lin SnezanaMilovanovic

GRAMMATICALIZATIONOF AKTIONSARTIN ANCIENT SLAVIC:

A ComparisonwithAspect inAncientGreek and Latin

by SnezanaMilovanovic

A thesis submitted 10 the SchoolofGraduate Studies in partialfulfilmentofthe requirements forthedegreeof

Doctorof Philosophy

Departmentoflinguistics MemorialUniversity ofNewfoundland

November 1995

St.John's Newfoundland

ABSTRACT

Thisthesisrepresentsa historical-comparativeanalystsof twomajor types of grammaticalaspect.The morphological means ofexpressing aspect in Ancient Greek and Latin,inheritedfromlate PIE,iscomparedwiththegmmmanca lizedAktionsart,i.e.

lexicalaspect. of AncientSlavic.The verb systemsof AncientGreek and Latinare analyzedwithreferenceto theoriginanddevelopmentof verb categoryfunctionsfrom late PIE. Grammatical aspectual functions,which are morphologicallyexpressed in AncientGreek and Latin, are contrasted withAktioosartor lexicalaspectualfunctions.

Interrelations between tense and aspect withinthe verb system establishedbythe Cognitive-Functional analysis represent a diagnosticcriterion in distinguishing grammaticalfromlexicalaspectualfunctions.

Theverb systemof AncientSlavicundergoesa majorchangeofgrammaticalizing Akdonsart.Oneof the majorgoalsof this thesisis 10determine the causal factorsfor thisrecategortzation of grammaticalaspectual function.Grarmnaticalization of Aktionsart alsocarries anumberofconsequencesforcertaingrammatical formationsofmodem Slavic languages10beexamined.

Thechoice of thesethreelanguages isrelated to amajortheme of thisthesis,i.e.

to represent two types of grammatical aspectual functionsand to explain grammalicalizationchangefrom morphological10lexical aspect. AncientGreek and

Latin are chosenas examplesof theoldIndo-Europeanlanguages that preserve late PIE morphologicalmeans ofexpressing aspect. Specifically.the verbsystem(IfAncient Greekresemblesthat of late PIE. whileLatin underwentmajorrestructuringoftheverb systemfrom a three-way 10 a two-way aspectual contrastamongverb categories.

Ancienl Slavicis chosento"exemplifyandexplaingrammaticalizalionof Aktionsartwhich represents a changefrom the inheritedto a new type of grammaticalaspect. Thechoice ofAncientSlavicis also relatedtotypologicalsimilarityofa three-wayaspcctualcontrast with thatin AncientGreek.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEME.'nS

This thesishasbeenwritten under the close supervisionofDr.VitBubenikand Dr.JohnHewsonofMemorial University ofNewfoundlandtowhom I owe special thanks for their invaluable helpand advice. Very usefulcomments on the LatinChapter from Dr.Philip Baldi ofthe Department of Classicsof PennState Universityare also greatlyappreciated. And finally,Iacknowledgethe financialassistanceof tbe School ofGraduateStudiesofMemorial UniversityofNewfoundlandthatmade completionof my course workand comprehensiveexaminationpossibleas well asthe doctoral fellowship (no.752-94-1010)from SocialSciences andHumanitiesResearchCouncil of Canada forusisting completionof thisthesis.

Thisthesisisdedicatedexclusivelytopeace: CONCORDIA ·ARA PACIS

iv

TABL EOFCOSTENTS

Page Abstract••. ...••.•...• . ....••.•...•. ...•.

Acknowledgements •.•.. ..•. .•. •.. ... .. .• ..• .. •... tv List of Tables. .... . . . ... . .. .. . ... ill List of Abbreviationsx•.••.• • .•.•...•• ••.•. •••..• iv Introduction••..• .•• ••. .••••••...•.•••...• .•..•.

PartI MorphologicalExpressionofAspect

1.0 ReviewofPreviousWork on Aspectand Tense..•... 10 1.1ReconstructionofAspectlTensein latePIE •.. . . .. 10 1.2Synchronicapproaches to Aspectffense•• . •.••..• . • 25 2.0 AspectandTense inAncientGreek •• •..•. •.•.•••.. • • 47

2.1 Verb categoriesin ClassicalandHomericGreek

withreferenceto theirorigin .•.•• • ••. ...•..• 47 2.1.1Aorist ••• • .•. .••.••••••.•..." •• 47 2.1.1.1ThematicAorist. ••• ..••• •••.•• 4S 2.1.1.2Athematic Aorist. . •. .••••••• •• 49 2.1.1.3SigmaricAorist•.••..•.•••.••• 49 2.1.2 SigmaticFuture ..•..••••..•. • ••.•• • 51 2.1.3Perfectand Pluperfect •. .•.•• .•.. . •. .. 55 2.1.4 Present andImperfect.. . . •• .. ...• .. 59 2.1.4.1Stemswithnasal suffix . .••. . 61 2.1.4.2Stems with the -jk- suffix ... . 63 2.2Aktionsartpreverbs• •. ... . .•. .•.• •.•.•. ••.. 66

