Talk:Aorist/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

An active proposal

The following outline would seem useful; it's modeled on a proposal by Cynwolfe far above; I enclose it in a box, to make clear that everyone should feel free to edit it as it stands. It is not necessary that every bullet point be a header; many will be paragraphs, or parts of paragraphs.

• Lead
• Terminology
• Indo-European
  • Forms of aorist stems and endings.
• Sanskrit
• Greek
  • Classical and Homeric
  • Koine
  • Hermeneutics
  • Demotic
• Slavic
  • In general
  • Bulgarian
  • Other
• Caucasian languages
• Berber languages
• Iroquian languages
• Other languages (Uralic, Turkish, Kwa & Gbe, Swahili, ...)

The last subhead "Other" could be 'theoretical linguistics' or some such. The 'terminology' section at the top should be just enough to enable reading; that is, actual explanations of how terminology is used, not the full load of scholarly discourse on the subject. I might put Sanskrit before Greek, just because I have a vague sense that it's usually done that way in historical treatments of IE. Presumably the IE section will address in a sentence or two the 'disappearance' or 'loss' of the aorist in other IE languages (particularly why Latin doesn't have one when Greek and Sanskrit do; one source I saw may have speculated this absence in Latin influenced koine's later blurring of the perfect and the aorist). Cynwolfe (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked accordingly, providing a place for Latin, Tocharian (and possibly the analogical usage in Swahili, which is news to me). I think the reason I put Greek first - as it is now - was that of course aorist was used of Greek long before it was used of Sanskrit; but that's probably not the thread to string the article on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TSetting the "in theoretical linguistics" part is a misrepresentation - that section is part of the definition section.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A misrepresenation? of what? This is not the present structure of the article, but a proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Since PMAnderson isn't obviously going to take any time off.) Agree with Maunus, adding "theoretical linguistics" at the end implies that theoretical linguistics has nothing to do with language or language description. If there is a separate "theoretical linguistics" section at all, it should be a detailed discussion of different approaches to labels or dealing with aorist in the literature, not the linguistically-accurate basic definition of aorist, which should be introduced in the lead and detailed in the terminology section. Other than that, I agreed with the quality of this outline when it was presented (far) above by Cynwolfe. It makes sense to start with Proto-Indo-European, proceed through its developments in other Indo-European languages and then move to the uses of "aorist" in non-Indo-European languages. --Taivo (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tavio here, he has got it just right imo mark nutley (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Such peacemaking and such lengthy and eloquent argumentation are why we value arguments, not votes. I congratulate Taivo on the learned support of the editor who believes that the Greeks had no democracys [sic] Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not require eloquence to agree with a person, just a simple statement of fact. And not all the greek city states were democracies as was pointed out to you several times on that article talk page, of course you did the same there as you are doing here. Again, do not comment on me it does not help in bringing the article forward mark nutley (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an extraordinarily bad idea to bring an unrelated article into this. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist is also used in Iroquoian grammar and in Ewe and in Berber languages.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the outline, as long as we don't bizarrely try separating the "linguistics" from the body of a linguistic topic.

IMO, we should have separate sections on languages and language families where the term 'aorist' is the norm, and leave Turkish, Ewe and other languages with only occasional use (such as Spanish!) for the 'other languages' section. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this last; if you know of any others where aorist is normal, please add them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ancient Greek perfect and pluperfect

I'm going to ask a question that may be irrelevant to this page: how would a linguist analyze the ancient Greek perfect and pluperfect tenses (or "tenses")? My grammar books describe the perfect tense (e.g. πεπαίδευκα, 'I have educated') as having present time and completed aspect, and the pluperfect tense (e.g. ἐπεπαιδεύκη, 'I had educated') as having past time, completed aspect. This article (currently) describes the aorist as expressing a perfective aspect, and that article says that the perfective expresses completion. Perfect (grammar) doesn't help me much; is it the case that perfective and perfect are considered different aspects, or what? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(added some extra after ec) Perfect and perfective are different things, but, unfortunately, with names that are too close for comfort. Neither are tenses. Perfect and pluperfect mark an event as occurring in relation to another event rather than in relation to time (which is what tense marks). Most linguists comfortably call them aspects, but there are some linguists who tend to treat them as a third category instead of tense or aspect. Perfects say that something happens before another action. Thus, a perfect is "I have eaten already, so I don't want to go to lunch"--the main action is "I don't want" and the eating of the perfect happened before that. A pluperfect is similar, but the main action is in the past--"I had eaten already, so I didn't want to go to lunch". The future perfect is the same, but the main action is in the future--"I will have eaten already, so I won't want to go to lunch". This is often described as "a past action that has present consequences". That's a traditional way of talking about certain inferential presents. Thus, a person might say "I have eaten" using a perfect. The inference is therefore "I'm not hungry" even though that might not be part of the sentence. Therefore the description of the perfect as something that happens before something else is still valid. The connection between perfect and perfective (completive) is not always there, so that a perfect doesn't always refer to a completed or perfective action, thus, "I have been eating, so I'm not hungry", for example, where the perfect is actually combined with an imperfective rather than a perfective. Hope this helps. --Taivo (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, they are different things. Perfective (PFV) is a prototypical aspect: it's a POV of the action as a whole, without internal detail. A perfect is quite different. Comrie only covers it in his Aspect because there isn't anyplace better to cover it, but it isn't purely aspectual, and it isn't completive either [as in Taivo's example]. Assuming Greek perfects are like perfects in other languages, which I believe they are, they involve both tense (position in time) and aspect (how one views time): present perfect (your 'perfect') is a prior event with continued relevance in the present; past perfect ('pluperfect') is a prior event with continued relevance at some time in the past. That's why it makes no sense to say something like "I've lost my wallet yesterday". A PFV has no such implication of continued relevance; "I lost (PFV) my wallet yesterday" isn't just acceptable, but the normal way of saying it in a language with a PFV.

I believe the reason the words are so confusingly similar is that the two forms were conflated in Latin. You do see other terms; I've seen 'anterior' and 'retrospective' for perfect, though 'anterior' is more commonly used for relative past tense and so introduces a new set of confusions, and both are so uncommon that they aren't of much practical use. — kwami (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot share Kwami's belief that Greek perfect-stem forms are very "like perfects in other languages." The understanding of its time/aspect characteristics accepted universally among Classicists cannot be expressed through the English examples given as equivalents in these two responses. (Taivo doesn't mention Greek so is perhaps only intending to comment on the English perfect?) Wareh (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To footnote Wareh, I would point out the difference between the Latin and Greek perfect. (Not sure 'conflate' is the right way to think of this.) Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Perfects" are a universal linguistic category and therefore saying that Greek perfects aren't like anyone else's is a misstatement. The edges of usage of the perfect from language to language may be a little fuzzy, but the basic form itself (obviously not the physical form) is a universal of human language. So using English examples to illustrate what perfect means and applying that to what perfect means in Greek is neither unusual nor inappropriate. --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean to say that the perfect and pluperfect tenses would be used in ordinary Classical Greek discourse to convey the same meanings as English (plu)perfect, that is a serious misstatement. In fact, outside of fairly narrow circumstances, the aorist (our putative main subject here) would be used to express the time and aspect information contained in English (plu)perfects. The belief that the English/Greek "perfect" differ only "at the edges" would be an obstacle preventing effective understanding of Classical Greek authors in Greek. I do recognize the difference between linguistic categories and habits of usage/expression, but these incongruities are too pronounced in Classical Greek not to reflect consequential differences. I'll leave it for a "proper linguist" who also recognizes this interesting fact to determine the answer to Akhilleus' question and to consider how much the shared label is a case of confusing homonymy. Wareh (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the incivility about "proper linguist" aside, but you've fallen into the trap laid so many times by PMAnderson that "perfect" and "pluperfect" are "tenses". They are not. A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Broadman Press, 1934) states (concerning the perfect) (pg 357) that "It does fairly well if we do not think of time in connection with the tense...The completed state does not of itself have reference to present time." Robertson also states (pg. 893), "The aorist (punctiliar) represents an action as finished, the linear present as durative, but the perfect presents a completed state or condition. When the action was completed the perfect tense does not say." This is another way of describing the perfect as I did above, "A past action that has present consequences." Thus tetheamai (John 1:32) in the mouth of John the Baptist refers to the baptism of Jesus some weeks before, but he still has the vision. He (Robertson) draws the following to illustrate the perfect (•-----)--a completed act that "continues into the time of speaking". He has written a couple dozen pages on the meaning and uses of the perfect, but all have the same implication--a completed act that has current consequences or effect. This is exactly what I said above--that a sentence such as "I have eaten" implies, even if not overtly stated, "I am not hungry now"; just as "I had eaten" implies "I was not hungry at the point of time specified in the context". --Taivo (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I now know what it's like to go through the looking-glass: PMA needs lessons in vocabulary-building, and Wareh The Notorious C.O.O.L. is rude. Such hurdles of communication are unlikely to be overcome. I find this ironic regarding an article on language. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what I wrote is consistent with the important difference being mainly aspectual. I am only replying to say that you may have misunderstood the plain meaning of "proper linguist": it was to disclaim that status for myself. If you wish to find an uncivil insult (which I don't think would be very WP:AGF), please find it in "who also [i.e. in addition to the undisputed virtue of being a proper linguist] recognizes this interesting fact." I do think there are important facts about the Greek perfect, which are both relevant to Akhilleus' question and ignored by the responses preceding mine. (Alternatively, perhaps you find incivility in the mere fact that I used quotation marks; this was to distance myself from the authority to confer this label on another person: the quotations mean, in the sense others have been applying the notion here, while I am presently doing my best to avoid pretending to judge its application to them. But punctuation seems slender grounds for announcing your judicious decision to set my incivility aside.)

