the verb "listen" shows more an constant action than "hear". Pls check it, thanks a lot Primus 11:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker who lived and studied in Czech Republic for several years, where this is an issue because many Slavic speakers try to use continuous forms in English to express Slavic imperfective aspect. Many English textbooks, particularly the Cambridge English series, assert that verbs describing certain mental states are not processes and therefore cannot be used in present continuous form (e.g. "I'm seeing a bird"). This is an example of prescriptive vs. descriptive linguistics. These forms are uncommon, but are perfectly intelligible and sound fine to native speakers (other than those trained by over-zealous teachers to think otherwise) when used in the appropriate contexts. Mccajor 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. English admits, "From what I hear, air is still free." One cannot say, "From what I listen, air is still free." Msml (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good example, reminds me of my huge difficulties in confusing écouter and entendre in French. I'd mostly use them according to my feelings, but sometimes do not know which one to use. -andy 212.114.254.107 (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's similar with "see" (aorist aspect) and "look at" (imperfective aspect). — Eru·tuon 23:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfect tense vs Perfect aspect

The Greek (and presumably also Sanskrit) requires a distinction between perfect tense and perfect aspect (which includes the perfect tense and the perfect imperative) much like the distinction between aorist aspect and aorist tense. The article on the perfect may not fully make that distinction: in my view, it needs to be fixed, rather than blurring the distinction here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we need some more precise terms. In the lit outside these fields, people may debate whether the perfect is a "tense" or an "aspect", but they never distinguish between a perfect tense and a perfect aspect. Likewise aorist tense and aorist aspect (though they are generally called 'perfective'): we need to define these concepts, and perhaps paraphrase them to avoid excess jargon.

No, we need to accurately reflect what the grammar books say about a confusing concept which is essential to understanding (1) ancient languages and (2) modern languages which continue to use the concept. Your statement "they never distinguish between a perfect tense and a perfect aspect" is incorrect, because the perfect imperative falls within the perfect aspect, but not within the perfect tense. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a distinct concept, only a distinct term, which we need to correlate to the general term used for the concept. Grammar books use all sorts of terms; switching willy-nilly between them depending on which sources we use only sows confusion.

That's not a difference between tense and aspect, but in how the two are combined: perfect (which can of course include a perfect imperative) vs. present perfect. Both are a combination of tense and aspect. — kwami (talk)

No, Greek has a clear distinction between tense and aspect which the textbooks maintain. Undestanding the distinction is quite important for students, actually. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. But this isn't a distinction between tense and aspect. The "perfect aspect" is a fusion of tense and aspect, at least in the analysis of most linguists, and the "perfect tense" would appear to be a further combination of it with tense. — kwami (talk)

How is the Greek "perfect tense" any different than the past perfect? It seems from the article that the "perfect tense" is just the perfect used in the past tense, and the "perfect aspect" is just the perfect used in the present/non-past tense. Likewise, "aorist tense" appears to be just past perfective, like the preterite of the Romance languages. Neither appear to be a tense-aspect distinction, so those terms would be highly misleading (though of course we may need to ref them). — kwami (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to impose modern English categories on Ancient Greek grammar. Speaking as someone who reads Ancient Greek, it's not quite that simple. In particular, aspect really is different from tense. The distinction is fully explained in the various textbooks cited. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm aware that aspect is quite different from tense. That's why I'm trying to clean this up, where it's confused: The "aorist tense" is an aspect, not just a tense, etc. These are not English terms, as English does not even have these aspects, but rather universal ones. We may use Greek-specific terms when describing Greek, but need to correlate them to universal terms for those not familiar with Greek. It's a real mess to have Greek-specific terms when discussing Greek, French-specific terms when discussing French, etc, when perfectly good general terms are in common use. Either we call it "past perfective" (or even "past aorist" or some such if that's used in the lit) and note that this is called "aorist tense" in Greek, or call it "aorist tense" and note that it's "past perfective" everywhere else. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about languages which have the aorist aspect; it provides correct and solidly sourced information. Most readers will come here specifically for Ancient Greek; with a smaller number of readers interested in Sanskrit and the modern languages having an aorist. I'm not sure the "universal terms" you wish to refer to really exist. I'm certain that failing to explain the distinctions in Greek, Sanskrit, etc. would disappoint the readers. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't seem to be resolving this by discussion. If you can clearly articulate the direction you wish to take the article, I would suggest starting an RfC. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lots of languages have the aorist aspect, but it's only called "aorist" in the traditions of a few, probably because it got lost through the tradition of Latin. Yes, of course we need to explain the distinctions, but part of that entails explaining where they are the same distinction as occurs in other languages readers may know, but under a different name. Per WP:Common and similar guidelines, we shouldn't use jargon just because it's there, esp. if we don't define it. We should also consider accessibility and usage of the same or similar concepts in other articles. The only reason this article exists at all is the long history of using the term "aorist" in Greek studies; if it weren't for that, we'd simply merge it with perfective aspect. Similarly, the past perfective, which you're calling the "aorist tense" despite the fact that it is not a tense, but a fusion of tense and aspect, is called the "preterite" in Spanish. We even have an article preterite because of that, but make it clear how the term relates to more universal terminology. A good intro to this is Comrie's Aspect, which has become the basis for a common, cross-linguistic terminology of aspect. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that answers your question. I think we should include both Grecocentric and general terminology, and make clear how they correspond. I'd hesitate to use inaccurate terms like "perfect tense" in the main text, but would rather leave them to parenthetical remarks or footnotes. We can be just as precise using more accurate terms. (I'll explain in a minute, in case of another e.c.)

The preterite article doesn't quite describe the way that the aorist tense works in Greek. However, the relationship of this article to perfective aspect and preterite justifies, in my use, a focus here on Greek and Greek-like grammar. I'm not sure why you feel "perfect tense" is inaccurate? -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Perfect tense" is inaccurate because it is not a tense, but a combination of tense and aspect.

Yes, the preterit article describes how this works in the Romance languages, which is different that the way it works in Greek, just as the subjunctive mood works differently in Romance and Greek (and indeed even in Spanish and French, but we don't create separate articles on the subjunctive for each language without explaining their inherent similarities).

Back to your previous question, I'd make the following changes to the terms I cited for clarification (I wasn't citing them for references, but for an explanation of how they correlate to terms used outside this one corner of WP):

1. Imperfect tense → Imperfect. This is a common term for past imperfective, but the word "tense" is inaccurate, because it's not a tense but a combination of tense and aspect.
2. Perfect aspect → Perfect. The discussion for move on that article should make clear why the tag "aspect" is best avoided. There's been some debate whether it's a 'tense' or an 'aspect', but the general consensus is that it has aspects of both.
3. Aorist tense used gnomically → gnomic perfective, present perfective, or some combo w 'aorist'. As it is, we're saying it's a past tense used gnomically: is that accurate?
4. Aorist tense → Past aorist or past perfective. Again, 'aorist tense' is inaccurate because it's not a tense, but a combo of tense and aspect. — kwami (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with all those suggestions, and I would like to see sources and the claims you are making about tense and aspect. The use of "imperfect tense" etc. is necessary to make totally clear when the aspect is being discussed and when the tense is being discussed. As to the aorist tense used gnomically, yes it's a "past tense" used gnomically as a present. However, for that reason, "past tense" is a less than accurate term when discussing the Greek aorist and "past aorist" would therefore be an undesirable term (yes, I know the lead uses "past tense", but the context clarifies things there). -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"The use of "imperfect tense" etc. is necessary to make totally clear when the aspect is being discussed and when the tense is being discussed." --But there is no "imperfect aspect", so there's nothing to disambiguate, is there? If we also have an "imperfect aspect", then that's another idiosyncratic term that we need to clarify.

"'past tense' is a less than accurate term when discussing the Greek aorist and 'past aorist' would therefore be an undesirable term". --I'd say that 'past tense' is a completely inaccurate term to describe the aorist and should never be used. There's no problem with 'past aorist', however, any more than there's any problem with 'future perfective'. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an RfC below. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please hold off on radical changes until the RfC is resolved; please also note the citation and quote defining the Perfect Tense. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that quote does not clarify that the Perfect Tense is not a tense, and in any case such a confusing use of terminology should be clarified in the main text. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That quote establishes that "Perfect Tense" is a standard term in Greek grammar, and explains what it means. I have no idea what you mean by "the Perfect Tense is not a tense." If you disagree with that textbook, you can always take it up with the author. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There are dozens of idiosyncratic terms used for various combinations of tense and aspect, many of them conflicting with each other. They're fine for footnotes so that readers can follow the references, but are generally too much for a general encyclopedia article. The 'perfect tense' is not a tense because the perfect is not a tense, and the 'perfect tense' is the perfect used in the past tense. At least, that's how the table portrays it. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not really any such thing as "the past tense" in Ancient Greek. The perfect tense can be described as a past tense to the extent that it usually refers to an event that has already happened. However, it also refers to consequences, which are in the present. In some uses, the Greek perfect tense refers only to such present consequences, and is then more accurately described as a present tense. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You nicely illustrate why the perfect is not considered a tense.

What are the Greek past tenses? By that I mean, which Greek verb forms are all in the past tense, but do not include non-temporal aspects such as whether they are completed, ongoing, habitual, or currently relevant? — kwami (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating that "the perfect is not considered a tense," in spite of the citation in the article. Please find sources supporting your position.

Comrie, Aspect, has an entire chapter on the perfect, which says in the 1st paragraph,

The perfect is rather different from these aspects, since it tells us nothing directs about the situation in itself, but rather relates some state to a preceding situation. [example w Eng. "I have lost"] More generally, the perfect indicates the continuing present relevance of a past situation. This difference between the perfect and the other aspects has led many linguists to doubt whether the perfect should be considered as aspect at all. However, given the traditional terminology in which the perfect is listed as an aspect, it seems most convenient to deal with the perfect in a book on aspect, while bearing in mind continually that it is an aspect in a rather different sense from the other aspects treated so far.