2.3 The verb system of ClassicalGreek• .•.•.•....•.. 76 2.4 Function and usage ofverbcategories in AncientGreek.. 101 2.4 .1Aorist ...•••..••.. • . .. . . . .. ..• 10 1 2.4.2Aorist/perfectiveparticiple. . ...•.. . . .... 106 2.4.3SigmaticFuture •. . .... . ....•.. . .. . . 108 2.4.4 Perfect . .. . . ... ...•... . .•. 110 2.4.j Pluperfect... . •...•. .. .. ..•.. •. lit 2.4.6Perfecr/stanveparticiple .. . .. . . . .• •.. .. 112 2.4.7Present.. ..• ... . ...•... . . .•. ... 113 2.4.8Imperfect ..••... .... .•.••.. .... .. 114 2.4.9Present/imperfectiveparticiple ..••. ... Il j 2.4.10Conclusions ... .,.... ... .. . .. ... 117 3.0 Aspectand Tense in ClassicalLatin ••.•....•... ..•..• tl9 3.1 Verb categoriesin Latin withreference totheir origin.. . 120 3.1 .1 Perfect... . . .. .. . ... .. 120 3.1.1.1 Perfect with thesigmatic marker .. .. 123 3.1.1 .2Reduplicated Perfect.•. . . •. . .... 12j 3.1.1.3 Root Perfect•.. .. .•. .... •. .•. 128 3.1.1.4 Perfect in-ul:/-vi: ..... . ..• ..• . 130 3.1.2 Imperfect .•. . . . .•. . .•.• •.. ..•..• . 134 3.1.3 Future. •.•... ...•.• ... •..•. 142 3.2 Aktionsart functions ...•... • . .• .... 147 3.2.1 Aktionsart classes..•. ....•. . . . .•.. .. 148 3.2.2 Aktionsart preverbs ..•. .... ..•..•.. •. 1jO 3.3 Grammatical aspectualcontrasts inClassical Latin .. ... 158 3.4 Function andusage of the verb categoriesin Latin. . . • . 166 3.4.1 Perfect... .... . ... . . . ... . . . ... . 167 3.4.2 Pluperfect •.•• •. ..•.•...•. .•. 175 3.4.3 Perfective participle. .•.•.•. ... ..•.. 179 3.4.4 Present..•.•• • •. .•.•.•. ..• . .•• •.• 181 3.45Imperfect ••... . •. . . . .•..•.•.. 182 3.4.6 Present/imperfectiveparticiple . . .•.•. . ••. 18j 3.4.1Future.•••. ... . ..••. •• •• •.••. 186 3.4.8Conclusions... . .,.. •.•.••••. . ..•. . 181

vi

PartII GrammaticalizedAktionsart 4.0 Aspect andTense in Ancient Slavic:

AktionsartGrammaticalization••• . .•.•.•...• 188

4.1AncientSlavic and Old ChurchSlavic .•... ... .. .. 188

4.2 Verbal systemdevelopment betweenlate PIE and AncientSlavic...•• • .. . ....• . . ••. . ... 192

4.3 RepresentationoftheAncient Slavic verbal system.. .. . 201

4.3.1 Grammaticalized Aktionsart...•• ... 201

4.3.2 FormationpatternsofthePresent, ImperfectandAorist... .. •... . .. 206

4.3.3Perfect... ... ..•. ...•• . . ... :31

4.3.4 Future .•... . . .... . .... ... ••. . . .• 235

4.4 AktionsartpreverbsinAncient Slavic...•... 236

4.5 Functionandusageof theverb categories in AncientSlavic... .. .... • •. .•...••.. . .. 246

4.5.1 Aorist .... •.. ... •... .... . . 248

4.5.2 Perfectiveparticiple. • . ....•...•... 252

4.5.3 .Future•. .• . .... ....• • •...••. . . .. 254

4.5.4 Perfect. .. ... ... .•. ..•... • .. 257

4.5.5Pluperfect.... ... . .•. .... ••.• . . . 259

4.5.6 Present... ... ... ... ... ... 259

4.5.7 Imperfect ••..•• •.. ...• ..••. .• •. 261

4.5 .8Imperfective/present participle 263 4.5.9 Conclusions.•• . .••.••.••••.• .•.••• 264

4.6Development ofaspecualcontrastsfrom Common toAncient Slavic•• . ..••••• •• . .. . .• 266

4.7 Derived orsecondary imperfectives .•. ....•...•• • 282

4.8Reconstructedfeatures ofthe verbsystem inCommonSlavic 292 5.0 Causesand Effects oftheAktionsart Grammaticalization...••• 300

