Contributions to Avestan Syntax, the Preterite Tenses of the Indicative

THE question of the signification of the past tenses of the indicative in the Avesta is one of the most important in the study of the syntax of the sacred language of Iran.' The distinctions between the imperfect, the aorist, and the perfect must be examined and the results of the investigation must ever be kept in mind if the full meaning of the Avesta texts is to be won. The force of the tenses of the Avestan has twice been made the subject of rigid investigation, first by Bartholomae Altiran. Verb. (1878) 220-240, and second by Spiegel Vgl. Gramm. der alt6ran. Spr. (1882) 491-496. The progress made in the interpretation of the Avesta since these two works appeared is a sufficient ground for a reconsideration of this problem. The position won with regard to the force of the tenses of the Sanskrit, and especially of the Vedic dialect, is my starting point. The doctrines taught by Pdnini concerning the Indian tenses are as follows. The aorist expresses past time (lun, iii, 2, 110); the imperfect denotes an act performed on some day other than the present one (anadyatane tan, iii, 2, 111 as contrasted with adyatana=aorist, Vdrttika 2 to Pdnini ii, 4, 3; Vdrttika 3 to Pdnini vi, 4, 114); the perfect signifies an act performed at a time when the speaker was not present (parokse lit iii, 2, 115). The conclusions drawn by Delbruck, who has given Panini the tribute which is his due (Vgl. Synt. ii, 273) may be summarized briefly. The imperfect is the tense of narration (Altind. Tempusl. 90, 132, Altind. Synt. 279, Vgl. Synt. ii, 268, 309); the aorist simply states that a given act was performed, or that a given event occurred at some time past ( Es kommt bei der aoristischen

Linguistics · Syntax · Ancient Near East History · History · Linguistics and language evolution · Philosophy