I would be happy to speak more privately to anyone wishing to discuss the Greek perfect; this isn't feeling like the place for any more contributions from me. Wareh (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wareh, I must apologize for reading your comment as an incivility directed at me. With PMAnderson throwing personal insults around like candy at a Christmas party, my skin gets a little thin here. I understand now what you meant by "proper linguist" and I should have assumed good faith on your part. --Taivo (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the difference between the Greek and the English perfects is that the present relevance expressed by the Greek must be related to the meaning of the verb — thus the implication of the Greek perfect "I have eaten" would be "something is eaten up" rather than "I am full", because "to become full" is not the meaning of the word "to eat". I have not read this anywhere, so it may be totally wrong, but this does seem to describe the examples of perfect verbs in Smyth. — Eru·tuon 15:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be an interesting difference. (BTW, "something is eaten up" could be the relevant factor in English too, given the proper context.) Grammatical categories differ from language to language; this is true for tense, number, case, gender, any number of things. What I described above is a fairly typical perfect, but many languages don't have such a category, and others may have something that is only marginally a perfect. — kwami (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Perfects" are a universal linguistic category and therefore saying that Greek perfects aren't like anyone else's is a misstatement. That's Taivo's metaphysics, not mine. We are not here to engage in a priori reasoning - that's synthesis, unless it is consensus of the sources. Here it is not - or the sources would not spend so long explaining the very real differences between the Greek and the English perfects.
• The feigned(?) inability to understand that "pluperfect tense" means the portion of the conjugation of παιδεύω that contains ἐπεπαιδεύκη, is a refusal to communicate. Is this were merely a lack of fluency without the crutch of a sesquipedalian jargon? or is it an insistence on a private understanding not shared with the reader? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Taivo’s apology, but this aspect of our misunderstanding is no big deal to me in the first place; I explained at length only because I didn't want the assumption that I meant to belittle him to stand unquestioned. Certainly, the lecture about how I had "fallen into the same trap," etc., was more offensive to me and damning of him than the incivility-praeteritio. I would like to imagine a world in which his reply had begun: "I'd have said perfect and pluperfect stems rather than repeating Akhilleus' traditionally correct terminology, but let me address your substantive point."

Nothing I wrote is subject to correction by quoting Robertson. I understand what he's talking about well enough. I would differ only slightly with Taivo's formulation about the perfect -- "the present consequences of a past action" probably gets it better than "a past action that has present consequences." My whole point was that the applicability of such a formula in common to a Greek perfect and to "I have eaten" masks the fact that in Ancient Greek the perfect is not, in fact, used in the majority of cases that are expressed by the English perfect. This is substantive and worth replying to: it is interesting linguistic data! Anyone who has read a page of Greek narrative knows that understanding it with any expertise at all forces you to contemplate these categories (and their limitations) seriously. Anyone who thinks the usage of imperfect and aorist in Greek is a neat equivalent to e.g. Russian читал and почитал is presumably only at the beginning of their love affair with the Greek language.

There are multiple ways to resolve the incongruity, and competent linguists have gone down different paths. There is truth in at least two answers. (1) There are real differences between the aspectotemporal categories of English and Greek perfect. Greek reserves usage of the perfect to different situations because it has a different meaning. This is an acceptable hypothesis as long as one does not mistake useful aspectual categories for Platonic Forms. (2) On the other hand, one can argue that it is more a case of a different pattern of usage: Greek uses its imperfect and perfect forms differently because its speakers and writers are in the habit of conceiving and expressing the same thing in truly different terms. There's some obvious truth to that too. The point is, there really is a frontier of understanding involved here, and we will botch the article if we believe these questions are easily settled: books like Rijksbaron's are useful precisely because the cumulative and ongoing attempts to justify any rational framework explaining the usage phenomena have failed to achieve perfectly satisfactory results. Wareh (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sample

But I repeat the sample text as a sample of prose style, avoiding sending readers to other articles to look up polysyllables:

In telling a story, the narrative aorist is used for undivided events, such as the individual steps in a continuous process; the past-within-past aorist is used for events which took place before the story itself.

Continuous and individual should not be too uncommon for an encyclopedia, but if they can conveniently replaced, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This level of detail is inappropriate for this overview article. It is better served at Aorist (Ancient Greek), where fine details of Greek grammar can be discussed. --Taivo (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A paragraph in this style would cover the syntax of the Greek aorist in its entirety. This does abstract from detail, which would include such matters as the temporal aorist ("For ten years, the Greeks besieged Troy"). To say less is to say nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that we must first wrestle with the lead before getting into the details of each subsection. Without a solid definition of what this article is about in the first paragraph, we can wrangle for a week on each sentence in subsequent sections, but still have to rewrite it based on a possibly differing vision in the first paragraph. I'm satisfied to let a couple of days go by to allow other editors the chance to engage in the issue without you, me and Kwami getting into it again. The three of us do not own this article or this talk page. I again suggest that the three of us watch silently for a couple of days to let others express themselves. And I do mean silently, whether you have a supporting comment or correction or not. --Taivo (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The stylistic question remains. The major objection to the lead before protection was that it was unintelligible to readers and editors alike; see #Plain English above for a start to this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of term

Are there sources on why the Greeks used the term aóristos for the aorist? The introductory paragraph before protection stated that it meant that the aorist was undefined as to time (past or present) or result (unlike the perfect tenses). Smyth states something similar to the latter: "the aorist does not show the limitation of continuance (expressed by the imperfect) or of completion with a permanent result (expressed by the perfect)."[1] So, according to Smyth, the aorist is named because of its aspect, not because of its time. But other sources may say that time is involved too. — Eru·tuon 15:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comrie suggests that the Greek aorist is primarily an aspect, but is in the indicative mood a tense (in the sense referring to time).^[1] That's probably an oversimplification: aorist participles, for example, sometimes have a temporal implication too.

1 Bernard Comrie, Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems, Cambridge University Press, 1976, ISBN 0521290457, p 12: "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." -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Protected II

I have reverted to a version by Radagast from mid august before this debacle began. You should ALL start taking on a completely different attitutde to cooperation, seek mediation or simply leave the article as it was. I am not going to unprotect before you have taken steps to solve rather than escalate this conflict.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That will be satisfactory. It is clearer and less inaccurate than the text of a hour ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Finding a consensus -- (Not for Kwami, Taivo, and PMAnderson)

Does anyone besides Sep, Taivo, and myself have a problem with the article as it was here, prior to protection? (Sep, let's leave space for someone else to talk here.) Are there any factual claims in dispute? Are there any opinions that are distorted, or marginal views given undue weight? — kwami (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm mystified as to why this article has turned into such a battleground. I'd like to make three points.

• Readers first. I'm convinced that the solution is to think about who's most likely to be coming to the article and what they might be looking for, especially in the introductory section. If the first paragraph is unhelpful or opaque with jargon, people won't read on. Professional linguists or grad students are not going to be coming to Wikipedia to learn about the aorist; the article is most likely to attract language learners, either in an introductory course or self-taught, including seminarians with little or no background in linguistics preparing themselves for New Testament studies, Latin students moving on to Greek, and those studying modern Bulgarian, or amateur scholars scratching around in Indo-European stuff. If editors really care about the article rather than "winning," they'll focus on helping readers.
• You're all smart people. Using civility tactics is really beneath the editors taking a lead role here. He who is without sin should cast the first stone. The leading players have all demonstrated their intellectual competence — a rare thing on a talk page this contested, where it usually becomes apparent that at least one faction is just pushing a POV without actually knowing what they're talking about. Here, there seems to be a genuine difference of approach between linguists and classicists. I'm skeptical of mediation because the topic is so technical. I don't think it can be ironed out by somebody who doesn't know even superficially what an aorist is. If there's a mediator who's a sane and gentle Indo-Europeanist with feet firmly on the ground and Sanskrit in the heart, maybe. Has anyone tried to recruit experienced editors who can represent an ecumenical approach to language conceptualization? (Calvert Watkins isn't a secret Wikipedia editor, is he?) And if such cavalry arrive, are the editors here going to start shooting at them as soon as they imagine they see their colors?
• The best articles are well-structured. One deficiency in the WP process is that there's no collaborative "pre-writing." In addition to the problem of an accessible lede, arriving at an outline would clarify how the article should be built. What should the subheads be? In what order? Alas, I've seen no evidence that a talk page can generate an outline. But it's only logical that the most deeply technical or theoretical material should come toward the bottom of the article, by which time the reader who's made it that far has been prepared to understand it.