5.1 Lexical factors-interactions oflexical aspect withthe inheritedgrammaticalcategories .. •...• •. 301

5.2 Grammatical factors •.•.. .•. . . • .••... .. .•. • 314

5.3 Effectsand accompany'ng processes.... .. .••..• • • 326

5.4 EffectsoftheAklionsart Grammaticalization ontheModem Slavicperfectconstructions. •. . . .•• 330

vii

6.0 Aktionsart Implica tions.•.•. .• • •....• •. ••. .•....• 352 6.1 Reflexesoftheverbcategoryfunctionsoflate PIE

inModemSlavic....• •.••.••.•• • •••.• • .. 352 6.2Functionofthesecondaryimperfectives •••••....•. 361 Conclusions .•...•.. .• . •••...•..•. ••• • . . . . •. 388

viii

Tabie ChapterI

Chapter2

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Aspect diagram forPIE..•. ••.•• •..•.•.. . .. 15 FundamentalaspectualcontrastsforI-E languages. . .. 11 Active andinactive classesinPIE. • .••...•. ~2 Opposition betweenthe present,aoristandperfectin Latin 24 Representation oftime .. ..•• .. .••...•. ..• • 25 Cognitiveviewsof eventtimerepresentedasaspectfunctions39

Sigmaticaorist.••••••••.• ••• • • •. .•• ••.. 50 Aorist in-I,-m. -r,and-n... ... . SO Denominative sigmatic aorist..•• •••••..• • • • • . 5 I Sigmaticfuture/root aorist .•.••.••• •.•••. ... 52 Futureand aorist formsbasedondifferentstems.•.•• 52 Archaic non-reduplicatedperfect •.•••• ••• .• • .• 56 Reduplicatedperfect inAncient Greek•.•• •.•...• 56 Perfectand sigmaticaoristin AncientGreek •. .. ..• 57 Stems in anasal

ix

61

10 II

12 13 14

15 16 Chapter 3

Aktionsan functionsexpressedbypreverbs., . Classical Greek verb system . Perfect and pluperfectinClassical Greek AncientGreek aspectsystem.•.

VerbcategoriesinAncientGreek, .•.•• . ..•. ... Merorropicand plerotropicstatesofevent time .. . . . Stoic representation oftheAncientGreekverbsyste m

67 tt 79 85 93

96 99

Classical latin verbsystem . . ....•..••... . ... 119 Perfect formswith the sigmaticmarker.••.•..•.. 124 Reduplicated perfect forms •.. ... . . .. • ., 126 Prefixed forms of the reduplicatedperfect... ..•. 121 Root perfectforms...•. •..•.. 129 Perfectformsbasedon the present Siems .... •... . 130

Perfectforms in-ui:•. •... ..•... .... .••... 131 Changeof the Latin verbsystem ...•. •• ... .... 132 Present and imperfect forms in ClassicalLatin...•.. 136 10 Present indicativeandsubjunctive stems

in the first two conjugations•..•. ..• .. . .•. ••• 144 II Present stems in a nasal••.• ••.• •• .••...•.•. 148 12 Verbs with the nasalin present stems,perfect

or passive participle.. ....•. ••..•.. ••. .•.. 149

13 Present stems in-se-•.... . .• ..• . •. ... . .. 149 Chapter 4

AncientSlavicverbsystem•...•... . 195

Aoristforms •.•.• . • ... 200

Verbswiththeinfinitive stemequalto the root 207 Verbs withthe infinitivestem withthe suffix-0- 208

Verbs with therootina vowel 209

Verbs with the present stem in-j efjo- .•.... •.. .. 210

10 11

Verbs with theinfinitive stemin-j- Verbswith theinfinitive stemin-e·

Verbswiththe athematicpresent .... • . •... . . . . Class 3.... . ... . . . ... .••.. Class4... .•.•...•.. ...•... . . ..

212 212 214 217 218 12 Verbs withthe aoristand imperfect based ontheinfinitive 221 13 Verbs withthe present, aorist and imperfect

based onthe root•.•. ... .. •.•...•... .. 222 14 ClassI, subgroup2•.•.. . .... •..• ..•..•. . 223 IS Three types of aorist. •... ... • • • .. ...•. 226

16 x-eortst••• •••• • •,••. 128

17 Aoristformsofjttj'to take' 229

18 Aorist forms withthe stemfinal consonant...•.•. . 230

19 20

21 22 23

2'

25 26 Chapter5

Perfect forms••. . ••.. . .. .... .• . . .•• . ... Participles.• ..•. .•. .. . . ... .. .. .. . . •.•• Simple Aktionsartpairs , ... .. . .. .•...

