Aorist

It's in what's called the aorist tense, which is a technical way of saying that Jesus 'anger is a temporary feeling. ❋ Unknown (2009)

While the 3sg hi-ending appears to come from the 'aorist', I am puzzled why you say this form has a *ē in the root. ❋ Unknown (2009)

IEists for example volley terms about like "aorist" (aspectual or tensal?) and "markedness" (phonetic or inflectional?) within a variety of sometimes contradictory contexts and it's important to recognize the shades of subtlety. ❋ Unknown (2007)

In aspect, verbs can be simple ( "aorist") ( "Brutus stabbed Caesar"), progressive ( "Brutus was stabbing Caesar"), or perfect ( "Brutus has stabbed Caesar"). ❋ Unknown (1984)

" I should more aptly compare the non-continuous form *bʰḗr-m̥ 'I carry/carried' to the sigmatic "aorist" since they both end up being employed for past tense in later PIE dialects unlike the continuous presentive. ❋ Unknown (2009)

It suggests a world in which my being able to rattle off the aorist participles of λυω entitles me to a seat next to Brad DeLong. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Two: The traditional "present-aorist-perfect" verb model which is notorious for being an inadequate model representative only of a post-IE stage can be reworked into an earlier two-dimensional system of subjective/objective versus progressive/non-progressive to now explain why Anatolian & Tocharian verbs behave so differently. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Anyways, as per my previous model, there are interesting quirks that seem to automatically surface when I personally take on the goal to finally account for both the mi-class/hi-class contrast in Anatolian with the durative-aorist-perfect system of Core IE dialects. ❋ Unknown (2009)

So this is in part why I'm now pursuing a hunch that Arretium could perhaps be a Greek name in the end, namely from Erythrion, a name built on the word erythros 'red' ( durative, mi-class) and those unmarked by it ( aorist, past) on the one hand, and subjective verbs marked with *-r ( middle) and those without ( hi-class, perfect-stative) on the other. ❋ Unknown (2009)

And too, it helped that this "s-aorist" already had the quality of momentaneousness built right in ie. conveying a single point in time, blending well with a punctive conjugation that naturally did the same. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Rather, the marker *-s- specifies a specific event of an inherently dynamic verb a perfective nuance and this is why only some verbs were given a sigmatic aorist later on in non-Anatolian dialects. ❋ Unknown (2009)

All this being said, we then understand why the perfective action could not possibly have been originally marked by *-i as proven by non-Anatolian dialects if its function were originally to express this aspect, due to the obvious semantic contradictions that would ensue, and we also see why the sigmatic aorist couldn't have ever applied to all verbs, such as punctives, likewise to avoid simple contradiction. ❋ Unknown (2009)

We can now readily see from the above list that Hittite's 3ps preterite is identical to the experiential form sigmatic aorist, complete with the long *ē vocalism that tags non-punctive verbs. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Finally the sigmatic aorist is no longer treated as a formalized conjugation distinct from the non-continuous. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Jasanoff's theories, the durative-aorist-perfect model, active-stative, and subjective-objective into a single coherent model that explains everything much clearer than what I'm finding in journals and books. ❋ Unknown (2009)

It appears that there's a symmetry between objective verbs marked with *-i ( durative, mi-class) and those unmarked by it ( aorist, past) on the one hand, and subjective verbs marked with *-r ( middle) and those without ( hi-class, perfect-stative) on the other. ❋ Unknown (2009)

While my previous contrasting of eventive and non-eventive explains the use of the two sets of personal endings of the verb to an extent, there are still a few cases such as the would-be sigmatic aorist (eg. *bʰērst 'he carried (at one time)') where a term like non-eventive is totally inadequate, if not wrong altogether, but it was the closest concept I could find to explain the pattern. ❋ Unknown (2009)

In Indo-European studies, there's always talk of active-stative languages, as an attempt to unite the Anatolian mi-class/hi-class dichotomy with the trifurcated present-aorist-perfective system preserved in non-Anatolian dialects. ❋ Unknown (2009)