Just observations from someone who's stopped by now and then in hope of progress. Anecdotally, I'd offer this: I studied several languages in college, but I didn't quite get what "aspect" meant until I had to grapple with the aorist in learning ancient Greek. It's possible or even likely that the readers coming here will be in a similar situation. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no great factual disagreements with the intro section before the reversion, but the language was overly wordy, and the purpose of the various paragraphs wasn't clear. Each paragraph seemed to be trying to explain several things at once. This is what we most need to fix. Creating an outline would help a great deal. — Eru·tuon 14:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The aorist is an aspect, it is only a tense (past) when translated to english. In Greek it has more to do with the authors view of events rather than the time. It is a shame to see one editor has created such havoc on this article mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Mark, I appreciate your willingness to help here but you're wrong about that, as shown by numerous comments from people who have studied ancient Greek such as Wareh, Akhilleus, and me, in addition to the person I think you're referring to. That's precisely one of the difficulties. Introductory grammar books call the aorist one of the seven Greek tenses, and that was part of my plea that the article's lede make sense to one of the significant groups of readers likely to come here. If you've studied a language where the aorist was treated strictly in terms of aspect, and never referred to as a tense or in regard to sequence of tense in indirect discourse, then fine; but that isn't the experience of everyone or even (it's my guess) most language learners.Cynwolfe (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, a basic introduction to Hellenistic Greek says exactly what i wrote above [2] so i am unsure were your coming from. Correct me if i`m wrong and the page linked to is also incorrect, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, you apparently didn't notice the first sentence of the page you linked to: "In this lesson you will learn the forms for what is traditionally called the Aorist Tense", nor the subsequent uses of "aorist tense." Also, when several editors indicate that in their language training the aorist is commonly called a tense, mere politeness, if nothing else, should make you give credence to that statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, of course i noticed that :), however under in Grammatical Discussion it says Aorist Aspect. Which is why i asked cynwolfe if the page was incorrect, which also if nothing else shows i give credence to what cynwolfe said mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Then apparently you've misunderstood what you've read, because that material says that the Greek aorist is traditionally called a tense, and the author of the page sometimes does so himself. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is moved from my talk page. It belongs here, and with my addition of a comment just now to the perfect/pluperfect discussion above, I have anyway interrupted my still-intended withdrawal from what has become a hopelessly unproductive discussion. The two comments should be read together, as they're largely on the same issues.

"Are there any factual claims in dispute?" Yes, that version of the article is an inaccurate and unsatisfying account in many ways ("The aorist is a perfective aspect" is not defensible with its context and antecedents; the erroneous footnote to p. 141 of Johanson's article both fails to support it, period, and fails to reflect that discussion's atmosphere of debate, not agreement, over the aorist's nature). So is the Maunus-restored version unsatisfactory, and, of course, so are many Wikipedia pages. I just don't see a path to improvement and nuance. I don't mean to belittle the efforts of contributors who have been working, but we are missing the kind of humility, respect, and trust that could possibly let us conserve what is of value in each other's understanding. The most competent linguists have well understood that Ancient Greek aspectotemporal phenomena are messy and even baffling; efforts to account for them properly are always going to be unsatisfying to everyone (and linguists who care about testing their theories against actual linguistic usage draw sobering lessons from this: as Aristotle says, "with a true view all the data harmonize, but with a false one the facts soon clash"). At the moment I am teaching a narrative author in Greek, whose wide use of the imperfect indicative to narrate the course of action violates on its face many rationalistic assumptions about aspectual categories. And yet, humble and careful work can partially satisfy us with hypotheses that conserve the value of aspectual definitions. I can easily (!) imagine a Wikipedia article on these aspectotemporal phenomena that did justice to the complexity of the subject -- we have plenty of other articles that cheerfully and neutrally canvass different definitions and explanations, and then add clarifying gems of subsections to present the best-informed approaches to the contradictions -- but it will not be cobbled together from linguistic scholarship findable in Google Books [edit: because those linguists are usually not pretending any expertise about Greek but are drawing from elsewhere for their own purposes]. Wareh (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked by Taivo and kwami to comment here again, I think — I followed the link, anyway. I don't really have more to say, except this: I think the page should be reopened for editing immediately. It's been my experience with "hot" talk pages that they never cool down till fresh editors come in and start editing the actual article. I wouldn't have left notices asking for help (with the blessing of all!) if I'd realized the article was actually locked down — this seems an extreme measure, since wrongful content on the aorist is unlikely to spark a libel suit or threaten national security. Defcon 3 is probably sufficient, and the agreement by PMA, kwami, and Taivo to go on a little R&R, where they will sip mojitos and contemplate the aoristic sunset under the palm trees. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I protected the page to stop disruptive editwarring including movewarring and no discussion on the talk page - not because the state of the page was a liability to wikipedia. I will unprotect it when there is a consensus to do so - but in that case I will likely put some editors under a 0R restriction, unless they can convince me that they will refrain from that kind of behaviour. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses by PMAnderson, Kwami, and Taivo to above comments from others

The above section was intended to be a section free from the comments of PMAnderson, Kwamikagami, and Taivo. I've moved a comment by PMAnderson out of the above section to here to respect that section's freedom from us. --Taivo (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified Cynwolfe, Wareh, Amphitrioniades and Akhilleus - all of whom have found it at least obscure - or are you hoping they will miss this notice? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As well as those of the other POV--Erutuon and MarkNutley. --Taivo (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(A response to Cynwolfe above) This same edit I've linked to above shows why this article is a battleground: two editors who believe with great fervor that the aorist is an aspect and not a tense and assert at a moment's notice that anybody who reminds them that aorists in actual languages are more complicated than that doesn't understand the fundamental linguistics of the situation. This prevents us from mentioning the traditional and established meaning of "tense" in speaking of Greek and Sanskrit (and - apparently - Bulgarian), but that could be cleared up with a note or a paragraph on terminology.

More seriously, it has caused them to misread, misrepresent, and malign any source which tells them it's more complicated than that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Sep. Do you think people won't read our comments? Of course it's more complicated than that. Who even said otherwise? No-one has denied that the aorist is aspect and tense in many languages; that's been in the article for years, and not been removed by either Taivo or me. The only question is whether it was like that in Ancient Greek. Some authors (such as Comrie) say it was, but many others say it wasn't, and the aorist was purely aspectual. What we object to has always been misleadingly calling it a tense, when even many of the scholars that use that traditional wording acknowledge that it wasn't a tense. No-one has ever said the traditional terminology can't appear in the article, only that we be clear what we mean by "tense" when we use it. When we link to grammatical tense, and go on to use the word "tense", we should use it in the sense of grammatical tense. When we explain that the word "tense" has a different meaning in the tradition of some languages, we could use that meaning there, though IMO in our own text we should use terms like "stem" that aren't likely to confuse the reader with conflicting definitions. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There you go again, PMAnderson, you blame everyone but yourself for the problems. Without your edit warring over your single-minded and inflexible POV, this article would have been fixed and finished long ago. But Kwami and I are taking a break and letting others reply. You said above that you would do the same if either this article or you were blocked. Why don't you take advantage of the situation and let others play for a day or two? --Taivo (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course; I was responsible for Radagast's RFC and notification on the 28th, and Wareh's comment, and Taivo's abuse, on the 30th. Telepathy, clearly, since I did not begin to comment until the 31st.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I was only making an assumption on Kwami's part. I do not speak for him directly. But since you are not going to quit for a day, then I won't either. You quit for a day and let others comment as they will (without your commentary), and I will, too. --Taivo (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens. If Kwami comments, I will not feel bound; and I object to - and will restore - any refactoring of the note on the Hellenistic aorist above. Other than that, my goal has always been to let those who produced the present quite reasonable text continue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because it's essential to assume bad faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with you, even if you're the only one displaying it by pushing you POV in the space reserved for others' comments. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Response to Marknutley above) Hellenistic Greek has a markedly different grammar than Classical Greek; but you misread the passage. "aorist forms like those in the example above imply that the speaker or writer conceives of the action as a completed whole or wishes to present it as such." That is quite true; the words I have emphasised are a defining phrase. Aorist forms used like those in the example, as a narrative aorist, have that aspect; but there are a dozen other uses of the aorist as well - some have that aspect, some don't; at least half of them are still attested in Hellenistic (or Koine) Greek.