Semantic and morphological classes .... .•.. ..••

Parallelpreflxation•••••.• •.• •••••••••••••

Prefixationand derived imperfectiveforms .•.•..• • Serbo-Croatian prefixed vs,unprefixedaorist.. ...•. Imperfect formation .•. . . • •. . ..•... .•...

232 23' 268 271

273 287 292 296

Causes of the Aktionsartgrammaticalization ...•. . . 301 Present, imperfectand aorist of the nasal verbs. . . .. 309 Sigmaticaorist and imperfect ...• • .• .. .••. . . . 315 Pretixationand secondaryimperfective .. . .• • ... . 329 Periphrasticperfect in AncientSlavic•... ... 336 Past/perfectforms in Serbo-Croatian ••. .... •.... 341 Negatedpast/perfect forms in Serbo·Croatian• • •.•.. 342 Past tense in Russian •...• • . •..•. . .•..•..• 343 Modalconstructions in CroatianandSerbian ...•. . . 346 10 Future forms in Serbo-Croatian .. .••••... . . . .. 349 II Future formationswiththeclitic-likcauxiliary in Serbian 350 n Negatedfuture constructions inSerto-Crcatlan .•.. .. 350

xii

Chapter 6

AncientGreekverbsystem .

Latinverbsystem., , .

Ancient Slavicverbsystem .

Classtverbs

Class2verbs Class3verbs Class4verbs Class5verbs

Arpectualpairs in Serbo-Croatian .

xiii

.153 354

358 372 373 376 377 379 383

ABL ADS ACC ADV A.Gr.

AOO AQR PART AORINF A.SI.

AU.

AUG C1.Gr.

COMP CON}

OAT OAT ASS DET F FUT FUTPART FUTPERF GEN GENABS Hom.

I-E IMPERF IMPFV IMPFVPART INDET INF lon.-Att.

Lat.

LaW. Lith.

LOC

M

LISTOF ABBREVIATlOSS

ablativeabsolute accusative adverb AncientGreek aorist aoristparticiple aoristinfinitive AncientSlavic Atlie augment ClassicalGreek complementi zer conjunction dative dativeabsolute determinate feminine future future participle futureperfect genitive genitiveabsolute Homeric Indo-European imperfect imperfecti...e imperfective participles indeterminate infinitive lonic-Auic Latin Latvian Lithuanian Locative masculine

xlv

NEG NO M DeS Osc.-Umbr.

PART PASS AOR PASSFUT PERF PERFINF PERFPART PERF SUW PFV PFV PART PIE PL PLPF PLPFSUBJ PP PREP PRES PRES PART PR ET PRO REFL

RES

Russ . S.-Cr.

SECIMPF V

SG Skt.

SU BJ

negative nominative OldChurchSlavic Oscan-Umbrian participle passiveaorist passivefuture perfect perfectinfinitive perfect participle perfect subjunctive perfective perfectiveparticiple Proto-Indo-European plural pluperfect pluperfectsubjunctive pastparticiple preposition present present participle preterite reflexive pronoun resultatlve Russian Serbo-Croanan secondaryimperfective singular Sanskrit subjunctive

INT RODUCTI ON

This thesisrepresents a comprehensivestudyof aspectin threeIndo-Eur opean languages. AncientGreek.LatinandAncientSlavic. The verbcategoriesareanalyzed with respect to formationpatterns, grammaticalfunction and origi n. His to rical developmen tof theverbformsandsystems from the earlierunattes tedstagesis considered .i.e,late PIE for AncientGreek(sincethe AncientGreekverb system partially resembles that oflatePIE),Common ItalicforLatin.andCommonSlavicfor Ancient Slavic. Latin andAncientSlavicverbsystems changedtoa~rcaterextent.

Changes related10 the formal and functionaldev elopmentoftheverb catego riesfro mlaie PIEto LatinandAncient Slavicare alsoconsidered. Adetailedanalysisof theverbal system relates gram maticalfunctionsof aspect totensein all threelangu ages.Crucial to this thesisis therelation thatobtainsbetweenthe grammaticalfunctio nof aspect and Aktionsart,i.e.lexicalaspectuel function, VerbalAktionsartis exam inedas wellas possible repercussion s ofthelexical aspectual functions ongrammaticalas pectin all three languages.Themajor goalofthisthesi sis10examine the effect ofAktionsart.exp ressed bypreverbs anddifferentsemantic/morp hological classe s.on themorphosyntacticverbal functions of theaspectcategory. Amongthe examinedlanguage s onlyinAncientSlavic doesAktion sartbecome grammaucalizedwhe rebya directrelationsh ipbetweenthe Aktionsart andthe morphosyntactlc functionof the verbmaybeobserved.Theadverbial and preposlrlonalpreverbs aswell as differen tsemantic/morp hological classes have a

profound grammatical impact on the verb. They result in perfective aspecrual counterparts.