Or again, read the discussion at Talk:Perfect. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question "which Greek verb forms are all in the past tense"? Ancient Greek does not have such a thing as "the past tense." It has a tense structure which is more complex than the simple past/present/future structure of English. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking for. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you asking for? And was your reference to Talk:Perfect, which redirects to Talk:Perfection, an obscure joke? -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Which are the past tense inflections of the Greek verb? Which forms are used to express past tense? — kwami (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the new table at Ancient Greek verbs: Tenses will answer your question. — Eru·tuon 02:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That certainly summarises the tenses, though with some minor errors in description. The imperfect, aorist, perfect, and pluperfect tenses are used in describing past time; the present and sometimes the perfect and aorist tenses are used in describing present time. Morphologically, the imperfect, aorist, and pluperfect tenses carry the past-time augment. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Those would appear to be combinations of tense and aspect, and therefore it is incorrect to call them just "tenses". Aspect isn't tense. — kwami (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC

A discussion on Aorist has taken place on whether the article should remain essentially as-is, or should be rewritten the replace Greek-related grammatical terms like "aorist" by other terms. Input would be greatly appreciated. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking to replace "aorist", since that's what the article is about, but only to clarify how it corresponds to more generic aspectual terms. Aspect is difficult enough for English speakers to grasp without having special jargon for every language article. Where we do need such terms because they are deeply ingrained in the lit, as in the case of 'aorist', we should define them using more universal terms. I also don't think we need to keep phrases such as "perfect tense" and "aorist tense", since they confusingly imply that those things are tense. Since those terms are not so deeply ingrained, I imagine we can get by with relegating them to footnotes; and if it turns out that they are more entrenched than I suspect and need to be kept to the forefront, IMO we should be upfront about them being technically inaccurate, or at best will tend to be read erroneously. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for summarising your position. However, since this article is mainly focussed on Greek (and, to a lesser extent, Sanskrit), I think standard terminology from Greek grammar should be used, as in the existing article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Depending on how universal those terms are in Greek studies, we should at the very least be clear that the 'perfect tense' and 'aorist tense' are not tenses, as those terms are sure to confuse people into thinking that they are.

I can't locate my copy of Aspect at the moment, but here's a relevant comment I was able to glean from it online,

grammars of Modern Greek, under the influence of grammars of the ancient language, often retain the Ancient Greek names of the various tenses/aspects, e.g. Aorist rather than Perfective Past, Imperfect rather than Imperfective Past; ... [it would appear that the MGk 'aorist' is equivalent to the 'aorist tense' of this article.] The fusion of the morphological markers of aspect and other categories in such forms as the Aorist and Imperfect of the Indo-European languages, together with the restriction of this particular aspectual opposition, in most cases, to the past tense, may explain why forms which are differentiated aspectually, such as the Aorist and Imperfect, are traditionally referred to as tenses, rather than aspectual forms of the same tense. p 97

— kwami (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The other reason for the retention of traditional terminology is, of course, its greater accuracy for the topic at hand (although the book you quote seems to be discussing modern, rather than ancient Greek: modern Greek is a language I don't speak, and I can't comment on its tense structure). However, he does touch on the key issue: that there is an aspectual opposition (aorist vs perfect and imperfective aspects) mostly involved in discussing the past (aorist tense vs perfect and imperfect tenses) but also involved in participles and imperatives (where the aspectual opposition is equally important). I was hoping that the table in the article would get that across. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Confused. I'm afraid I don't really understand what the dispute is; a clearer explanation would be helpful. I read the discussion above and I find that certain claims don't match my experience of ancient Greek, where tense is generally described as a combination of time and aspect. The aorist tense (at least in the indicative mood) is generally described as past time, simple aspect; in the subjunctive and optative moods, the aorist tense shows only the simple aspect. Is the problem that "aorist" is used to indicate aspect only in other languages? At any rate, the article seems to switch back and forth between "aorist tense" and "aorist aspect" with no indication that these terms are being used differently, and this makes the article extremely unclear. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is discussing both the aorist aspect and the aorist tense (the latter being, as you say, a combination of time and aspect). The aorist imperative and aorist participles display the aorist aspect, but without being temporal. The distinction is important, since students often get them confused. I would certainly value clarifying rewording from any experts in Ancient Greek. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the aorist was simply perfective aspect in Ancient Greek, and is past perfective in Modern Greek. I may be wrong there, but if I am, part of the problem would be that this article does not adequately define the terms. In any case, using the term "tense" to describe s.t. that is not a tense is extremely misleading and should only be done in case of dire need. I'm not convinced there is any such dire need here. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me blunt: I believe that, in this particular case, you are indeed wrong. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, if you have reliable references. However, I don't think it helps us to explain a difficult concept in Ancient Greek & Sanskrit grammar by importing other terminology that doesn't quite fit Ancient Greek (and presumably not Sanskrit either). -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The terms 'perfective' and 'past' are applied to all the world's languages, assuming they same relevant grammatical categories. The reason Greek has distinct terminology is because it has a distinct tradition of scholarship, not because it's grammar is all that different. After all, the Greek terms were applied to Sanskrit because Sanskrit scholars were familiar with Greek, not because they share something that the rest of the world's languages do not. The same connection exists between Greek and Slavic.

As for your belief that I'm wrong, based on what? As for refs, why not just review Aspect? That should tell you all you need to know. — kwami (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here: do you actually read Ancient Greek and/or Sanskrit?

As to references, I was hoping for specific page numbers that made your case. The article currently has copious references supporting what it's saying (and I've added a few more).

As to the Greek perfect, it certainly straddles the boundaries between "past" and "present." Some scholars treat it as a kind of present tense, rather than a kind of past tense, as Hermann Hirt did with Indo-European (and certainly the Greek perfect tense lacks the past-time augment of the aorist, imperfect, and pluperfect tenses). -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not sure I'm grasping the dispute yet, but it might be helpful for everyone to take a look at Comrie's Aspect (which I believe has been mentioned a couple of times already), p. 12, note 1: "In Ancient Greek, the Aorist is in the Indicative Mood primarily a past tense, although it does have some nonpast uses. In other moods and in nonfinite forms, the Aorist is purely aspectual, not an expression of tense." So Comrie seems willing to treat the ancient Greek aorist as a tense. On the same page, he notes that some linguists use "aoristic" in place of "perfective" as a term for aspect, but he's going to avoid this use because of its limitation to past perfectivity in the traditional grammatical terminology of some languages. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "In Ancient Greek, the Aorist is in the Indicative Mood primarily a past tense, although it does have some nonpast uses" is entirely consistent with the existing article (and perhaps influenced the contributions of another editor). The phrase "In other moods and in nonfinite forms, the Aorist is purely aspectual" indicates a reference to the aorist/aoristic aspect, even though, as you say, he eschews that term. There is thus an ambiguity here: some authors use "aorist" to refer to "aorist tense," some to "aorist aspect," and some to both. I feel the article needs to engage with and explain this ambiguity, for the benefit of readers who have been confused by it elsewhere (the existing wording could probably be improved). -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, your link doesn't work. He would appear to be saying the aorist is a past perfective, which R has been reverting. Anyway, if it is just past tense, we should be able to replace it with "past tense". If we can't, then there is s.t. else going on, and we need to explain what that is. The fact that none of us seems sure what the aorist is after reading this article is a pretty bad indictment of the article as it stands.

Radagast, could you illustrate two clauses, one in the "aorist aspect", and the other a parallel in the "aorist tense"?

The problem seems to be that the aorist is traditionally called a tense, even though it is not a tense in the modern sense of the word. I just came across Constantine Campbell, 2007, Verbal aspect, the indicative mood, and narrative: soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. He devotes an entire chapter, 4 "The Aorist Tense-Form", to the aorist. Although he retains the traditional terminology of 'tense', he modifies that to 'tense-form', and he makes it clear that the aorist is perfective aspect, that the idea of a punctiliar use is a misunderstanding, and that it is not actually a tense at all. In §4.4 he cites an author discussing "perfective (aorist) verbs". He similarly quotes Comrie, and throughout equates the Greek aorist with the perfectives of other languages such as Slavic (the prototype for perfectivity). In the paragraph after that quotation, he states that the perfective nature of the aorist is "not controversial"; in the first line of §4.2 "Perfective Aspect" he said, "the aspectual value of the aorist tense-form is not a controversial issue." (In all of this, he is discussing the "aorist indicative", which appears to be the "aorist tense" of this article; nowhere does he mention a 2nd kind of indicative aorist, the "aorist aspect" of this article.) He decribes the other characteristic of the aorist as "remoteness" ($$4.4.2), but states that "remoteness goes hand-in-hand with perfectivity." On p 119 he says that "remoteness provides better grounds for explanation than tense does." He quotes on p 122, "The Koine Greek present and aorist are therefore best analyzed as unmarked for tense" and "the value [past] is not part of the meaning of the aorist indicative". In other words, the aorist is perfective, it is not past tense (nor tense at all), and it has elements of "remoteness", which are common in perfectivity (note the past perfectives in many European languages, including Modern Greek, while there are no non-past perfectives). It seems therefore that we have an indicative perfective with no distinction between present/gnomic and past tense in Koine Greek; since the aorist is also used for other moods, the "aorist tense" is just the aorist/perfective indicative, and the "aorist aspect" is just the abstract perfective divorced from any particular declension. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin Haspelmath, ed., 2001, Typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques, 1:779: The Classical Greak Aorist is an example of a perfective aspect that is confined to the past tense only, at least in the Indicative Mood; yet both the Aorist (perfective past) and Imperfect (imperfective past) require a past-tense marker (the so-called augment). It is interesting to note that Modern Greek has generalized the aspectual opposition to other temporal domains and is now aligned with the Slavic patterns.