But what Cynwolfe is trying to explain is a difference in terminology between the two disciplines. The Greek perfect (almost?) always has a perfect aspect; but the traditional and established terminology in classics speaks both of the aorist tense and of the perfect tense - because there is no other term for that part of the conjugation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are other terms. "Aorist stem" covers the conjugation, "aorist aspect" covers the grammatical category. "Aorist tense" is ambiguous, as it's sometimes one, sometimes the other, besides being widely acknowledged as not being a tense. You know this, as sources with such wording have been pointed out to you several times. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither will do: Stem is a different division; the perfect stem (and the present stem) generate two tenses (of the seven); conversely some verbs, like baino, have aorists (one tense) from two different stems. The assertion that "aorist aspect" covers the category is a point of view; we require, therefore, a term for the morphological entity to make the assertion that "the tenses of Greek [aorist, perfect, pluperfect...] differ in aspect" falsifiable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That, at least, is a rational reason for the wording. But if that is your objection, how do you make the assertion that "the tenses of Greek [aorist, perfect, pluperfect...] differ in tense" falsifiable? And what makes Greek problematic, when there's no such problem discussing the tense-aspect forms of other languages? — kwami (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

By disambiguating "tense", since it is clear that the morphological sense and the recent theoretical sense are distinct; how one disambiguates is a matter of context

Greek is not the only language that is problematic; "tense" is used in the traditional, morphological, sense for most IE languages. The problem can be evaded in analytic languages by beating around the bush with "functions of the auxilliary verbs", but that is only good writing if you're paid by the word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can avoid the problem of tense by disambiguating "tense", why can't we avoid the problem of aspect by disambiguating "aspect"?

Yes, the word "tense" does have that traditional use in many IE languages, including English, but it's not a problem when describing them. We certainly don't need to call the progressive aspect a "tense" just because many of our English grammar books did so when we were in school; we simply note that it's the case and move on. — kwami (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As best as I can make out through the pseudo-algebraic mud, that is not a tense, in the morphological sense; it is - and certainly ought to be - a feature of several tenses; and as such it is welcome to a name of its very own. But stepping aside from this: a claim that a system designed for a synthetic language does not fit English well is a poor argument against using it for the languages for which it was designed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep bringing up "not fitting English" as if that were some kind of argument. Who and what are you arguing against? English is irrelevant: it doesn't have an aorist or any kind of perfective, so of course none of this will fit English.

And again, there is no such thing as a "morphological tense", or if there is, I've never heard of it. Could you provide a ref that explains what a morphological tense is? — kwami (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That section is not for the three of us, PMAnderson. That's precisely why it was set up--to keep the three of us out of it so that we can see what others have to say. Please respect that section or else it will turn into just another Kwami-Taivo-PMAnderson discussion. We're not welcome there. If you have comments, then please post them here. --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was asked to weigh in on the aspect/tense question. I'm not a linguist nor an expert in any way. I read articles that have to do with language learning and with Modern Greek (by itself or in the context of the Balkan language group), and any opinions I have are based on that. The term aorist as I have seen it used, when used by itself generally refers to the perfective past = "simple past". So English speakers often treat it as a synonym for "the past tense", even though English itself has more than one past tense and so even applied to English, aorist as a synonym generally for "the past tense" would be a bit ambiguous. When used as a modifier it usually represents the aspect (how a person views an action or series of actions, as completed or ongoing from their viewpoint, etc). So there is the "aorist stem" which is the stem used to form the perfective future, the perfective past and the perfective imperative in Greek; here aorist is used to denote aspect and not tense. This reflects common Modern Greek usage: the αόριστος is th e perfective past but the αοριστικό θέμα is the stem used for the various perfective forms. (Heh, I'm reading the dictionary defn at ΛΚΝ for the word right now: here's the translation. "tense of the verb which denotes that what the verb signifies happened in the past." :-D ) It's probably worth explaining the common use, the technically and linguistically accurate use, and then moving on. There are a pile of references around this fairly difficult and annoying issue, if someone wants pointers and they haven't been sent around already in an earlier discussion, drop a note my way and I'll dig some of them up. Good luck, -- ArielGlenn (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

fresh voices

Would it be OK if I took the following steps in an attempt to get some more perspectives? (Just want to make sure I'm not violating some kind of WP rules that say editors are only allowed to stumble into a topic by accident or something.) I'd like to post a notice on the following pages saying "Interested editors are asked to help in any way they can at the article Aorist":

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages seeking input;
• Talk:Sanskrit, specifying that the Sanskrit section is underdeveloped;
• Talk:Proto-Indo-European language, specifying that the Indo-European overview needs help;
• Talk:Bulgarian language, same.

Also, if I notice an active editor with an interest in IE or Sanskrit, is it OK to leave a note on the individual's talk page saying "I noticed your interest in IE/Sanskrit; would you be interested in contributing to the article Aorist"? I've already left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#RfC: Aorist, since a section already existed. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections and there are no Wikipedia rules against asking other interested parties to join. There are problems if a vote is being taken, but that isn't the case here. --Taivo (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no guideline against it, and it is probably a good idea :) mark nutley (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

These are good ideas, and it might also help to contact User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and User:Dbachmann directly. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Have left a note for these two, and am in the process of posting to the various article talk pages. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please also post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it, thanks. --Taivo (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask User:G Purevdorj directly as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Canvass covers all requests for comments - not just votes. Cynwolfe's proposal, however, is exactly the sort of thing it encourages: limited, addressed to a neutral audience, and public. The more the merrier - and we could use a Sanskritist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's an objection or not, esp. given that above you wanted to make sure that we canvassed. — kwami (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No objection. What part of "there is a guideline and it encourages things like this proposal" did you fail to understand? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have omitted Talk:Ancient Greek above; have posted there too. I'll look at the proposed outline to see what other talk pages might be watched by editors who could help. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:CGR, although this may not produce any new voices. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

I haven't got much time at the moment, but I would suggest first resolving the question of what this article is about, given the existence of the more general article Perfective aspect. In the past, this article has focussed on the ancient languages Greek and Sanskrit, and used terminology that students of those languages would recognise, leaving modern languages and terminology for Perfective aspect. I still think that's a good idea. Readers first. — Radagast , — (continues after insertion below.)

I agree. As part of the single paragraph on the Greek aorist: "In telling a story, the narrative aorist is used for undivided events, such as the individual steps in a continuous process; the past-within-past aorist is used for events which took place before the story itself." If people want to add, say, the temporal aorist to that, we have the subarticle and footnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, some references from the saved version at User:Radagast3/Aorist may be useful. There is also some material on Sanskrit there which I think is uncontroversial, though simplistic. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be an edit from August 30. Some of the references - and no change of text - can be included by changing the protected text to this version of the 27th. Shall we {{editprotected}}? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we shall not. Not until a consensus has been reached here on a more general version of how the article will look. Without a general agreement, I object to any nickel and diming of edits into the protected article as it stands right now. --Taivo (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't reformat my edits without asking. Do read WP:REFORMAT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I will give you this opportunity to reformat it yourself, then. Otherwise I will again move the comment. Breaking up another editor's post with your own comment is rude and leads to unreadability. Other editors do not do it. You don't have special permission to do it either. And you need to actually read WP:REFORMAT. It says it's not allowed to edit or delete another's contributions or move them to change the meaning. Indeed, placing your own comment in the middle of Radagast's comment is your own violation of WP:REFORMAT. --Taivo (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No. It is Taivo - and his invented rules where one may post and where one may not - which have twice now changed the meaning of my post by disjoining it from what it replies to. Citation please; some prefer to have answers point by point; some prefer to have them at the end. If Radagast said which he would prefer, I would certainly yield; but for all I know he resembles me in preferring point by point, especially when they are unrelated points in separate paragraphs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :Heading added for REASON by Taivo (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC) below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add — USER NAME OR IP , — (continues after insertion below.) before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption." from WP:REFORMAT. Radagast's post was not, in any way, shape, or form, a "long contribution", therefore it does not fall within the purview of this exception to editing another's posts. --Taivo (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Breaking up another's posts inhibits readability and can change the meaning of their post, especially if there is a flow to their argument. It also strands attribution away from the content by inserting another signature line between the early text and the original author's signature line. Please respect the integrity of other editors' posts. --Taivo (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Radagast brought up two disjoint topics, I have added the recommended template - a sound idea. If Taivo cares to discuss substance, he is welcome to do so; the topic of readable English should occupy enough space to drown even this spasm of -er- officiousness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To return to substance: I am not smuggling in any text; the proposed change consisted of two entire footnotes, which Radagast commends to our attention. Were Taivo prepared to be reasonable about this, I might listen to his demands on format with more attention - or, indeed, conversely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Maunus selected a version of the article before the dispute began. Until we have general agreement and consensus on what this article will look like, no addition to the text is appropriate, no matter how innocuous PMAnderson claims it is. I don't happen to trust his claims of harmlessness. --Taivo (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you bothered to look at the diff? Don't just assume bad faith, check it out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It could contain the most wonderful wording in the world, but the point of freezing the article at a point before the conflict began is to allow us time to evaluate the article as a whole, get to a general consensus about the role of the article and where it should go, and only then to begin the work of a paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite with consensus. This should not be nickel and dimed to death so that Sentence A doesn't necessarily match Sentence B or Sentence R. --Taivo (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I see Taivo didn't bother to look at the diff. They're footnotes; they contain citations and nothing else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

comment by Dbachmann

I don't quite have the patience to figure out what happened here in detail. But you have clearly fallen into a terminological pitfall. Its origin is the real-life terminological mess in linguistics.