Aktionsart was already grammaticalized in Ancient Slavic where it co-existed with the aorist category. Ancient Slavic inherited from late PIE the aorist which generally expressed past complete events (cf. Ancient Greek and Vedic). The aorist could also explicitly denote perfectivity (see § 2.4.1 and § 4.5.1) depending on the context or the Aktionsart.Grammaticalized Aktionsart in Ancient Slavic always denotes perfectivity, regardless of different minute distinctions between various Aktionsart functions, as shown in § 4.4. Itwillbeshown that in comparison to Ancient Greek, where stgmatic stems denote perfective aspectbothin the past and non-pest, in both indicative andnon- indicative moods, Ancient Slavic retains sigmatic stems only in the past indicative. A new type of aspect expressed by the Aktionsart denoted perfective aspect in the past and non-past, as in the quasi-nominal forms, i.e. participles and infinitives (to be shown in Chapter 4). That is to say. in the earliest Old Church Slavic documents systematic expression of perfective aspect by the aorist stems within the verb system was abandoned. The subsequent effect of the Aktionsart gramrnaticalization on the development of morphosyntactic categories from Ancient Slavic to Modem Slavic is also examined.

Al!hough the emphasis of this thesis is on aspect. it is crucial to note that systemic aspectual functions may notbeeffectively analyzed without referring to tense. As a matter of fact. each verb form in the languages that are here examined is marked both

foraspect and tense.This raises a terminological problem in many workson tense and aspect. Most authors refer to thecategories.suchasaorist and imperfectin Ancient Greek.as "tenses"(seeChapter2,§2.3). Aorist andimperfect.aswillbeshown.are markedbothforaspectandtense.Both categoriesaremarked forpasttense,the former represents perfectiveaspect and thelatter imperfectiveaspect. In order to avoid terminologicalconfusion,aoristand imperfect areherereferred10notastenses butas

"verb categories "or"verb for ms".

Several methodsarecombined in analyzing verbcategories with respect(0

grammaticalaspectual functions.

(i) Linguisticanalysisofthesystemicgrammaticalfunctions relies onboththe Functional andCognitivetheoreticalframeworks.Thatis to say.grammaticalfunctions oftheverbcategories arealwaysconsideredwithintheverbsystem asa whole.where each aspectual category is relatedto anotheralso taking into account the tense distinctions. This thesis. however, doesnot adhereto anyparticular theoretical frame workthathasbeenproposed inthe past. Itsimply examines theverbsystemsin thethree mentionedlanguages and their changesincelatePIE. Systemicfunctionsof aspect and tense maybe referred10distinct cognilive pointsofview of the event time within the universetime(accordingto the psycho-mechanicaltradition followed by Guillaume (1929,1945/65)and Valin (1975),forexample).Thisapproach will prove tobeparticularly valua.bleinellplainingtherelationbetween perfectiveaspect and future time reference inAncientGreekand AncientSlavic(see§2.3 and 4.3.4).Asidefrom

the functional systemic analysis of the verbcategories,the main focus is placed on the grammaticalization of Aktionsart in Ancient Slavic.This type of change is examined in the light of functional and systemic relations of the verb categories. A considerable amount of space is devoted to the issue of causes and effects of this major grammaticalizing process. Effects of the Aktionsartgrammaticalizationare evidenced in contemporary Slavic languages, as discussed in § 5.4. Discussionof the verbsystems of Ancient Greek, latin and Ancient Slavic (including Aktionsart grammaticalization), takes into account reflexes of late PIEaspectfunctions. Reflexes of late PIEaspectual functions in ModemSlavicare considered in§6.1. Itisimportant to emphasize that this thesisis a historical study of aspectand thegrammaucalizationof aspect.

(ii)Systemic aspectual functions are based on the analysis of the original texts, i.e.Classical authors for Ancient Greek and Latin and translations oftheGreek ecclesiasticdocuments into AncientSlavic (Old Church Slavic).' Text analysis of the aspectcalfunctions is crucial in identifying the functional range of eachcategory and in relatingsystemic aspectual functions to the contextual functions. Grammatical and contextualaspecrual functions are exemplifiedby a number of passages or sentences for eachlanguage.Both grammatical.i.e.inherent,and contextual functions are discussed and the relevant verb forms are identified.' Ancient Greek and Latintexts are quoted

'See Chapter3 for terminologicalclarification.

'Due to thenumber andlength of passages from Classicaltexts, indispensablefor

the precise identification of grammatical and contextualfunctions, identification of each word will not be provided.

with their translationsfrom the Loeb editions; Ancient Slavictexts (referred to as Old Church Slavicin various editions)are translatedby me.