Thus we appear to have a disagreement as to whether the aorist is simply perfective aspect, or a past perfective. (Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that it's nearly always found in the past tense, as Campbell showed.) In neither case, however, would it be accurate to call it a "tense". That would seem to be nothing more than a relic of archaic Greek terminology. — kwami (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding a lot of cross-linguistic discussions of aspect, and in none is any attention paid to the aorist. In some you see "perfective (aorist)", in others "aorist (perfective)", and in some "aorist" is simply left undefined in a section on perfectivity or a perfective-imperfective opposition, but nowhere is it treated as an aspect (or tense, for that matter) in its own right. In Slavic, it may be used for past perfective, which is handy because in some Slavic languages you can double up on aspect, for perfective imperfectives and the like. — kwami (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does the article say that the aorist aspect is a "2nd kind of indicative aorist"? The article says that the aorist aspect is an aspect, which is also often also called the perfective aspect (although it has a quite different meaning from the perfective aspect in, for example, English). The table collates the various examples in a way which I think is reasonably clear.

The aorist imperative cannot of course be defined as "past" in any sense at all. I can't help but feel that you are trying to over-simplify some of the grammatical issues of Ancient Greek and related languages. I take it that the answer to my question above is that you are not familiar with Ancient Greek or Sanskrit?

However, if you can find a source supporting your statement that "the aorist is traditionally called a tense, even though it is not a tense in the modern sense of the word", the article should definitely contain it, as an essential clarification, probably following the last sentence of the lead. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave a citation above specifically for the aorist not being a tense, and several others for it being an aspect.

If there are not two forms of the aorist, why are we positing both aorist tense and aorist aspect? If there's only one form, we only need one term. Or by 'aorist tense', do you mean aorist in the indicative, with 'aorist aspect' being aorist in the abstract? We either have aorist (perfective) and past aorist (perfective past), or maybe aorist indicative (either simple perfective or perfective past) and aorist imperative, but otherwise if there is no contrast between "he went to the store" in the aorist aspect and "he went to the store" in the aorist "tense", we need to eliminate one of them.

Who said anything about the aorist imperative being in the past? Please read what I wrote above. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a ref to the article. Yes, as the article says, what is traditionally called the "aorist tense" is the aorist aspect in the indicative. The "aorist aspect" is essentially the same aspect as the perfective, but the term is widely used in Greek and Sanskrit studies, presumably because of slight differences from the perfective in other languages. The aorist imperative provides an example of the aorist aspect used with a mood other than the indicative. I would be very cautious about describing the aorist indicative as "past perfective", though, because that's not 100% true: the aorist can be used gnomically. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The perfective is going to be a little different in every language, just as the present tense or plural nouns are going to be a little different. (Greek plural is not the same as English plural, but we call them both 'plural' regardless, because they're broadly congruous.) I don't see anything odd about the aorist: descriptions read like the prototypical perfective. I imagine that what happened is that the term was lost from the Romance languages because Latin did not have an aorist, but conflated it with the perfect, so a new term was later created from 'perfect'. Personally, I'd rather use aorist for all languages, as 'perfective' and 'perfect' get confused all the time, so it's too bad 'aorist' is restricted to just a few languages.

Yes, the gnomic uses are good evidence that the aorist is not a perfective past, at least in Classical Greek. Somehow an erroneous analysis seems to have crept in and been accepted. I think it is past.pfv by Modern Greek, though, isn't it?

Anyway, although all of these things were called "tenses" in antiquity, that's no longer the case, at least not when people are being precise. If we use the phrases "aorist tense" or "perfect tense", we need to be clear that they are anachronisms. And how widespread are they really? Can't we just say "aorist indicative" vs. "aorist imperative"? — kwami (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The terms "aorist tense" etc. are standard in Greek studies. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seeing them in quite a few sources, even ones which emphasize that it isn't a tense. — kwami (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I must ask you not to make radical changes to the article which pre-empt the conclusion of the RfC. See Wikipedia:Consensus. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Then please stop removing the tags from claims which are factually wrong according to the several sources I provided above. — kwami (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree that the ancient Greek aorist is not a tense. As the citations in the article show, the aorist is regularly described as a tense in analyses of ancient Greek grammar. It may well be that this is a traditional terminology that wouldn't be used in more linguistically precise discussions, but this doesn't mean that "aorist tense" is an anachronism—it's used in classrooms every day classical Greek is taught and read. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps 'anachronism' is not the right word, but we do need to be clear that it's not a tense. We have numerous sources to show that, regardless of what it's called, it's either aspectual (pfv) or a combination of aspect and tense (past pfv)--and Radagast argues for the former.

We have a similar problem with Greek phonology, where the 'diphthongs', as in και, are not actually diphthongs in Modern Greek, but simple vowels; the proper term in English is 'digraph'. (In fact, if you pronounce και with a diphthong, some Greeks will go so far as to say it was never pronounced like that, and that it was always a monophthong!)

Also, if the AOR is not PAST.PFV as Radagast believes, then we shouldn't divide the table into past and present: there is a single form which covers both, not a past form "used gnomically". Also, it's more than just present: Campbell gives forms in the future, as in 'and it would obey you' in Lu17:6 (though some are typically translated as past perfect, even though the event has yet to happen, as at καθως εμε απεστειλας εις τον κοσμον, καγω απεστειλα αυτους εις τον κοσμον 'As you sent me into the world, I will send them into the world' in Jn17:18). — kwami (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see your "dubious" tags. The first relates to whether the aorist tense is a tense. As Akhilleus says, we have numerous sources saying that it is, and one or two expressing doubt. I think its up you to explain why those numerous sources are wrong. I am uncertain what claim the other dubious tags relate to, since they are attached to words. Is it the legitimacy of those widely-used words you are questioning? And what are your grounds for questioning them? Would you be satisfied with a table of equivalents relating the usual Ancient-Greek-language terms to the ones you are familiar with?

As to the table, the use of the "about the present" and "about the past" columns was intended to focus on uses of the forms, rather than necessarily classifying them formally as past or present forms. I have been guided what the typical reader would want to know -- and someone asking "what is the aorist?" is likely to be someone bumping into Greek for the first time.

As to Luke 17:6, that involves a conditional statement -- the aorist in conditional statements contrasts with the imperfect slightly differently than it does in simple statements about the past. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You have yourself admitted that it's not a tense. No study of tense and aspect considers it a tense: that's merely a holdover of traditional terminology. It doesn't mean the traditional sources are "wrong" to use the term, only that it's wrong for us to present it as a tense without explaining that it's not a tense in the way we (and nearly all linguists) define it at grammatical tense, as a point on a timeline. The lingistic sources don't "express doubt", they categorically deny that it's a tense, and explain why. The traditional sources, on the other hand, merely use the conventional terminology without defining their terms; they do not claim that it's a tense in the modern sense of the word. The way you state "some linguists" suggests that there's some debate: there is not. The only debate I've seen is whether the aorist is a perfective restricted to the past tense, or just a perfective. Find one source from the past 20 years, if you can, that notes the difference between tense and aspect and then explains how the aorist is the former.

I'm not debating the legitimacy of the words within Greek studies, as long as this is explained as jargon where "tense" does not mean tense. However, the aorist is used for other languages as well, such as Georgian, so we need to be more general in our overall coverage. Also, I'd like to see some evidence that Beetham's distinction between "aorist aspect" and "aorist tense", "perfect aspect" and "perfect tense" is actually the norm for Greek studies, rather than simply an idiosyncratic attempt on his part to clarify the concepts or terminology. If Greek studies does not make this distinction between "aspect" and "tense", then there is no reason for us to either, and we can simply note that the imperfect, aorist, and perfect are all called "tenses" in traditional accounts.

The split in the table implies that the aorist is a past imperfective, which you say it is not; if it is not, then the two cells should either be merged or the second should be worded 'aorist used in the past tense'. If it turns out it is essentially PAST.PFV, with a few non-past uses, then the table is fine. — kwami (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I believe you may have misunderstood me. I think the aorist aspect is an aspect and the aorist tense is a tense.

2. You say "No study of tense and aspect considers it a tense," but I think we need sources supporting that statement. So far, nobody involved in this RfC is agreeing with you on any of the issues you raise.

3. The article contains several books on Greek grammar from the past 20 years supporting the distinction between aorist aspect and aorist tense, most recently Beetham. Constantine Campbell uses "aorist indicative" and "aorist tense" as synonyms (see p. 106), as do the bulk of other writers. Basically, the aorist indicative is (mostly) a form of past tense, but the aorist aspect in general is an aspect having nothing to do with the past: this is the distinction that is being made. It's an important distinction and IMO a clear one.

4. As to grammatical tense, that article is a mess, without a single inline citation. I cannot comment on how it relates to tense as used here. It does say "some languages have different past tenses," which is consistent with the aorist indicative being primarily a past tense.

5. It is true that the aorist indicative carries the past-time augment, but once again, my intention in the table was to refer to uses, which are uncontroversial, and which do not require committing to whether the aorist indicative is a past tense or not. It is certainly used to talk about the past.

6. You keep referring to "the past tense." Please explain what you mean by that; it seems to assume that languages only have one past tense.

7. The sentence about "some linguists" was the strongest case I could make based on one source. If you have multiple sources giving reasons why it's not a tense, please write a sourced paragraph explaining why. While I believe most readers of the article want the traditional terminology, there are obvious benefits to relating this terminology to that used in other fields. The ideal is that you find a source which explicitly discusses Ancient Greek using your preferred terminology. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1. From what I've seen, "aspect" is used for the form of the root, and "tense" for the indicative derivation of the root. This is completely unrelated to the syntactic/modern linguistic use of "tense" and "aspect". If the "aorist aspect" is aspect, and the "aorist tense" is tense, please give two clauses, one in the aspect and one in the tense, to contrast them. If you can't do that, then you can't establish that there are two tense/aspect forms.