Aorist is, of course, first and foremost a category in Greek grammar. I see this is now treated at Aorist (Ancient Greek). Now the Greek grammatical category of course has properties that are formal and properties that are semantic. The mess begins here. In Indo-European linguistics, people jump on forms in other languages that are related in form, but not necessarily in meaning, and call them "aorist" (because they learned Greek first and Sanskrit later). On the other hand, I presume "aoristic" came to be a term in theoretical linguistics, used completely detached from the history of Indo-European grammatical categories. The "Indo-European aorist", finally, is whatever form both the Greek and the Vedic forms descended from, even if it turns out that the PIE "aorist" wasn't the slightest bit "aoristic".

What you need to do is, you need an article on Aorist (Ancient Greek). If somebody wants to discuss the Vedic Aorist, they should do so at Vedic Sanskrit, or eventually in a separate Vedic aorist article.

The history of the Indo-European category should be discussed in an article on Indo-European historical linguistics, titled Aorist (Indo-European linguistics).

I think the problems arose because people kept mixing up references talking in an Indo-Europeanist, a Greek and (possibly, not my field of expertise) a theoretical linguistics perspective. Of course, all authors will take their current scope for granted and just say "aorist". Combining these references to "aorist", you end up with complete confusion. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken (I take this page only in measured doses), a similar plan wrecked on the unlikely shoals of disambiguation, redirects, and ownership of the plain article title "Aorist." A truce would seem to require all parties surrendering claim to "Aorist," which would then be the disambiguation page to which each of the specific pages such as "Aorist (linguistics)" and "Aorist (ancient Greek)" would point with a note at the top. All arrangements would no doubt collapse if this battle were merely continued on two fronts. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how any concept of aorist would not be linguistics, so I don't see how (linguistics) would be a dab. — kwami (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

then you probably don't understand that "linguistics" is a wide field of incommensurable sub-discipines that use one and the same term in completely different meanings. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a;sp a misunderstanding of our system of disambiguation. An article on the aorist in a single language or family would never be dabbed Aorist (linguistics), which lacks precision; such a title must be, therefore, on the linguistic theory of the aorist, not confined to a single language or family of languages.

And if there are multiple claimants to a title, the only reason in our title convention to give it to one of the articles is that an large majority of all readers will want that one - and even that may be overridden. Otherwise you inconvenience many readers to serve others - which is not a service to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

so, in my considered opinion, Aorist should become a disambiguation page. Aorist (linguistics) should probably just redirect to that disambiguation page, because as kwami says, it isn't very good as a disambiguating title. Whatever an "aorist" is in this or that theory of general linguistics must first be established, and then be disambiguated with something like "theoretical linguistics", "general linguistics" or similar. --dab (𒁳) 16:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead first?

If Taivo and Kwami are silent, I intend to join them; so let me set out this section for the discussion of method. Experience seems to show that trying to do the lead first is more controversial - especially on this subject, which can be defined at least three ways without really changing the body of material to be covered.

So, should we do the lead first, or should we build up the article and do the lead as a summary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, PMAnderson, but I don't think you should be dictating the direction of discussion while we're taking a break. Let the other editors decide what they want to talk about and where they want to go. You're not the only experienced editor out there. --Taivo (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say lead last. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit protection

I wouldn't have wasted my time posting notices asking for input if I'd realized interested parties wouldn't be able to edit. There may be people willing to work with content who don't want to throw themselves into the muck of this talk page, because the discussion here is clearly a waste of time. Any sane person will look at this and flee. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make a copy of what you consider the best version of the article in a sandbox, and let people edit that? — kwami (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Where to next?

What is this article about?

• Is it about the perfective aspect in languages generally?
• Is it about the aorist in Greek and Sanskrit?
• Is it about the aorist in Greek only?
• Is it about something else?

-- Radagast3 (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can get anywhere on this article unless that question is resolved.

I'd also appreciate feedback on whether the version at User:Radagast3/Aorist is a step forward or a step back. It reflects a point in time in the middle of vigorous discussion, and so contains material that is probably contentious. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

On the first issue: this article should not be about the perfective aspect, because it already has an article. It would be sensible to have it be about the uses of the aorist in most Indo-European languages, because Greek and Sanskrit and Old Church Slavonic illuminate each other, if describely clearly and accurately. Again, we already have an article for Greek - although I don't really see that a merger would unduly lengthen this article. But neither is written yet.

I assume that the article in Radagasts sandbox is a copy of a version here. Which one? Diffs would be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a slightly edited version of a version in the history. I'm not sure which one. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected

As suggested by Cynwolfe I have unprotected the page now that lvl of contention seems to have cooled off a bit. This, however, means that at the smallest sign of funny business I will begin by handing out sanctions and edit restrictions such as topic bans or revert restrictions. Please continue to discuss AND build consensus (yes folks that means making compromises).·Maunus·ƛ· 23:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that means that contentious edits should be discussed here first. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We could link in the page history to what each of us views as the best version of the article so far. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I note that the "disputed" tag is back; it might be helpful if kwami provides a concise description of what his problem is -- the reams of discussion above are impossible for new editors to wade through. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I presume Radagast doesn't dispute this text, since he wrote it. I do not dispute it, although it unquestionably needs work; the only real quibble I see is that it should have the one edit on which Taivo and I collaborated: the lead should say that the aorist "is often [or often has] an aspect". No-one else seems to raise serious issues - although it would be nice if Wareh would work this over.

Therefore, pending the statement of actual issues, the tag is not yet justified - and in general, I must agree with dab's claim that linguistics is a wide field of incommensurable sub-discipines that use one and the same term in completely different meanings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The disputed tag doesn't hurt for now, but see my comments below. --Taivo (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the tag because the last good version of the article was reverted. I dispute most points where the two articles differ other than clarity of wording and sourcing. I added some 'dubious' tags to clarify some of the problematic claims. — kwami (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the Proto-Indo-European and Bulgarian Sections from the Last Version before Protection

Can we restore the Proto-Indo-European and Bulgarian Sections from the last version of the article prior to it being reverted and protected?  I don't want to get into a sentence-by-sentence analysis of what to restore in the controversial sections (I objected to that previously and still do), but these are two entire sections that were written after the restored version and were non-controversial as I recall.  If there are objections, I will understand and will not push the issue further than this request.  --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support a next stage of the article which retained the existing "Usage in Greek" and "Usage in Sanskrit" sections unchanged; added additional "Usage in X" sections, including the previous Bulgarian and PIE sections, as long as no unsourced material is added; and rewrote the lead to summarise the different uses listed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

From discussion above, rewriting the lead is too controversial at this stage. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And it's certainly a bad idea to make changes to the sections mired in controversy. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The only hope to avoid chaos with this article is to discuss changes on this talk page, and make changes which have general agreement; then discuss the next change. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Radagast, but neither the Bulgarian nor the Indo-European sections were/are controversial, you think it's a good idea to restore them, and they are properly sourced.  I don't get why you now object to their restoration ????  --Taivo (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What I agreed to was the insertion of some uncontroversial material, as long as it was properly sourced; what I objected to was a series of wide-ranging changes to the entire article. Perhaps any future inserts/changes should be indicated here on the talk page. Also consensus should involve all interested editors, not just you and me. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What was controversial?  The two sections were uncontroversial and properly sourced, exactly what you agreed to.  If "consensus" is your only objection, then just state that without adding additional comments that are not accurate.  This process is going to be difficult enough without unnecessarily expanding your objections.  --Taivo (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What you actually did was an insertion, but also some heading changes, a rewrite of the current history section, a dubious alternate version of the morphology section, and some material on Ancient Greek (included in the "Proto-Indo-European" section) which relates directly to the largest topic of dispute. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change anything except insert the two sections from the last version before the mass revert to late August.  I changed the two headers for Greek and Sanskrit to match the headers in the insertion (but could have changed the headers on the insertion as well to include "Usage").  The history section was a carbon copy of the first two paragraphs of the Indo-European section (indeed, the Indo-European section was originally created by relabeling the history section and adding some more).  Nothing was "deleted" at all except the duplicate history section.  I didn't touch the morphology section at all.  --Taivo (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to object to the Proto-Indo-European section only, can we repost the Slavic/Bulgarian section without controversy?  --Taivo (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, obviously my initial "go for it" was based on a misunderstanding of what you intended to do; your Indo-European section is certainly controversial as far as I'm concerned (as one of several issues: why did you feel a new version of the table in "morphology" was needed?). I would also suggest that (1) we take things a little slowly, getting consensus as we go (I have no problem with the "Slavic" section, for example, and we could probably have locked that in and moved on, if that was the only change), and (2) suggest that we agree on tackling one issue at a time. I don't think anyone wants to repeat the previous trajectory that led to article protection.