Ancien!Greektexts 8 BC

Homer. The Odyssey,The Loeb Classical Library. Edited by T.E.Page, with an English rranslation by A.T.Murray. 1945.Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.

8BC

Homer.The //iad,The Loeb ClassicalLibrary.Edited byT.E.Page, with an English translationby A. T.Murray. 1946.Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress. 5/4BC

Plato. Symposium ,Gorgias. The Loeb ClassicalLibrary.Edited by T. E.Page,with an English translationby W.R.M.lamb. 1953. london: WilliamHeinemann LTD.

5/4BC

Xenophon.ScriptaMinora.The Loeb ClassicalLibrary. Edited by T. E.Page. with an Englishtranslation by E.C.Marchant. 1956.London: William Heinemann LTD.

4BC

Aristotle.Eudemian Ethics.The Loeb Classical Library. Edited by T.E.Page.with an English translationby H.Rackham. 1961. London: William Heinemann LTD.

Latin texts 1BC

Caesar, Julius. 100 B.C.- 44 B.C. TIle CivilWar,BooksJ &tt. Edited with an Introduction, Translation&Commentary by LM.Carter.1991. Warminster,England:

Aris&Phillips Ltd.,Teddington House.

1BC

Cicero.De Natura Deorum, Academic a. The Loeb ClassicalLibrary.Edited by T.E.

Page,withan English translation by H.Rackham.1956.London:WilliamHeinemann Ltd.

Cicero. De Orasore,J,lJ.The Loeb ClassicalLibrary.Edited by T.E.Page, withan Englishtranslationby E.W.Sutton,completed, with an introduction,byH. Rackham.

1942. Cambridge,Massachusetts: HarvardUniversityPress.

4 AD'

TheScriptoresiiistotiaeAugiataeI.TheLoebClassical Library.EditedbyT.E.Page, withan English tran slation byDavidMagie. 195 3.London:WilliamHeinemann Ltd.

The ScriproresHtston aeAugusrueJII.TheLoebClassical Library. Editedby T.E.

Page,withan Englishtranslation byDavidMagie.J954.London:William Heinemann Ltd.

1 AD

Seneca. Ad Lucilium EpistutaeMoralesII.The Loeb ClassicalLibrary. Editedby T.

E.Page.E.Capps and W.H.D.Rouse.withanEnglish translationby RichardM.

Gummere. 1930. London: WilliamHeinemannLtd.

Seneca. Moral EssaysJI.TheLoeb ClassicalLibrary . Edited by E.H.Warmington, with an English translationbyJohnW.Basore. 1970 . London: William Heinemann Ltd.

312 Be

Plautus. Baccnides. Edited with translationand commentary by lohnBarsby,1986.

Warminster,England: Aris&Phillips Ltd .•TeddingtonHouse.

AncientSlavictexts 10111 AD

Jagtc .V.1879. Codex Zograpnens is. Quattuorevangeliorumcodex glagoliticusolim ZOgraphensis nunc Petropolitanus . Photomechanicreprint by the Akademische Druck -U.Verlagsanstal t,Grez.1954.

IIAD

Jagic,V. 1883. Codex Marianus.Pamjatnikiglagcliceskojpis'mennosti. Mariinskoe cervercevangelle.=Ouattuor Evangelioru m versionis palaeoslovenicae Codex Marianus. Photomechanic reprintby the AkademischeDruck -U.verlagsanstalt,Graz,1960.

'According to Grant (1980:40 3-4)HistoriaeAugusrae co ntains biographiesof Roman emperors and princesandisallegedly authored by Aelius Spartianus.Julius Capitolinus,vulcacius Gallicanus.AeliusLampridius,Trebelius Pollio,and Flavius vopiscus.Itis generallybelieved,however,thatthe uniformly writtencollection was composed by a singleanonymousauthor. Althoughsome biographies are dedicated to Diocletian(284-305)and ConstantineItheGreat(306- 37) , biographical evidencesuggests thatthe work was written at the end of 4lh century AD.

11 AD

Sever'janov,S. 1922. Psalterium Sinaiticum, Sinajskajapsaltyry. Petrograd.

Photographic reprint: Graz, 1954.

11 AD

Scepki n, vjacestev. 1903. Sam Evangelium, Savvina Kniga. Pamjamiki staroslavjanskagojazyka. Vol. I,fasc. 2. Izdanie otdelenija russkagojazykai stovescoseimpera!orskojakademiinauk. Reprint -Graz: Akademische Druck-U.

verfagsanstalt, 1959. IIAD

Sever'janov,S.1904 .CodexSuprasiiensis,SuprasaJ'skaja rukopis'. Saint Petersburg, lzdanie otdelenijarusskago jazykaislovesnosti irnperator skc] akademii nauk. Volt.

Reprin ted - AkademischeDruck-U.verlagsanstalt. Graz,1956.