2-3. I can't prove a negative. You need to show where it is shown to be a tense. Can you quote Beetham where he concludes that? Constantine makes it abundantly clear that it is not a tense. Didn't you read any of him?

4. Yes, our tense article is a mess. But you can read any survey of tense/aspect, or any introductory linguistic text, to find out what it is. If the aorist is a tense, where on the timeline does it occur? What distinguishes it from the past, or any other prototypical tense?

5. Above you said it is past tense, now you're saying it's not.

6. I should say "a past tense". Yes, languages can vary here. Any past tense would do: any point prior to the present.

7. A few sources. (There are plenty more, but I have to go.)

• Constantine, 2007, as above: perfective aspect w connotations of 'remoteness'
• Comrie, as above: perfective, primarily used in the past when in the indicative
• Mastronarde, 1993, Intro to Attic Greek : fundamentally aspect, used in the past when in the indicative (= past perfective)
• Fanning, 1990, Verbal Aspect in NT Greek : uses the phrase "aorist tense" when not clarifying tense vs aspect, and may switch between 'aorist tense' and 'aorist aspect' (including 'aorist tense' in the imperative), but concludes it's perfective. Extensively quoted by Campbell in demonstrating it's aspect.
• Kim, 2008, Intricately Connected : "Because there is really no sense of tense but only of aspect which distinguishes the present from the aorist ..."
• Zerwick, 1963, Biblical Greek : "the word « tenses » is put in inverted commas because the forms to be treated are but inaccurately called « tenses ». [None of the] « tenses » express the notion of time: ... « aorist » ... connotes simply the action without further determination."
• Buth, 2004, "Verbs Perception and Aspect", in Biblical Greek language and lexicography : notes how trad. descr. of IMP & AOR are equivalent to IPFV and PFV, and "in order to compare these traditional terms with the general linguistic terms," substitute them. p 177 Something more about the indicative, but I can't access that.
• Porter, 1992, Idioms of the Greek New Testament : throughout uses "the perfective (aorist) aspect".
• Napoli, 2006, Aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek : describes aorist-present as actually PFV-IPFV.

— kwami (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you have listed several books, but without links and with out-of-context quotes, so it isn't clear what statements they are supporting. As to your request: the aorist indicative and the aorist imperative are both examples of the aorist aspect; the aorist indicative is generally called the "aorist tense." That may or may not be a "tense" as far as you're concerned, but the terminology is very common.

That's fine. But if it isn't a grammatical tense, we need to be very careful to be clear about that. — kwami (talk)

Can you also please answer my points 1 to 7? -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

1. You say that "From what I've seen, 'aspect' is used for the form of the root, and 'tense' for the indicative derivation of the root." That seems to be WP:OR. You say "This is completely unrelated to the syntactic/modern linguistic use of 'tense' and 'aspect.'" I am prepared to believe that, but I'm still looking for reasons to do so.

2-3. You say "I can't prove a negative." Exactly. Therefore you have no justification for your statement. I have evidence that Beetham calls it a tense; if you don't like that, you need to provide evidence. I found one reference saying that the aorist tense is not a tense; if you add 2 more, that would justify changing "some linguists" to "many linguists."

4. You ask "If the aorist is a tense, where on the timeline does it occur?" Used as a past tense, the aorist occurs at a vague unspecified past region on the timeline. In this way it differs from, say, the perfect tense, which refers to a past point with consequences continuing into the present (generally drawn as a dot in the past with an arrow continuing into the present).

5-6. You say "Above you said it is past tense, now you're saying it's not." That's misrepresenting what I said. I'm saying that although it has important non-past uses, which may suggest that it is not a past tense, there are also several arguments for calling it a past tense, such as the use of the past-time augment.

7. As I said, you have listed several books, but without links and with out-of-context quotes, so it isn't clear what statements they are supporting.

If I can try to resolve this, your first main problem seems to be the traditional terminology itself. Would it suffice to add a table of terminological equivalents somewhere? Your second problem seems to be whether the aorist tense is indeed a tense. I would be happy for you to add sources saying it isn't (ideally, sources saying why not), and to then turn "some linguists" into "many linguists." Do we at least both agree, though, that the aorist indicative is widely called a tense? -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, that's OR. But you have provided no evidence for anything else, so your claims are also OR.

2-3. No, not "some linguists", not "many lingists", not even "linguists". Aorist is not a tense. You have provided no evidence that it is. All you have shown is that it is traditionally called a tense. But every single reference we have that questions what it is has concluded either that it is aspect (Campbell), or aspect with tense (most of the others). Unless you can provide evidence that it actually is a tense, then we say it's an aspect, and note that in traditional scholarship it's inaccurately called a tense. That's what we have citations for. That's why Zerwick as far back as 1963 puts "tense" in scare quotes when discussing Greek.

4. The perfect is not a "tense". If the aorist is just some vague point in the past, then it is past tense, and we could merge this article with that one.

5-6. The past-time augment is not evidence that the aorist is past tense, but evidence that it is not. (As cited.) Not conclusive evidence; it could simply be redundant. More commonly, when you add a past tense marker to something for use in the past tense, the item without the past tense marker is not past tense. Your argument is like saying that English "go" is future tense because you can add a future augment "will" to it.

7. They're all available on Google Books. I'll add links when I have a bit more time. — kwami (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Scholars who conclude that the aorist indicative is either PFV or past PFV: Constantine, Mastronarde, Fanning, Kim, Zerwick, Porter, Buth, Napoli, Comrie, Haspelmath (ed), Sihler, Van Ness Goetchius
• Scholars who conclude that the aorist indicative is a tense, not an aspect: —

(edit conflict)1. No, everything inserted in the article be me and other editors is referenced in detail; it is not WP:OR.

2. You say the "aorist tense" (i.e. aorist indicative) is not a tense. Once again, the article should stand as is until you provide sources proving the opposite. With page numbers and quotes or links.

3. The aorist indicative is clearly not the same as the past tense in e.g. English. Merging with past tense would make no sense.

4. You say that the perfect tense is not a tense. Again, evidence, please.

5. Once again, I am not saying that the aorist aspect, in general, is a past tense. I am suggesting that the past-time augment has been used as evidence that the aorist indicative is a past tense (and indeed, as evidence that the perfect indicative is not).

8. Once again, your first main problem seems to be the traditional terminology itself. Would it suffice to add a table of terminological equivalents somewhere? Your second problem seems to be whether the aorist tense is indeed a tense. I would be happy for you to add sources saying it isn't (ideally, sources saying why not), and to then turn "some linguists" into "many linguists." Do we at least both agree, though, that the aorist indicative is widely called a tense?

9. Also, all your "dubious" tags are now attached to sourced statements. Please explain, for each one, what the remaining problem is.

10. In addition, I believe you may be misinterpreting some sources. Comrie says, for example: "In Ancient Greek, the Aorist is in the Indicative Mood primarily a past tense, although it does have some nonpast uses. In other moods and in nonfinite forms, the Aorist is purely aspectual, not an expression of tense." (p 12, n 1) -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I've provided numerous citations; I can't help it if you don't want to bother looking them up. I've explained what the problem is, over and over.

Simply put, you have provided no citations that the aorist is a tense. I have provided numerous citations that it is either an aspect or a combination of aspect and tense. I have marked 'dubious' claims that are demonstrably false if the words are given their modern meanings. Sorry, tradition needs to be given its due, but it doesn't trump facts. Here's a cite that Taivo just provided:

• Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, 1965, The Language of the New Testament, Charles Scribner's, p 75:

In the previous lesson we found that, in the present and future tenses, English verbs have separate sets of forms to express the two aspects of action we have called "indefinite" and "progressive," but that Greek verbs have only one set of forms in each of these tenses to express both of these aspects; i.e.,
λύω corresponds to both I loose ("indefinite aspect") and I am loosing ("progressive aspect")
and
λύσω corresponds to both I shall loose ("indefinite aspect") and I shall be loosing ("progressive aspect")
For indicating action in past time, however, Greek verbs have two sets of forms. Forms of one kind usually express the aspect we have called "progressive"; these forms make up the tense called the imperfect. Forms of the second kind usually express the "indefinite" aspect; these forms make up the tense called the aorist (< Gk ἀόριστος, indefinite).

(edit conflict) Comrie's quote needs to be placed in context. It's a book on aspect, in a section introducing the difference between PFV and IPFV. In this context, the aorist is a PFV aspect used primarily in the past tense. This is what everyone else is saying too: the only difference is whether it's inherently past tense (past perfective), generally past tense (somewhere in between), or tends to be used in the past because perfectives have that tendency (just perfective). As Campbell stated, there is "no controversy" about this. — kwami (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the Eugene Van Ness Goetchius quote; it establishes that the aorist aspect is an aspect, which I think we both agreed on.

As to Comrie, you seem to be saying he is using "tense" in different senses? Because his words seemed to me quite clear. You seem to be trying to relate what he says ("the Aorist is in the Indicative Mood primarily a past tense") to some other concept of the past tense. I think you need to explain what you mean by that, in the context of ancient Greek.

As to Campbell, he seems to say that the aorist indicative is a special case of the aorist aspect; I agree. He also introduces a theory that the aorist indicative can be understood in terms of remoteness rather than time; that seems idiosyncratic.

For the third time, your first main problem seems to be the traditional terminology itself. Would it suffice to add a table of terminological equivalents somewhere? Your second problem seems to be whether the aorist tense is indeed a tense. I would be happy for you to add sources saying it isn't (ideally, sources saying why not), and to then turn "some linguists" into "many linguists." Do we at least both agree, though, that the aorist indicative is widely called a tense?