We could probably have succeeded with a phased introduction of material from you that other editors could either agree with or negotiate changes on. However, the current rash of dubious tags have muddied the waters a little, and I think we either have to address those first, or else revert them and put them on hold for later. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying I reworked or put in a new version of the morphology table.  I didn't touch anything in the morphology table, I simply inserted the Indo-European section as it was.  If you want to go slow, that's fine, but please don't say I did something when I didn't (and I've told you already exactly what I did, nothing more, nothing less).  --Taivo (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what I meant: by this version the morphology table had been replaced by a new table (I do not know by whom), and it was essentially that new table which you were inserting. As part of wanting to go slow, I was hoping to postpone the debate about the relative merits of the two tables. I apologise for any unintended implication that you were acting in bad faith; I suspect you were unaware of the controversies associated with that table. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one guilty of having changed the table. But the change was not to replace it with something new, but just to make the presentation better and add some examples. I thought the old table was clunky, but maybe I was wrong. — Eru·tuon 14:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In Berber, is aorist generally used for aspectually neutral, as opposed to either PFV or IPFV? Or is it like the Greek system, with perfect called 'perfective'? Or is 'aorist' maybe 'non-indicative'? 

The ELL, BTW, under Chuvash, puts the Turkish "aorist" in scare quotes. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious tags

Kwami has inserted a large number of "dubious" tags, including on table entries, but it is not clear what specific issues these tags relate to. I think we deserve a clear explanation. Some of the tags are attached to the description "pure and simple" (originally used by Antoine Meillet); that description is sourced. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

They've been covered above, which is why all of those points had been reworded. For example, the aorist does not refer to an action "pure and simple"; that is a gross simplification that's been debunked with other, more nuanced, sources. The wording is also so vapid as to be almost meaningless. (I suppose it's not a bad characterization of the perfective, but our readers are highly unlikely to get any such understanding out of it.) The last paragraph of the lede apparently refers to the indicative, but our sources disagree as to whether this is the case for Ancient Greek or not. In cases where the aorist is PST.PFV, it's just the 'aorist', not necessarily the 'aorist tense'. I also tagged calling the aorist, perfect, etc. 'tenses' without explaining that 'tense' does not mean 'grammatical tense', but only indicative mood. (Or maybe not even that.) — kwami (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that Meillet's phrase "pure and simple" is "vapid" or "debunked." As I said, it's sourced. I note that you have a problem with all uses of the word "tense"; I don't think every use needs to be tagged to make that point. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already removed the tags.

Sure, it's sourced, but that doesn't mean it's useful. Meillet wrote in French, where he could use the historical French PST.PFV to illustrate his point. Without that example, the words "pure and simple" are close to meaningless. (It's possible that it's a good generalization for Ancient Greek, combining PST.PFV and gnomic, but it isn't a good generalization for the aorist overall.) We also hint that the aorist lacks aspect, which is incorrect. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm only using the "pure and simple" phrase to refer to ancient Greek; that's all that the cited source (a Greek text) supports. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Greek section, we're back to mischaracterizing the aspectual part as 'completed' and that of the imperfective as repeated or continuous. 'Present (continuous)' likewise: that's only there because some source equated the Greek present with the English present continuous, but as Sep points out, we shouldn't be trying to fit Greek into English. The perfect is not 'about the past'; it's just as much about the present. The aorist indicative is also not in general about the past. The imperfective imperative is just that, not 'present imperative': after all, isn't the aorist imperative just as much a 'present'? — kwami (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"In the Greek indicative mood, the aorist generally refers to a past action, in a general way or as a completed event." -- this can be sourced to Beetham, p. 116. This relates to how the aorist indicative is used when it is used to talk about the past. The phrase "Present (continuous)" is there because one of the sources was essentially pointing out that the Greek present carries the imperfective aspect (it was not "trying to fit Greek into English"). That is also true morphologically. In particular, there is no present form of the aorist indicative. The aorist indicative is generally' used to refer to the past (as Comrie says), even though there are gnomic uses. The term present imperative is a standard term in Greek grammar for what you might call the imperfective imperative. More broadly, the focus of the table is on how the different aspects are used, that is, on how implications differ with aspect. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Beetham greatly simplifies things. Many of our other sources are more nuanced.

Yes, that was trying to fit it into English. "Imperfective" cannot be accurately substituted with "continuous"; the only reason for doing so would be because English has a continuous.

I'm fine with keeping the traditional Greek terminology. However, it should be followed in parentheses with more accurate terminology, given how these terms are used elsewhere. For example, while the "present imperative" is an imperative, it clearly isn't present tense (as our examples illustrate, the difference between 'present imperative' and 'aorist imperative' is not present vs past, or present vs. some other non-present), so we should clarify that. IMO, the table does not do a good job at all of illustrating how the aspects are used; it's main purpose seems to be laying out the traditional terminology. — kwami (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we've established that you disagree with most textbooks on Greek; but I think we've also established that there is no consensus supporting your replacement of the traditional terminology by neologisms, no matter how logical those neologisms might be. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we've established that most everyone here does support that, if by "neologism" you mean general linguistic terminology, which many of our classicist texts acknowledge as being more accurate ("actually, the aorist tense is not a tense" etc) even as they continue to use the traditional terminology. Again, this article is not about a particular tradition of Greek scholarship, but about the concept of the "aorist" in general. In general, we use "tense" to mean grammatical tense, not verbal stem or paradigm, and "present" to mean present tense, not imperfective aspect. If you wish to diverge from normal linguistic terminology as used in every other article, you will need consensus for that, or accept permanent "dubious" and "POV" tags on every other line. — kwami (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to remove any unexplained tags -- do people agree? More seriously: do we put these tags on hold and discuss Taivo's proposals, or are these tags the #1 issue? -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The tags are are for errors which have been corrected in previous versions of this article. But yes, I think we should discuss Taivo's proposals, vis-à-vis his last edit prior to the revert. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that all your tags relate to one main issue (which I don't agree is an "error"). Would you agree to removing those tags for now, noting that the tag at the top of the article relates to concerns you have about the article as a whole, and for our initial focus being the insertion of uncontroversial material on other languages? I would agree to inserting Taivo's Slavic section, for example. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, though it should be clear from what I just said that there are multiple problems, and we should be able to fix it up fairly quickly. Many of the corrections were not controversial, and can probably be restored without much fuss. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How's that? I left one tag for the mischaracterization of the aspectual meaning (that it's 'general or completed') and removed contested wording from the table, where it didn't add anything, since those issues are or will be covered in the text. (I think we've agreed, for example, that the imperfective imperative is not present tense, that there are both present and past perfects, that 'aorist tense' and 'aorist indicative' are synonyms (apart from Sep, who says it's something else again, which also contradicts the table), etc. The 'pure and simple' pap can be replaced when we agree on a clearer conceptualization. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I consider all those edits controversial; please let's discuss them first ("present imperative" is standard terminology, for example; "pure and simple" is a sourced statement going back to Meillet; and the Greek perfect indicative is primarily a past tense with present implications -- there are not "both present and past perfects"). However, I hope we can all agree on Taivo's Slavic section. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I had to fix that Slavic section by inserting the ref from Comrie p 12, copying from a past version. However, I did not copy the quote about Greek, since (1) it's not relevant, and (2) kwami claims I've misquoted it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should reword that accusation. It's not misquoted in the literal sense of not being the words he used, but it's taken out of context in a way that makes it misleading.

IMO, Slavic should come after Sanskrit, as it had. Also, we have that claim that there's doubt that the aorist in Bulgarian is PFV, simply because you can have IPFV aorists. AFAIK, that's an objection that was once raised but has since then been adequately addressed by other scholars, so there would seem to be a WP:WEIGHT problem. That is, while it would be appropriate in a longer section that goes into the Bulgarian aorist in detail, it's misleading in such a brief section. (Taivo's probably the best one to address this.) — kwami (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Can't we even agree on THAT? Maybe you and Taivo should debate the wording of the Slavic section before anything else happens. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposing the section, just pointing out what I see as a shortcoming. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Vision and Overview

There are several competing issues here and I'll address them in some sort of order. DBachmann has addressed some of these already, and there are many points of agreement. I'm going to sign each subsection below, so that comments can be interleaved. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for setting this up; it makes things much easier than trying to answer it all at the end. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist versus Linguistics