Med ievalSerto-Croatiantexts 12- 19 century

Butler,Tho mas. 1980.MonumentaSeroocroanca: ABilingualAnthology of Serbian andCroatianTexts fromthe12th to the 19th Century. AnnArbo r ,Michigan:Michigan SlavicPublications.

Dictionarie s

Lewis, Charlton T.andShort, Charles. 1955 (first edition 1879).ALatinDictionary.

FoundedonAndrews 'editionofFreund' sLatinDictionary ,revi sed, enlarged, and in grea tpartrewri tten.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

OxfordLatinDictionary.1969.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liddell, Henry andScott,Robert. 1990 (firstpublishedin 1843). AGreek - English Lexicon. Revised andaugmentedthroughoutby Sir Henry Stuart Jones withassistance ofRoderickMcKenzie. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

SadnikL.and Aitzetmiiller R. 1955. Handwone roucnzu den Altkirchenslavischen Texu n.Carl Winter, Universitarsvertag: Heidelberg.

Lysaght T.A. 1978. Material towardstheCompilationofaConcise OldChurch Slavonic - EnglishDictionary. PriceMilburn : VictoriaUniversity Press.

(iii) Linguistic analyses ofAncient Greek,Latinand AncientSlavic are complementedbyme reconstructionof systemic functions at earlierunattestedstages and in late PIE. Reconstruction of the basic verbal system to show aspect andtense distinctions is carried out usingmecomparati....e and internalmethods.Inreconstructing CommonSlavic stages, thesetwo methods are supplemented by the assumption of typologicalfunctionalparallelsin AncientGreek.

(iv) Both synchronicanalyses and reconstructions of tlle systemicaspect/tense features are complementedby theliterature review. Various views by a number of linguistsandphilologistson theformationandfunction of the verb categories and their diachronicchangesare synthesizedaOOincorporated intothe synchronicanalysis and reconstructionsadoptedinthis thesis. Itis Important tonote,however,that Ihave not takenintoaccountall works onaspectwritten invarious theoretical frameworks. Only worksrelevanttothe subject ofthisthesis, i.e. historical studyofaspectinthe three mentioned languages and the grammaticalization ofAktionsart inAncientSlavicincluding discussion ofcausesand effects,arecited. Thehistorical nature ofthisstudy requires a thorough examinationof the works byclassical linguistsand philologists,Meillet, Emout ,Vaillant ,Chantraine,Kurylowicz,Szemerenyt. A numberof modemlinguists thathave wrieenon aspect and tenseare discussed in Chapter Iandthroughout the thesis, though by no meansall. A readerwho isinterestedin a discussionofvarious traditionsof studies ofaspect and tense ranging from Aristotle,Stoicsand Dionysiusto the modem wor ksof for mallogic should referto Binnick's(1991)Timeand Ihe Vub.

Material represented in this thesisis organizedinto 6 Chapters. The emphasisof this thesis is onthegrammaticalizationof Aktionsart.Theconsequences of thischangeon the verb categoriesinModem Slavic.and the reflexesof late PIEfunctionsinModem Slavic are examinedin separatechapters.Thethesisis dividedinto two parts,giventhe different natureof grammaticalaspectas examinedin the threelanguages.Thefirstpart, Morplwlo)tkulExpression 0/ Aspect,includestheChapterson AncientGreekandLatin;

thereconstructed late PIE verb systemis discussedin ChapterI (Reviewofthe!'reviolls Wnrk 011Tense "lid Aspect).Thesecondpart,Grammaticalued Aktlonsart,includes the Chapterson theAncientSlavic verb system, causes and effects of the Aktionsart gramrnaticafization,and Aktionsartimplications in Modern Slavic. Ancient Slavicis chosen just as an exampleofa language in which a systematicchange, i.e.

grammaticalizationof Aktionsart,occurs,' Thiswayof expressinggrammatical aspect iscontrasted with the morphological expressionof grammatical aspect in AncientGreek andLatinwhere Aktionsart does not pervadethe verb systemitself. AncientGreek is alsoa very useful language to examine,sinceitretains the basicaspecrualcontrastsof Late PIE.' Latin,on theotherhand, shows a consistent two-wayaspectuat comrasr, followingthemergerofthe late PIEaoristand perfect,as opposed toAncientGreek, Vedic andAncientSlavic which retain the inherited three-way espectualcontrast.

'Aktionsart is alsogrammaticalized in Iranian and OldGermaniclanguages.