And can you please explain what the "claims that are demonstrably false" are? -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking one of your sources, Fanning uses "aorist tense" to mean the aorist indicative, as do the other writers I've looked at; this seems to me to justify what the article is saying. Napoli says that Ancient Greek has both aspect and tense. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not following this. I'll simply repeat that the aorist is normally treated as a tense (i.e. a form that expresses both time and aspect) in classical Greek. This is the case in Hansen and Quinn, and it's the case in Mastronarde, e.g. p. 139: "The aorist indicative is more or less equivalent to the English simple past tense and so is a secondary tense in Greek. Accordingly the aorist indicative has augment, like the imperfect, and the personal endings are secondary endings." (Mastronarde also treats "perfect-stem aspect" as different from the present and aorist on p. 148.) as I can believe that Greek pedagogy differs from what one might find in linguistics, but so far in this discussion it's not clear to me what the difference is. I can say, though, that an article on the aorist that doesn't treat the aorist as a tense in classical Greek is going to look weird to most people who have learned ancient Greek, who will probably constitute a significant fraction of this article's readership. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on (1) the common use of "aorist tense," (2) catering to what the readers expect, and (3) not understanding what the problem with the article is. I would have thought that with recent rewording and citations any issues have been handled, and the two of us certainly seem to have reached consensus. I'd welcome any suggestions on what to do next. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the discussion, I wonder if my problem is that I think of tense as a combination of time and aspect (which is what I learned from my Greek books), but kwami seems to think of tense as an indication of time, separate from tense. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be it; certainly there are multiple viewpoints on tense in Ancient Greek (for example, is the "Perfect Tense" a form of past tense, or a form of present tense, or a tense of its own?). The article sources what it says, though, and acknowledges other viewpoints; I think the limit of reasonable accommodation may have been reached. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, here is a very simple, but linguistically accurate, way to look at what we're talking about here. Tense is a marker of time only. When did the action happen? Most commonly languages mark a couple of different times--past or non-past, future or non-future. A number of languages mark three times--past, present, future. There are also some rare time markers such as "mythological past", "distant past", "distant future", "within a couple of days", etc. In Greek, the marked tenses are future and non-future. That means that there is no special marking that means only "past", but there is a special marker that means "future". Aspect is a marker of manner, length, and completion. How did the action happen? How long did it take to do the action? Was the action finished or is it still happening or incomplete? Aorist in Greek is an aspect only. It marks rapid completion, typically with a single event. Outside the indicative, it is clearly not tied to time. In the indicative, it implies a past action, but it does not specifically mark past, only as a default time. But even though past is implied, it is still an aspect and not a tense because its primary use is to mark a quickly completed action. It contrasts not with the present or future, but with the incompletive, which is also an aspect, and in the indicative also implies a past action, but one that occurs over a period of time. Perfective is an aspect that marks an action that has been definitely completed (the opposite of imperfective). "Aorist" is a subset of Perfective, but with the added notion of quickly completed. Perfect is an aspect separate from "perfective". It means that that action has been completed prior to another stated action ("I think John has finished his homework"--finishing happened before thinking; or "I thought John had finished his homework"; or "I think John will have finished his homework before leaving"--finishing happens before leaving). --Taivo (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for stepping in. I think we all agree that the aorist aspect is an aspect; the issue is on how to describe the aorist indicative, which is widely (though perhaps not accurately) described as the "aorist tense."

I'm not sure that "rapid completion" is an accurate depiction of the aorist aspect; that's certainly different from what all the textbooks say, and different from what I was taught.

However, the practical issue here is: does the article adequately express the various complexities involved? If not, can you suggest improved wording? -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As with most language instruction, you were probably taught using traditional labels and not modern terminology. When I took Greek long ago, I also learned that these were all "tenses"--just like English learners are taught that there are 12 "tenses" in English. "Rapid completion" is, of course, a generalization of "completed in one act over a short period of time" as opposed to the imperfective which means, "completed, maybe or not, over a period of time". Perhaps a better comparison between aorist and imperfective aspects would be "definitely completed" versus "not definitely completed". I'm just going off the grammars I have at hand so that's a supposition. There isn't a difference between the indicative and the other moods. In the indicative, the semantics of completion require a past interpretation, but aorist does not overtly mark past tense, only by implication--completed actions require a semantic interpretation of past time in the indicative mood. But just because it is implicationally past doesn't make it a tense marker. --Taivo (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) *Aspect, not a tense. Aorist in Greek is clearly and unequivocally an aspect--it marks a completed action that has been completed with one occurrence of the activity or very quickly. It marks past tense only in one mood and only implicationally, not overtly. If it overtly marked tense (as the English past does), then it would occur throughout the paradigm in all past tense cases (as the English past does) and could co-occur with imperfective. However, it competes with the imperfective which also "marks" past tense. Since the two indicators of past time are in complementary distribution based solely on aspectual terms, then neither is a past tense, but both are aspects. Greek is similar to many languages that have aspect markers rather than tense markers--"past" time is marked by means of one of a set of aspect markers that mean "completed slowly", "completed quickly", "completed repeatedly", "worked on it, but didn't finish", etc. In Greek, past time is marked with the choice of a "worked on over time, maybe finished and maybe not" (imperfective) or a "completed quickly and definitely" (aorist) aspect marker. These are not tenses in a linguistic sense, but only aspects. --Taivo (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Everyone here agrees that the aorist aspect is an aspect, not a tense. Indeed, I first stepped in to rewrite the article to clarify that (incidentally, as someone who reads both Plato and St Paul, I would disagree slightly with your characterisation of the aorist);

Everyone (I think) agrees that most Greek textbooks describe the aorist indicative as the "aorist tense";

The issue is how to handle the article in the face of these complexities -- is the wording currently in the lead adequate? If not, can you suggest better wording? -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The wording in the overall lead seems fine, but the wording in the Section on Greek talks about an "aorist aspect" and an "aorist tense". This is wrong. It is only an aspect. The discussion of aorist in Greek needs to be cleaned up to remove the implication that it is a tense sometimes and an aspect sometimes. There is also no perfect "tense". Perfect is also an aspect. The imperfective, perfect, and aorist are all aspects--there is no "past tense" in Greek. --Taivo (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In the table, for example, all those "tenses" are not tenses at all, but aspects. Here's what they really mean: Imperfective: "I have bowed many times in the past and might still bow now and in the future"; Perfect: "I have bowed before speaking to you now"; Aorist: "I bowed once and completed the act". These are markers of time only by implication, not by meaning. None of them is a tense. --Taivo (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm only guessing, but perhaps because in most applicable languages tenses are only distinguished in the indicative, the Greek indicative forms are called "tenses". But in modern linguistic terminology, as Taivo says, a "tense" deals only with 'when', with placement on a timeline. "Aspect" deals with temporal structure, not the when. Often the two are fused, so that only certain combinations of tense and aspect occur (as in Spanish, with past PFV and past IPFV, but not PFV or IPFV outside of the past). That's what several of the cites have said about Ancient Greek, though not the more detailed ones. Anything other than a simple 'when', however, is not a tense, or at least not only tense. — kwami (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting the lead to reflect modern linguistic understanding. I didn't adjust the references, but just reworded it. --Taivo (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is a fact that the "aorist indicative" is widely called the "aorist tense." Most readers will be familiar with the second term. At present we use the term familiar to most readers and explain that many linguists don't consider it really a tense. I don't think repeating the last part of the lead is really necessary, is it?

The current "about the past" column title allows avoiding use of the term "past tense."

Would it suffice to add a table of equivalents between traditional terms like "perfect tense" and other terms?

And are you sure the perfect tense is not a tense? Some authors suggest it is. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's OK to reword in a way which contradicts the references, btw. That violates WP:V. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I told you above that it was a working rewrite and I didn't adjust the references, but it is a perfectly accurate rewrite. This article needs to reflect linguistic accuracy as much as possible. The Greek terms can be mentioned (once) to orient the reader, but linguistically accurate terminology must be used, not the Greek traditional material. The reader would be much more confused by using one set of terms for Greek, one set for Sanskrit, and one set for the lead. The lead right now doesn't really deal with any language other than Greek and that needs to be corrected. Greek isn't the only I-E language with an aorist. A table of equivalents would be fine as long as the text of the article only uses "aspect". And, yes, perfect is not a tense, it is an aspect. --Taivo (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The perfect is a bit odd. It has elements of both aspect and tense. In the quote from Comrie above, he includes perfect in his book on aspect, as it certainly isn't a tense, but notes that it isn't a very good fit. It really doesn't fit in a tense-aspect dichotomy. Which is why our article was moved to perfect (grammar) rather than 'perfect aspect' or 'perfect tense'. (Though it is common to include it as an aspect and not worry about it too much, just as the English future modal is often counted as a future tense without worrying about it too much.)

All we need to do IMO is use the terms 'aorist' and 'perfect' when dealing with those in general, and 'aorist indicative' when dealing specifically with the aorist in the indicative. We have Greek-studies sources which do that, it's clear, and it doesn't contradict anything. It should be intelligible from either the traditional or modern perspective.

I think we can then relegate the 'tense'-'aspect' terminology conflict to a paragraph and leave it at that. We can note that the traditional term is 'tense' (and not just for the indicative: some of our sources appear to use 'aorist tense' where Beetham uses 'aorist aspect'), but that the aorist indicative is universally acknowledged as being either a pure aspect or a combination of tense+aspect. Deciding between the latter two will be more difficult, and IMO probably best handled in a section describing the past implications of the aorist indicative.

Outside of classical Greek, I think the aorist typically is aspect+tense (Bulgarian, Georgian, etc.) — kwami (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The current rewrite of the Greek section (generally replacing "tense" with "indicative") is much better. --Taivo (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the lead paragraph is too heavily Helleno-centric. It mentions Sanskrit and Bulgarian in passing, then talks virtually only about Greek from then on. It needs more balance. --Taivo (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, can you please check your dubious tags and remove any you feel are no longer needed?