This shouldn't even be an issue. Linguistics is the science that subsumes all aspects of language--teaching, learning, use, description. Pedagogy is not a separate field, but a subfield of linguistic science. Look at the article on Gold, for example. The first sentence of that article isn't about alchemy or jewelry-making, both of which are older pursuits than chemistry; the first sentence is about chemistry. Yes, the other two older meanings of gold are in the lead paragraph, but the first sentence is the science and the majority of the first paragraph is about science, not alchemy or pedagogy or jewelry making or currency. The lead paragraph integrates scientific accuracy with historical and practical applications. That's what our lead paragraph should look like. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, Taivo, I don't agree that 'pedagogy' is a subfield of linguistic science. I would bet my car that the vast majority of Latin teachers have either never taken a linguistics course, or only taken one introductory course. Many classicists even at the doctoral level will not have had a formal course in linguistics, and will have learned or studied as part of other coursework applied linguistics in areas such as morphology and phonology rather than theoretical linguistics. I believe we have located an important cause for the mystifying conflict here: if you believe this to be true, then it will probably be hard for you to imagine yourself approaching the topic from the other side. Language instruction even for the "dead languages" of ancient Greek and Latin, you may be surprised to learn, spends very little time on formal linguistics, because the emphasis is on learning to read literary texts. I believe Wareh has expressed this very well, but from another angle, more than once above. Language learning is primarily about reading and understanding sentences in context, not mere decipherment. The study of literature and of texts as cultural documents is not at all a science, but an art that draws on various sciences, only one of which is linguistics; for instance, it could be argued that in comparison to theoretical linguistics epigraphy or paleography is a more or equally important scientific discipline in the study of ancient Greek. Some mutual interdisciplinary respect is in order here. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You might be surprised to learn, Cynwolfe, how much linguistics that language teachers in college are required to learn now. Depending on the age of your own teachers, that might not have been true when they went to school, but it is a growing requirement, not just a minor inconvenience. And many of the professors of language at university level have strong linguistic backgrounds. Even now, I'm on the tenure committee for a professor of Arabic who publishes in linguistics journals regularly. And that applies to classicists as well as those who teach living languages. At my own university, the Latin and Greek professors have taken multiple linguistics courses. Just as teachers of chemistry are required to take courses in chemistry, so teachers of language are being required to take courses in linguistics. Linguistics is the fundamental science behind language description and language teaching. Language pedagogy is, indeed, a subfield of linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course linguistics bears on the study of language. My point was mutual respect, which I don't seem to have elicited. By 'language learners' and 'Latin teachers,' I meant students at the beginning and intermediate level and their instruction, not the training of professional classicists, which is not properly referred to as pedagogy. Professionals don't use WP as a source. That isn't WP's purpose. Again I would point out that you can't read and understand the Homeric epics if you've only studied Greek from the perspective of linguistics. Language is contextual, and this has been a sticking point about discussing the aorist as it's actually used for expressive purposes. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, linguistics doesn't just "bear on the study of language", it is the study of language and all subdisciplines of linguistics are worthy of respect, including language pedagogy. "Pedagogy" is the art of teaching, so it is, indeed, the proper term for language instruction. And, yes, you can read Homer even if your Greek training has included a large dose of linguistic accuracy either from linguists who specialize in Greek or Greek teachers who have a good dose of linguistics in their pedagogical training. You seem to imply that linguists don't know languages and can't teach languages. It is also not the case that Wikipedia should only be written for freshmen in college. Our readership includes all types of specialists in addition to the beginners. I look up things in Wikipedia all the time in fields outside my specialty and I expect scientific or historical accuracy in every article I access. If I have encountered a technical term in my reading, I expect to see it used in the appropriate place so that I can gain a proper understanding of it. --Taivo (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Linguists don't know languages and can't teach languages." Of course this is not true as a general statement. On the other hand—and I don't mean it polemically—this is surely true of many of the linguistic scientists who have been cited on the subject of the Ancient Greek aorist, in particular relation to the Ancient Greek language. Why on earth would we believe that their mention of Ancient Greek in works of general purport suggests their ever having received "a large dose of linguistic accuracy" on the subject? Wareh (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since there are several current meaning of "aorist". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not really irrelevant since however we end up describing aorist, it needs to be linguistically accurate. While Galen might have said that certain illnesses are were "caused by evil humors in the ether", we would never say that in an encyclopedia text, we would, instead, couch it in modern medical terms, "caused by airborne pathogens". That's all we're required to do here for encyclopedic writing--couch possibly outdated terminology in modern accurate terms. Thus, as an example, in 1934 A.T. Robertson clearly described the aorist as an aspect, but he didn't have that term available to him, so he used the word "tense", while, at the same time, bemoaning his use of it as inappropriate. We can respect the pedagogical tradition that calls every verb paradigm a "tense", but we must still retain linguistic accuracy where necessary. There are different ways to do this, but as an encyclopedia we must not ignore the scientific discipline that underlies an article. --Taivo (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The claim here seems to be that specific terminology from comparative modern linguistics should be used; I'm not so sure. However, for the record, I agree with Comrie, quoted above: the aorist is in general an aspect, but the aorist indicative is a tense. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But the point that I make below is that this article isn't about Greek or any other specific language, but is a compendium of how the term "aorist" has been used in various languages, while directing the reader to Aorist (Ancient Greek) if he/she is only interested in the Greek aorist. As a compendium, it's important that we use accurate terminology where that accurate terminology applies. The lead of this article should not say that aorist is either tense or aspect because, depending the language involved, it might be either or both. Most of the time it seems to be used for an aspect in the various languages where the term is used, but sometimes it is used for past tense (see below). That's my only point here--that when there is an accurate linguistic term, it should be used in preference to outdated or inaccurate terminology. --Taivo (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is about what the consensus of editors says it should be about. Currently it is about the Aorist in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(It also includes a section on Proto-Indo-European and a nascent section on Bulgarian may still be there.) The other sections have not been written yet. Look at Cynwolfe's outline above. A consensus formed around that outline and found it a good one. (Ah, I just looked to see that the version that was saved was really an ancient one and didn't include the PIE an Bulgarian sections yet. Our last version before protection had PIE and Bulgarian sections.) --Taivo (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Radagast that Comrie is a good approximation, though his treatment is brief. Note however that he does not say that the aorist indicative is a tense! He says that it's a combination of tense and aspect; the aspect is perfective, and the tense only appears in the indicative, where it is (mostly) past. I've already corrected that misquotation more than once. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems we disagree on his exact wording. Maybe we can get an uninvolved editor to check. However, it is beginning to seem less likely that Comrie can form the basis for consensus. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What Is Aorist?

"Aorist" is a term that comes out of Greek grammatical tradition, but has been co-opted for other language descriptions without necessarily matching the Greek meaning with the meaning in the other languages. Its use in each language's descriptive tradition varies. There is no standard, commonly used linguistic meaning for "aorist" outside its use in those languages which already have it in their terminological inventory. In other words, someone describing a language of New Guinea for the first time today would be highly unlikely to use "aorist" as a grammatical term in that description even if there were a verb form that happened to precisely match the meaning of "aorist" in some form of Greek or Sanskrit. That linguist would most likely use the term "perfective" rather than "aorist". --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

An argument for sticking with a restricted set of languages, where "aorist" is used consistently. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. The whole point is that "aorist" is not used consistently. This article is about the use of the term "aorist" wherever it is found in a grammatical tradition and describe it as it is found in that tradition. If it's a tense in Language X, then we describe its use as a tense in that section. If it's an aspect in Language Y, then we describe its use as an aspect in that section. --Taivo (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that you want to write a fundamentally different article from the one that's here, about a different (though closely related) topic. Perhaps you should write it in a sandbox, and we can then decide which article should be named what, and which one should be Aorist, and if Aorist should become a dab page. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not proposing a fundamentally different article. I'm proposing the article that Cynwolfe outlined above, and that most editors, including PMAnderson, seemed to like without any changes. I'm saying that the article Cynwolfe outlined is an overview of how the term "aorist" is used in different languages. It is not just a picture of Greek aorist and then the other uses as an afterthought. --Taivo (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with all the details of Cynwolfe's outline, but I would support a next stage of the article which:

• Changed its focus to be an overview of different linguistic phenomena called "aorist"
• Retained the existing "Usage in Greek" and "Usage in Sanskrit" sections unchanged (i.e. holding off on disputes that might still exist there)
• Added additional "Usage in X" sections (probably following Greek and Sanskrit), including a restoration of previous Bulgarian and PIE sections, as long as no unsourced material is added.
• Rewrote the lead (after addition of the other "Usage in X" sections) to summarise the different uses listed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

From discussion below, rewriting the lead is too controversial at this stage. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Our Previous Discussion Is Confused

Our previous attempts at discussion have gotten highly confused. One person would argue about "aorist" in Ancient Greek and cite a source in Koine Greek. Another person would argue that the other editor was wrong and cite a source in Late Classical Greek and say it applies to "Greek". Another person would dispute both of the previous two and say that "aorist" meant something entirely different in linguistics and cite a source from Homeric Greek. The discussion never became focused and thus was all over the place. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and most of it should be archived. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Greek" is not one language

Our written records of Greek span a period of 3500 years and have several clearly defined, identifiable levels. It's not at all surprising that the meaning and usage of a verb form changed over that span. To say that "Greek aorist meant X" categorically is false. We need to be more careful about the sources we use and about how we describe the changing meaning of aorist over that time span. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned about some blurring of distinctions in previous discussion, but sources on the aorist in Koine and Attic agree broadly on its meaning. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But our discussion cannot just focus on what it was in 600 BCE or in 100 CE. It must include an overview of the trajectory of aorist from Mycenean to Modern. The details belong in Aorist (Ancient Greek), but an overview of what aorist started out as (an aspect) and how it acquired tense and ended up where it is now in Modern (I don't know Modern, so I don't know what aorist is in the modern language). --Taivo (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, in Modern Greek the aorist is simply PST.PFV, as it is in Bulgarian and Georgian (and Spanish, for those who use the term). — kwami (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We have a specific article for "Ancient Greek" (that needs renaming, IMHO)

The fine-tuned details of the changes to the Greek aorist over time and the fine meanings and usages of the Greek aorist over that 3500-year trajectory need to be placed in Aorist (Ancient Greek). That article was misnamed "Ancient Greek" and should have been "Aorist (Greek)". With that name, all the periods of Greek history can be subsumed in one article. Someone looking for aorist in Koine Greek might not look at an article labelled "Ancient Greek" because that implies just the Classical period for most people. We also should include what has happened to aorist in Modern Greek in that article as well. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that article relates to this one. Perhaps we should resolve this article first. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This article includes, as one of its subsections, an overview of aorist through the history of Greek. That article (Aorist (Ancient Greek)) will include all the details of aorist in each of Greek's stages with lots of references and conflicting opinions covered. If all you are interested in are the details of Greek aorist, then that's the article to really focus on. If you're interested in the big picture of aorist, then this is the article for you. --Taivo (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That article is not endangered; this article should have three paragraphs on Greek (one covering morphology in ancient Greek; one covering ancient Greek syntax; one covering Demotic). That's a reasonable length for a section.