Can someone please volunteer to write sections "Usage in Sanskrit", "Usage in Bulgrian", etc.? Then we can adjust the lead if needed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on remaining "dubious" tags

That leaves 3 dubious tags:

• In the lead: "A specific use of the aorist aspect is the so-called aorist tense"
• In the table: Present (continuous)
• In the table: Aorist indicative used gnomically

I'm not sure I understand the problems here. Don't we agree that the phrase "aorist tense" is widely used? Don't we agree that the aorist indicative is usually used in discussing the past? Don't we agree that it is also used gnomically? -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is common. IMO we should have in the lede "traditionally called the aorist tense", followed by the qualification that it isn't a tense in the modern sense. We also need to clarify whether all of the aorist forms are commonly included in that, or only the indicative as Beetham would have it. Per Campbell, it doesn't seem that gnomic aorist is a distinct usage, but I could easily be wrong there. — kwami (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I removed a couple. These are the problems I still have: (1) use of the term for gnomic should be a separate paragraph, (2) it is equivalent to the PFV, not just called it; also, for most of these languages (i.e. outside of Greek) it isn't actually a simple aspect, but aspect+tense, like preterite, (3) if I'm not mistaken, the 'aorist tense' is just the aorist in the indicative, and then only for some authors, whereas the lede presents it as if it were a separate phenomenon, (4) it's misleading to say "it's not considered a tense by many". AFAIK, it's not considered a tense (modern definition) by any, just called one. Akhilleus was under the impression that tense includes aspect because of this tradition. We should simply say it's not a grammatical tense. (5) the table suggests that the aorist indicative is in essence a past-tense form, with some gnomic uses. Is that accurate? Several of our sources go to great lengths to demonstrate that this is not the case, that it is past tense only by implication, even if used 80% of the time for past events (at least in narration, which may not be representative), though others do describe it as past PFV. (This is a less tractable problem, as it's substantial rather than just terminological.) (6) similarly, I don't see why the perfect should be restricted to the past tense in the table. It bridges past and present. (7) also in the table, is the 'present' really present tense or present continuous? Most of while I've seen suggests that it's more like a present imperfective, though I haven't been watching for that. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, thanks for that.

(1) Maybe gnomic should be a separate paragraph, but does that affect the entry in the table?

I meant gnomic in the lede, in the revisions you kept reverting. — kwami (talk)

(2) We can change the wording to "equivalent to the PFV" if there's a source. Taivo suggested that they weren't exactly equivalent. Certainly we shouldn't claim that without a source.

I think we have several such sources, apart from the problem of whether it's inherently past. Besides, you disagreed w Taivo on his minor distinction between PFV and AOR, and I assume you have your sources for that.

(3) My problem is that most readers will come here having read something about the "aorist tense" (because of the huge number of references to it, especially in Christian literature, but also in literature on classical Greek writing). They will expect to see that phrase in bold, and an explanation of what it means. I think we currently have something that will satisfy them, pointing them at the wider concept (the "aorist aspect") and giving them the correct terminology. I note that aorist tense has redirected here since 15 June 2004. I think "A specific use of the aorist aspect is the so-called aorist tense" is short and clear.

I agree that 'aorist tense' should be bold, I just didn't want bolding in my answer here.

Short and clear, yes, but since in at least one of our sources it appears that the aorist imperative is part of the 'aorist tense', I'm not sure it's accurate. (I had written a version of that myself before seeing some of this lit.)

(4) We clearly can't say "it's not considered a tense by any," because some people still use the term (even Comrie says that the aorist indicative is "a past tense"). We have to use wording that summarises the sources we've got.

I think you need to read Comrie. AFAIK he does not say the aorist is a past tense, only that it's a perfective used in the past tense, not at all the same thing. (I don't know where my copy of Aspect got to!)

We should just say, simply and clearly, that it's not a tense. Several of our sources which use the term "aorist tense" admit as much, that the term "tense" is just tradition and not grammatically accurate.

(5) "the table suggests that the aorist indicative is primarily a past-tense form, with some gnomic uses." -- yes, that is accurate. Comrie backs that up. The small number of gnomic uses is significant because of the principle they establish (there are also complexities of the aorist when used in conditionals; the article currently doesn't discuss those).

Yes, Comrie backs it up, but he's not a specialist in Classical Greek. Campbell and some of the other Greek specialists have a more nuanced view. But as I said, this is a substantial problem with the article, apart from our disagreement about wording: We do not have a coherent definition of the aorist, because the sources disagree with each other.

(6) yes, the perfect bridges past and present in a way. The focus in this article, though, is how it contrasts with the aorist, particularly when discussing the past. The primary purpose of the table is to summarise the examples.

But it inaccurately implies that the perfect is a past tense form, which it is not. Also, if we broaden the aorist, your objection becomes moot. Several of our refs speak of an AOR-IMP-PERF contrast in the indicative, and not limited to the past.

(7) The Greek present tense is equivalent to the English present continuous (see citation), hence the parentheses. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but several refs I've seen claim that it isn't present tense, but present imperfective, which fits the layout of the table perfectly. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (1) Given that Taivo thinks there's too much Greek in the lead, do we really need the gnomic there?

(2) I haven't seen any sources that explicitly use the phrase "equivalent to." I would love to find one. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(3) You say "it appears that the aorist imperative is part of the 'aorist tense'" -- I'm not aware of such a source. Which one? -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(4) The article quotes Comrie in the footnote: "In Ancient Greek, the Aorist is in the Indicative Mood primarily a past tense, although it does have some nonpast uses. In other moods and in nonfinite forms, the Aorist is purely aspectual, not an expression of tense." There's a link if you don't believe me. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(5) Well, Campbell is Koine rather than Classical, but what does he say that differs from Comrie? -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(6) That's why I was careful to use the phrase "about the past." I'm aware that the interaction of tense and perfect is a thorny one, and I was trying hard not to take a stand either way. I did not want to go into lengthy discussions of the perfect here, since that belongs in the article on the subject. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(7) My point is that the present imperfective/continuous is the only present tense in Greek. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) I'm not talking about Greek, but about Turkish and Swahili.

(2) The point is certainly made in other words if not those.

(3) Thought I mentioned it above. Will look tomorrow.

(4) I understand those are the words he used. Surely you're aware of the dangers of taking s.o.'s words out of context? The link does not work.

(5) Campbell says the aorist is not primarily a past tense, only that it tends to be used for past events. He says instead that it's 'remote', s.t. which seems to be idiosyncratic to Campbell.

(6) But the table still shows the perfect as being restricted to the past tense.

(7) No, you also have the gnomic use of the aorist. And again, I've come across several claims that it is not a tense, but an aspect. E.g. Zerwick says that none of the "tenses" indicate time. Also Taivo's comment above that the temporal distinction in Greek is future & non-future, w/o a grammatical present. — kwami (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Oh. So far we seem to have little in the way of sources about those; they don't (on the basis of evidence presented to date) seem to involve the AOR aspect, so don't sit well in this article. I think this article should restrict itself to the AOR aspect and important uses of the AOR, and possibly restrict itself to IE uses of the AOR.

(2) I'd like to say "equivalent to," if we can back it up, but we can't really assert exact equivalence without a source. After all, why are AOR and PFV both still standard abbreviations? In fact, the article has references arguing against equivalence.

(4) The link worked for me, and for the editor who led me there.

(6) The table is not intended to show the perfect as being restricted to the past tense. I've added an entry for the perfect/present combination (even though I still think it distracts from the main purpose of the table). And the table quite deliberately does not use the term "past tense," to avoid making any claims about tense (there may be disagreement as to whether the aorist indicative is a past tense, but everyone agrees that it's usually used to talk about the past).

(7) Yes, the gnomic use of the aorist is used in the present. My point is that people say "present tense" for the Greek present continuous, because there is nothing else carrying the name "present tense." That is, present = present continuous. However, the table doesn't use the word "tense," so I'm not sure what the problem is. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Zerwick really say that the present isn't present, and the future isn't future? ... I see Zerwick really does say that. That seems, well, idiosyncratic. I don't think it's strong enough evidence to put "present" in quotation marks. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The link to Comrie's book works for me. This is a link to the U.S. version of Google Books, which probably only works in the U.S. If you're in another country, go to the local Google Books site and search for "the Aorist is in the Indicative Mood primarily a past tense" and you'll probably get the right page.

Thanks, Taivo, for the explanation. The article is likely to seem confusing and perhaps completely wrong to readers who have studied classical Greek unless it is very clear on the distinction between "tense" as used by linguists and "tense" as used in Greek pedagogy. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comrie had earlier written a book on tense, which I haven't read.

Before he came out with his Aspect, the field was so confused with different terms for different languages that a linguist would often be perplexed as to what another linguist meant when using them to describe some other language, as with aorist for gnomic in Swahili, or whether preterit has its Spanish or English meaning. Comrie set out to find what was common to the various descriptions (including his own Slavic) and work out a system that applied to all of them, and his book has become the defining standard for aspect. For a while people would use the terms and say parenthetically how Comrie defined them; now they tend to just use the terms and assume that the reader will understand them as Comrie defined them. — kwami (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the terminological changes that kwami and Taivo were insisting on have made the article less readable to most readers. I've tried to soften the rewording to be as helpful as possible to the reader. -- Radagast3 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Since the AOR is either PFV or PST.PFV, there is no reason for this to be a separate article for its subject matter, but only for the usage of the term. So IMO this article should be about the tradition of the term aorist rather than the aorist aspect itself. Just as perfective covers languages with similar PST.PFV inflections as well as Germanic languages which don't, so we should cover languages with a tradition in which "aorist" means s.t. other than PST.PFV. We needn't go into great detail: that should be left to the grammar sections of the language articles themselves.

(2) We can just say that it's the (past) perfective in languages with a Greek grammatical tradition.

(4) I'm in the US, and only that snippet comes up, not the whole page. But the discussion continues on p 19, where I can see another snippet: "In Ancient Greek, for instance, the Aorist (perfective past) of the verb ..."

(7) My only question there is the exact nature of the Greek "present". You seem to be defining it as present continuous based on what corresponds in English, and I'd like to accurate to what it is in Greek. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(1/2) The AOR is not viewed by everyone as the same as the PFV. Therefore it needs an article. If you have a proposal for re-scoping this article, please start another RfC or a move/split proposal.

(4) I'm in Australia, and it works for me.

(7) I quote from a footnote in the article: "The Greek Present corresponds more closely in meaning to the English Present Continuous than to the Present Simple." -- Radagast3 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Which article? Also, 'more close' doesn't mean 'is'. You're defining Greek in terms of English. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This article. And I'm not defining Greek in terms of English, I'm calling it "present" and adding "continuous" in brackets. I think that helps the reader. It is in fact exactly what Mounce does in his book on NT Greek. -- Radagast3 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And, unless you argue to the contrary, I'll remove the "dubious" tags, since they seem to be resolved; the argument has now moved on to whether an article about the aorist aspect should exist at all. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored them, since they have not been addressed. And since you've restored the factual errors I removed, I've tagged them as dubious too. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What "factual errors" did I restore? As to the "dubious" tags, please provide a clear summary, for each tag, of what the problem is, or we'll never get anywhere. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been over this again and again. So has Taivo. How will saying it again help you understand if you didn't understand the first several times? Please read a book on aspect such as Comrie, or Bybee for that matter (though Comrie is nice and short, clearly written, and readily available), so that you have the background to follow the discussion. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's be civil here. You appear to believe that your personal expertise exceeds those of the authors of Greek textbooks; I would like to see evidence of your credentials before accepting that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if that came across as uncivil. I'm just frustrated. You're reading support for your views which I cannot find in your citations, and refutations for mine which I likewise can't find. Taivo and I have provided numerous sources that the aorist is at least a kind of perfective, maybe a perfective past if not a simple perfective, and that it is not a tense, that the perfect is not a tense, and that the imperfect is not a tense. Given the definition of "tense" in modern linguistics, those descriptions are simply wrong. They are only appropriate as traditional terminology. I have no objection to using traditional terminology, but would rather not make a distinction where we do not need to (for example, traditional scholarship also uses 'aorist indicative' for the aorist "tense", so why not stick to that?), and where we do, we need to clarify exactly what it is.

Take an example from geography. In the era in which many of these Greek texts were written, the Old World was a "continent". Europe, Asia, and Africa were "peninsulas" of that continent. Now, that isn't actually wrong (in fact, I think it makes a lot more sense than our current convention), but nonetheless it would be inappropriate to say "the Asian peninsula" in a WP article without clarifying what that means. Insisting on consistency and clarity by either avoiding or explaining that phrase wouldn't mean I believe that my personal expertise exceeds that of the authors of those texts, only that I object to the balkanization of the encyclopedia, with contradictory uses of terminology in different articles. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

More on Lead

The phrase "refers to an action pure and simple" is not accurate and is an idiosyncratic phrasing used in one Greek grammar. Far better is something like the way Joan Bybee describes perfective in "Tense: Tense, Aspect, and Mood," International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol. 4, pp. 144-145: "...perfective, which indicates that the situation is to be viewed as a bounded whole..." The more I look at this, the less I see aorist as something different from perfective--a completed action. In rereading my source about aorist, I see that the "quick, single instantiation" is really only about the aorist in non-indicative moods--"Do it once and get it over with", but in the indicative is simple perfective--the act is completed and is not continuing to occur. --Taivo (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are seriously misunderstanding the aorist (and using a dubious book). How much Classical and/or NT Greek have you studied? I've added more references to the article clarify the situation. -- Radagast3 (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And to alter a sourced statement to radically change its meaning seriously breaches WP:V. -- Radagast3 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we need a better source. Beetham presents a simplified but not terrible accurate summary of the aorist, which you have repeated at least three times in the article. Surely that is undue weight. Our other sources go into much more detail and are more nuanced. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this. Beetham is, as I'm sure you know, quoting the classic pure et simple characterisation of the aorist. The article contains two other sources which agree with him (Wenham and Fanning). Those writers who describe the aorist as "unmarked" (which is not everybody) provide a similar characterisation to Beetham, Wenham, and Fanning. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You then go on to provide a contradictory quotation with the lede "Expressed another way". — kwami (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How is that contradictory? -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Fanning describes the aorist as perfective. (Read Comrie's characterization of the perfective: it is almost identical to Fanning.) Beetham, on the other hand, just calls it "pure and simple". That sounds like an unmarked TAM (tense-aspect-mood) inflection, but says little about its actual form. Perhaps 'contradictory' is too strong a term, but I imagine that if I used Beetham to support an identification of the aorist as perfective, you'd say I'm misquoting him rather than "expressing him another way". However, if you are okay with saying, "expressed in another way, it's perfective", with Fanning or our multiple other refs as sources, I won't object. — kwami (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the main reason I think the nature of perfectivity should be left to perfective aspect, with this article covering the use of the term "aorist" in various language traditions, and whether it's PFV or PFV past: Perfectivity is not an easy concept for an English speaker to grasp, as the multitude of often confused descriptions in Greek grammars makes clear, so IMO it's best to centralize the discussion, and to go into as much detail as appropriate there for the best understanding we can manage, without confusing the issue or contradicting ourselves with this article. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the aorist aspect is the same as the perfective: the article has several sources saying it is not. In any case, the perfective aspect article would be a fragile reed for this article to lean on; apart from one sentence about Thai, it is totally unsourced. -- Radagast3 (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide those sources. The ones you did said nothing of the kind that I could see; indeed, they explicitly said the aorist is a perfective. One discusses problems with that analysis in Bulgarian, not Greek, and and the conclusions Bybee drew, but in the end she decided in was perfective after all, and Comrie makes it clear that the Bulgarian aorist-imperfective is a typical Slavic doubling of aspect.

Most of the PFV-IPFV material is actually at IPFV to avoid a content fork. I'll redirect. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The references are in the article. Shopen provides a characterisation of languages in which both AOR and PFV are used as distinct, while Dahl remarks on the general question of whether AOR and PFV are identical. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dahl quotes conclusions that both are the same underlying perfective aspect.

Timberlake (in Shopen) does not show a distinction either. He shows Modern Greek aorist as covering approximately the same area as Mandarin PFV and Oneida PST.PFV, as closer than some of the PFVs are to each other. However, he doesn't actually address the issue (at least not on the cited page), making any interpretation of the table WP:OR.

Demotic is, like English, very far from Indo-European. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You have shown investigation on how much these two terms cover the same ground or are reflections of the same universal aspectual category, but have not shown anyone who concluded that the aorist is one thing but the (past) PFV is another, only conclusions that they are essentially the same. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dahl is evidence that there is debate, Shopen is evidence that AOR and PFV are used by linguists simultaneously, i.e. not as exact equivalents. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Dahl is evidence that people wondered about this, as they have with many such terminological distinctions, and came to the conclusion that they are essentially the same thing. Timberlake (you didn't even get the name right) is only evidence that different terms are used in the descriptions of different languages, which no-one denies. The sources do not support the claim you're making. If there are scholars who have concluded they are distinct, they would state that they have concluded that they are distinct. — kwami (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2010

Rijksbaron expressly asserts that the aorist (by which he means a stem-class, or rather two of them) is not an aspect and does relate to relative time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve

I understand that referring to actual authorities is unusual at Wikipedia. But it may be simpler to consult an actual authority on Greek on the aorist tense than to argue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We've consulted plenty of authorities, and your ref contradicts all of them. We have several detailed accounts of how the aorist is not the past tense. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not the imperfect tense, from which it is disjoint in Greek; it is not equivalent to the English simple past, although that is the closest English tense to it. But if you find Gildersleeve strange, what imaginable Greek grammar have you consulted? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, it is not, and does not have, the perfective aspect, from which it is disjoint; the aorist implies immediate action, not completed action. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Perfective aspect and perfect aspect are two entirely different concepts, despite their unnerving homophony. Perfective aspect is the Greek aorist, perfect aspect is the Greek perfect. — Eru·tuon 19:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we should shun the confusing and unnecessary jargon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the confusing jargon (perfect & perfective) is completely entrenched in the lit. A few people have tried introducing 'anterior' for the perfect, but that has other uses; the term 'retrospective' has been suggested, but it doesn't seem to have caught on. So we're stuck with it for now, just as we're stuck with 'American' for a citizen of the United States. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to a good version

Good grief. I go away for a few hours and you've turned a good article into crap again, Radagast. I reverted back to my last version which was a good working version, supported by references and the linguistic facts. Do not keep adding "tense" into this text. Aorist is perfective aspect, it is not, and never will be, a tense. --Taivo (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And Radagast3, "pure and simple" is not a linguistic description of the meaning of anything. It is a totally impressionistic phrase that has no place in an encyclopedic article about an aspect. If you don't like my source, then find a better one that has an actual terminological description and not just something "simple and stupid". --Taivo (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I restored all of Kwami's edits to my last version. This is a linguistically sound presentation. --Taivo (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Taivo.

(To whoever else is reading this:) Personally, I think the Greek tradition makes more sense: both tense and aspect deal with time, and they're often intertwined, so in my mind "tense" is a good cover label for them. But that's not the direction that linguistic terminology has taken: "Tense" and "aspect" are now terms for complementary dimensions of encoding time. The cover term is the awkward tense-aspect-mood, often abbreviated to TAM /ˈtæm/ in the lit I read, though I don't know widespread that is. — kwami (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ignorance based on misunderstandings of linguistics. The article is about the Greek aorist (and may include other tenses sufficiently similar to be called aorist); it is a tense; it has always been called so. It is a formal category; it may have an aspect, but need not, especially in Koine.