Why? Because four ages of Greek are involved: Epic, Attic, Koine, Demotic; but since Homer shares the syntax of Attic (and most of the morphology) and Koine shares the morphology of Attic (for the aorist) and most of the syntax, two paragraphs will cover three ages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What should be here?

This article should open with a statement that "aorist" is a label applied to a variety of verb forms in different languages that generally cover perfective aspect or past tense, but that it is not a clearly-defined linguistic label. Based on that definition, the article should proceed in the outline that Cynwolfe proposed above. This article is for aorist everywhere--whether used in Greek, Sanskrit, Turkish, etc. It should not be confined to just those languages where "aorist" is clearly used for an aspect and it should not focus on Greek (we have a separate article for that). It should discuss all the uses of the term "aorist" in whatever language they occur in, but clearly point the Greek student to the article on Aorist (Ancient Greek) (which, as I said above, should be renamed "Aorist (Greek)"). --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is what you want, then the result is a brief article saying that the term "aorist" is used in different ways. The bulk of the present article would then naturally become something like Aorist (Ancient) or Aorist (Greek and Sanskrit) (the natural home for shared material on morphology); or else be split into Aorist (Greek) (possibly to be merged with Aorist (Ancient Greek)) and Aorist (Sanskrit). -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The only language where "aorist" has been described in great detail and constitutes a major part of the verb paradigm is Greek. That's the only article you suggest which really deserves its own place (and already has). In the other languages, such as Sanskrit, aorist is not as extensive a system as it is in Greek. The details of all those other systems fit in a paragraph each. Only Greek deserves a separate treatment. And treating all the details of Greek here would overwhelm the coverage of the other languages and make for an unwieldy article. Better to separate out the discussion of one extensive system into its own article, then the other, less extensive systems are not lost. Put the elephant in a separate cage and all the little antelopes can share the other. --Taivo (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this also. It may be that the Sanskrit can be a section in Sanskrit, but that's not to be decided here.

The classicist's concern here is both that the article be generally intelligible - and it is greatly improved - and that the section on Greek not be in error - as it was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Is aorist a tense or aspect?

Based on the principles I've offered above, the answer is not a general one. Our previous discussion varied between talking about Classical Greek, about Sanskrit, about Koine Greek, about language pedagogy, about linguistic science, and it got us into trouble. We must be linguistically accurate while still tipping our hat to pedagogy in the introduction. The opening sentence should not state either aspect or tense because we're opening an article about the term "aorist" in whatever language it occurs in and whatever meaning it has. We must mention, politely, that "tense" is a term commonly used in pedagogical materials and older descriptive treatments of Greek, but that the more modern usage of verb forms that don't primarily refer to time is "aspect". In the opening section we must state that "aorist" often refers to perfective aspect, but in some languages it refers to past tense. In the section on Greek, the references are crystal clear that the earliest occurrences of aorist were almost exclusively perfective aspect, but that as the language developed through time, more tense functions were attached so that in the indicative it became as much tense as aspect, while retaining primarily aspect functions in the other moods. Further details are more relevant to the Aorist (Ancient Greek) article. Each of the other language subsections can, in a similar fashion, address the aspect/tense issue as appropriate to the descriptive tradition in that language. But since "aorist" is not a standard linguistic label, but is language-specific, we cannot just answer the question simply. But we cannot be driven primarily by the pedagogical tradition of a specific language. This is a linguistic issue in the end. So while we treat pedagogical issues politely, we clearly label them as pedagogical issues in the midst of a scientifically-based description. We must look at other articles like Gold, where the science and scientific terminology always underlies the other issues. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you here, either on what those sources said, or on how we should proceed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

However, if we can agree on the Comrie quote, one option is to put it in the lead, say that the term "aorist" originates with Greek, and point out that that "aorist" is used in some languages to refer to an aspect similar to the aorist aspect; in others to refer to a tense similar to the Classical/Koine Greek aorist indicative (i.e. a simple past tense); in others to refer to something with similar historical roots and morphology (as in Sanskrit); and in yet others to something unrelated. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with the Comrie quote, especially used in the lead. 1) The Comrie quote is overly broad and doesn't focus on any particular time period of Greek. The uses of the Greek aorist have changed over time. 2) Focusing overly much on Greek in the lead is not appropriate for this article, especially using a quote that seeks to nail down "aspect" and "tense". 3) As I recall, the Comrie quote is just a footnote. It's not appropriate to highlight a quote from a footnote. So the Comrie quote might (or might not) be a useful summary quotation in the Greek section, but to highlight it or make it the lynchpin of an argument in the overall lead is not appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Comrie quote, as I understand it, applies to Classical and Koine Greek. It was one option for structuring the lead: the term "aorist" originates in Greek, and many other uses are analogous to either the aspectual or the temporal use of Greek. However, your response indicates that we do not have sufficient consensus here to rewrite the lead without substantial talk-page discussion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Comrie quote is a footnote. We don't want to build an article hinged on a footnote. Have you examined the draft that G Purevdorj provided for a sample lead below? --Taivo (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I had been hoping that Comrie, as a source suggested by kwami, might get widespread agreement, but perhaps that was a false hope. As to the sample lead by G Purevdorj, I'm not sure it applies to the direction you want to take the article. Your suggested article could have two kinds of lead, summarised as:

(1) The term "aorist" is used in several languages with different and unrelated meanings; or

(2) The term "aorist" originates in Greek, and has been applied to a number of other languages in ways that are, to a greater or lesser extent, analogous to one or more of the Greek meanings.

Personally I think (2) is closer to the truth, but we probably need to hold off on the lead until we have more relevant sources. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think (2) is closer. I like Comrie, but (1) he isn't a specialist in Greek (though he is a specialist in aspect) and (2) he has been repeatedly misquoted to claim that the Greek aorist is a tense. It is never a tense; at most, it is a fusion of tense and aspect. (That's debatable re. ancient IE languages, but the normal use of the term for modern languages.) — kwami (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, G Purevdorj's version is very close to exactly where I think the article should go. It is a discussion of the fact that "aorist" is not really a universal linguistic term and has been used in different languages (starting with Greek) for different things that are often, but not necessarily, related to an aspect of Proto-Indo-European that is also called "aorist". --Taivo (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What should this article be called?

This article is the compendium of information about aorist in a multitude of languages. Since "aorist" is not a widely used or precisely defined linguistic term "Aorist (linguistics)" is not appropriate. This article is the overview so it should simply be "Aorist", as it is now. It is the overview of the term in general. --Taivo (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That does not mean, and usually does not mean, that it should have the unadorned title. The article on Macedonia in general is Macedonia (terminology); Macedonia is the dab page. The only reason recognized in policy to give an ambiguous name to one contender if it is the meaning that a large majority of readers will expect - there may be none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia is the dab page because that is the result of a vote conducted as part of ARBMAC2, not because that is the most logical structure. The voting was close with the second most voters preferring "Macedonia" as the country page. In the end, it works because there are multiple different uses of "Macedonia" including a country, a region, several historical periods, foods, and many cities in the U.S. It's a logical dab page because it leads to many different destinations. Here, there are only two destinations--this general page (which is more than a linguistic definition of aorist, but a survey of aorist cross-linguistically) and Aorist (Ancient Greek). A dab page for only two pages is rather a waste. Anyone going to Aorist (Ancient Greek), wanting the details of aorist in Greek is going to have to go through two pages whether Aorist is a dab page or not. This article is logically called simply Aorist because it is, basically, "everything about aorist except the details of Greek". --Taivo (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what possible objection there could be, apart from a POV attempt to marginalize linguistics in a linguistic article. This article is about the aorist, and there isn't any other use of the word, so it should be called "Aorist". Specialized subtopics, such as the aorist in Greek, aorist in PIE, etc., should also be called what they are. — kwami (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to marginalize linguistics in a linguistic article; therefore this is not a worry. It is possible to marginalize one school of linguistics in such an article; conversely it is possible - and all too easy - to overemphasize one school and its terminology. Doing either would be contrary to core policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)