If somebody wants to write an article on aorist (linguistics), feel free.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is not just about the Greek aorist, but about the Indo-European aorist and its descendants. Before reverting good linguistic material, you need to discuss here on the Talk Page first. If you want an article just on the Greek aorist, then you need to make one on "aorist (Greek)". Even in Greek, the aorist is not a tense and good authorities on Greek are cited in reference. It is only called a tense in traditional grammars. --Taivo (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your sources fail to say what you claim they do; and any author who claims that the sets of forms traditionally called "tenses" are not tenses is not writing English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ancient Greek aorist (1) is a tense, (2) is an aspect, (3) is fully per se notable enough for its own encyclopedic treatment (with no prejudice against treating it in relation to other topics). Yes, to present (1) and (2) in the way in which good WP:RS substantiate them is going to be a headache for the souls brave enough to do it, but we aren't going to make any progress until (3) is fully grasped. Whatever this article may have covered at various points in its history, before the recent controversy its content seems to have focused mainly on something by the name of "aorist" within the Ancient Greek language. This is a very notable thing and deserves an encyclopedia article. It has the advantage of having an unambiguous referent and correct name (however many the problems in describing what kind of thing it is). If some editors want an article discussing related and comparable phenomena in other languages, I believe that an expansion of this article is the wrong way to get it, precisely because the Gk. aorist is a specific and notable subject, with lots of treatment of it in the best sources on the Greek language (and yes, whether we like it or not, many of them discussing it as a tense). Of course it would be nice if our article on the Greek aorist explains to the reader, with proper attribution, how the Greek aorist has been (variously) described from various comparative & general-linguistics perspectives.

I trust my one central point is clear enough: let's have an article on the Greek aorist, and let's have it here. If it can be shown that "aorist" usually refers to non-Greek phenomena (which I doubt), then we ought to discuss disambiguating the page title. Otherwise I simply can't see why this article should not accomplish the necessary encyclopedic task of dealing with the Greek aorist in all its uniqueness and complexity, for it is a sui generis thing in enough ways that it can't be reduced to an instance of some more general linguistic phenomenon. Wareh (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about the Greek aorist, but about the aorist in the Indo-European languages (principally) and those languages described from an Indo-European viewpoint. You also fail to understand the fundamental linguistics of the issue that aorist, even in Greek, is not a tense, but an aspect. Even contemporary Greek writers are saying this. WP:POINTy tags should not be used in Wikipedia. Read the actual sources about aspect versus tense. If you want an article on Greek aorist alone, then write another one labelled "Aorist (Greek)" or some such. --Taivo (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You are non-responsive to the suggestion that perhaps this should be the Wikipedia article about the Greek aorist, based on (1) what the article has treated through its history, and (2) the prevalence of "aorist" in application to Greek vs. its use otherwise. The Greek aorist has been described as a tense since before it was possible to use the English language to dispute the fact, and reliable sources continue to do so in appropriate contexts, not neglecting its frequent and typical use to express aspect. These reliable sources, not your decrees about what "the fundamental linguistics of the issue" are, ought to be followed by Wikipedia. For example, let's please not make it about my undoubted personal deficiencies of linguistic understanding: do you believe that Albert Rijksbaron, in The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek, is wrong to see "tense" applicable within the indicative? Many other authorities have committed their agreement on this point to print, even if you or I may not have.

If you are really so sure that "real linguists" understand the proper terminology better than such linguistically sophisticated specialists in the Greek language, then I believe, from the point of view of Wikipedia's policies, you will be in the same position as the atheist who wants to edit the theology articles, or the physicist who wants to edit the article on Physics (Aristotle): in other words, you may want to consider that the inferior discipline of Classical philology needs encyclopedic treatment of its own subjects, according to the terminology and judgment of its own expert sources, even if you believe the discipline in question to be a pseudo-science. It does meet all the standards that define a field of encyclopedic knowledge, as much as metaphysics or Pokemon-taxonomy. Wareh (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I have probably distracted from the meat of the reasonable objection to Taivo with my rhetoric. It's not benighted classicists (as in my rhetoric) who say the Greek aor. indic. is a tense, but reputable linguists (including the benighted classicists I invoked in my rhetoric). Taivo, Akhilleus above quotes Bernard Comrie as saying, "the Aorist is in the Indicative Mood primarily a past tense." Does Comrie "fail to understand the fundamental linguistics of the issue," or am I missing something? Because he calls the Greek aorist indicative primarily a tense. Wareh (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever this article may have started out as, as with many articles in Wikipedia it has reached out to fill the expanse of its title--aorist in all its forms and not just a Helleno-centric novelty. In Wikipedia, the article with the simplest title should have the broadest coverage. Thus, an article on "aorist" (as this one is becoming), should cover the issue of "aorist" in the broadest possible terms. If you feel that the issue of Greek aorist needs a separate article, then that one should be written, but entitled "Aorist (Greek)" or some such. --Taivo (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The common meaning of aorist - to quote the 1989 OED, with emphasis added, One of the past tenses of the Greek verb, which takes its name from its denoting a simple past occurrence, with none of the limitations as to completion, continuance, etc., which belong to the other past tenses. It corresponds to the simple past tense in English, as 'he died' ; there are also aorists in Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages. It can, but does not have to, have a aspect; in general, the later the text, the less certain this is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Aorist can't have no aspect. If it has nothing else, it's got the aspect of being simple, unlike other aspects (imperfect, perfect). Wax may have no taste in one sense, but you can still tell if you're tasting wax and not, say, bacon grease (not a perfect analogy, since the two have different textures, but whatever). — Eru·tuon 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested articles of compromise

1. Let's stop throwing around words like "crap" to describe the work of other editors.
2. The morphological category that is the Ancient Greek aorist has a senior and strong claim to be an important referent of the word "aorist" (I don't say the strongest, but that may be the case; we can always make aorist a disambiguation page if this is really controversial). The significance of these Greek verbal forms as tense, aspect, etc., has been the subject of significant scholarly discussion.
3. It is impossible to discuss this Ancient Greek morphological category fully and correctly (and doing justice to the range of interpretation offered at the highest level of competence and expertise) as "purely a tense" or "purely an aspect." Akhilleus showed this very handily with his citation from Bernard Comrie, and I mentioned that a linguist specialized in Ancient Greek (Albert Rijksbaron) ends up with much the same formulation. Some editors seem to reject this point violently, but I don't see how the consensus of such a linguist writing on aspect in general and such an Ancient-Greek-linguist writing on Greek syntax and semantics can possibly be disregarded in defining the subject.
4. Therefore, an article on any aspect (or on difference of aspect) -- say, "Aspect A in the world's languages" -- would commit an error if it implied that the subject of the Ancient Greek aorist is completely encapsulated within the subject of "Aspect A." (The same would apply to an article on any tense, or on difference of tense, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.) To put it more strongly, no reader should leave an article about any merely-aspectual phenomenon like "Aspect A" believing that the Greek aorist has been presented in all its complexity under its proper super-category. The article on "Aspect A" should, of course, explore correctly the relation of "Aspect A" to the Greek aorist, and point to the article on the Greek aorist for discussion of its aspects (in the non-technical sense) that are not germane to an article on "Aspect A."
5. Because a full and correct discussion of the Ancient Greek aorist does not fall neatly within any just-tense or just-aspect category (#3-4), and because of #2 above, the Ancient Greek aorist should receive discussion outside of any such framework of comparative analysis.

I think you see where I'm heading, and it would be very useful if we can determine better (maybe even by numbered points) which of these consensus-seeking suggestions is really controversial. So I am proposing a split into two articles, and this obviously produces the questions of practical action: A. What is the best name for an article on the Ancient Greek aorist? B. What is the best name for the articles that discuss various verbal aspects across languages? C. What past contributions to this article can appropriately be included in the article on Greek's aorist, and the article on aorist-as-"Aspect A"? Wareh (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My position on articles has already been stated. In Wikipedia the article with the least specific name should be the article with broadest coverage. Therefore, this article, "Aorist", should cover that aspect in Indo-European and in other languages where the usage of the term is based on its use in Indo-European linguistics. If you want an article that goes into more detail on the Greek aorist aspect only, then that article should be called "Aorist (Greek)" with a hatnote here pointing the interested reader there. This article should still have a summary of the Greek aorist aspect (as it does now), but keeping the linguistically accurate terminology. The article on Greek specifically can deviate based on its coverage of the historical and traditional literature. --Taivo (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with parts of the opinions above.

An article on "aorist" should cover the aorist, not the Greek aorist or the Ancient Greek aorist (which are not in full concord with each other), any more than the article on "past tense" should cover only the English past tense. We could have "aorist in Ancient Greek", "aorist in Koine Greek", or just "aorist in Greek", though I'm not sure that between this article and the articles on Ancient Greek and Koine grammar that we really need another. (We could always split this article, and if people don't like it, they could propose remerging, but the issues that are contentious here will carry over to the new article.)

We have good sources both for an analysis of the Ancient/Koine Greek aorist being a pure aspect, and for it being a conflation of aspect and tense. (Modern Greek is the latter.) I don't know which it is. What we do know is that it is not a tense. However, it has been called a tense for centuries. The discrepancy is because the meaning of the word "tense" has shifted, as Comrie makes clear if you read more than that one line.

I think the violent opposition to the use of modern English terminology is due to being used to the jargon of a particular field. That's understandable. Many of our readers will have the same background. However, I don't see where the current version is unreasonable on those grounds: it explains what the aorist is using modern linguistic terminology, then notes the traditional wording. Most of the article simply uses "aorist" without choosing either. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not "modern English terminology"; it's the terminology of some linguists, who appear to have ceased to study languages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You apparently know nothing of the subject, or you wouldn't make such a statement. The linguist who has set the standard for aspectual terminology appears to have ceased to study languages, because you don't like the choice of restricting "tense" to points on a timeline? Your source of modern linguistic terminology is the OED, the wording of which dates to 1888? — kwami (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall make clear that I am citing the Second Edition, of 1989. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)