'Exceptfor the aspectualfutureformation,see§2.1.2

PanI Morph ologkal ExpressionofAsperl

CHAPTER I

ReviewofthePreviousWorkon Aspect and Ten se

1.1 Reconstruc nouofASpC'(:IITenseilllatePIE

The subj ect of tenseandaspect hasbeenaddressedbothdiachronicallyand synchronicallyby manyauthors.Thischapterprovidesa reviewof anumberofworks dedicated to aspect, ten se andrelated issues. The firstpartof thischapterekposcs fundamentalideasrelated tothe reconstructionof tense and aspectinPIE and the diachronicchanges betweenPIE andthe languagesexaminedinthisthes is.Themost basicviews pertaining 10 thediachronic Issuesare followed by areviewofa numberof synchronic approaches to aspect and tense.

Reconstruction ofthePIEverbsystem hasbeencarriedoutby Meillet(1903167), Kury lowicz (1964)andSle merinyi(1970178). Mci11et (1903/67)proposesthatthe essential features ofthe Indo-Europeanverbalsystemare reflected inHomeric,Vedic and Avestan.Meillet uses the Ancie ntGreek modeltorepresent theIndo-European verb system. The oppositionswithin thereconstructed verbsystem are representedbythe three typesofstems.These so-called "temporal"stemsdo notexpresstense. In PIE tense is expressedbythe inflectionalendings and dialectallybythe augmen t,lUreflected

"

inseveral families oftheIndo-European phylum,such asHellenic. Indo-Iranian, Phrygian and Armenian. Thethreetypesofstems, i.e.present,aoristandperfect, expressaspectualdi ~ i nction s. Imperfective (so-calledpresent) stemsexpressaprocess indevelopment, aoriststemssimplyexpressanintegralprocess,andperfect stemsan accomplished precess. Thetraditionalterm"presenr",used forthepresenttenseform propertiipo:'Ileave'shouldnotbeconfusedwiththeterm"presemstem-which represents a denominatorofthe "system ofpresent"includingatttheformsbasedonthe

present stern,e.g.the pastfor mifti ponorthe subjunctivelelpo:which normally refers tothe future.

Accordi ngto Meillet(1903/67:196-7),threetypesofstems haveaspectuai function:present sterns expressa processindevelopmentwhichcouldberepresentedby aline.aoriststemsexpressasimple processwhichcouldberepresentedbya point, whilethe perfectstemsexpressan accomplished process. Hepointsau!thatmethree typesofstems found inAncientGreekreflectiheseI-E aspectualfunctions. Meilietdoes notshowhowthe aspectualfunctions are related to tense. InChapter2(§2.3),it will beshown that three typesofstemsin AncientGreekexpress these aspectualfunctions bothinthe pastand non-past. Present stemsinthenon-past areusedtoformthe present,inthe pasttheyformtheimperfect. Perfectstems inthenon-pastformthe present perfect,andthepluperfectin the past.Sigmaticaoriststems formthe future in

12

thenon-past and aorist inthe past.'The stgmattc future,however.isnol recon structed forlate PIE, indicatingthat thefuture and aorist were not aspectuall yrelated as in Ancient Greek.' Symmetrical aspectuajrelationsbetweenthesternsinthe non-pastand pastwere firmlyestablishedonly in AncientGreek.'

Representing "a pureand simple precess"(Ieprocespur et simple,Melllet 1903J67:~.49)theaorist oftenexpressesandeLasa whole.It mayalsoexpressa general factwhichmaybe infinitelyrepeated,theso-called gnomicaorist. Meillet,however.

does not assumea strongposition onthe exact functionof the reconstructed aoristbased on the non-unitaryevidence fromotherI· Elanguages.

~narmenien,Ie present indique un procesqui se developpe sansterme deflni (done constcere dans sondeveloppemenn:t'aoriste, Ie proces en tarnqu' Il abcutitAun termedelin i;la valeurdel'aoristearmenlenest sensiblementdifferent de celiedeJ'aoriste grec et reproduitpcut-etrc mieux l'etat lndo-earopeen. Malheureusement,la nuance de scns qui separe Iepresent de l'aoriste n'estpas claireen lndo-iranlen ,crla structure du slave ne se prete pas nonplusA une definition nette de ccue nuance (Meillet1903/67:250), 'In Armenian, thepresent denotesa developing processwithout a definiteterm (thereforeconsideredinits development);theaoristcenotes a processwitha definedend;the semantic value ofthe Armenianaoristis appreciably differentfromthat of theGreek aorist and may betterreflect theIndo-Europeanstate.

Unfortunately,thedifference of meaningwhich separates the presentfrom the aorist isnotclearin Indo-Iranian, and Slavicstructuredoesnot offer a clearer definitionofthatnuance'(translated by S.M.).

'Functional and formal relations ofthe aspcc:ualstemsintwo distincttenses will beexaminedin Chapter 2,

'Slgmatlc futureis not generally reconstructed,althoughthere is sufficient evidence representedbythreelanguage families,i.e.Hellenic , Indo-Iranianand Baltic.

'Tobeshownin Chapter 2

Il

He concludesthat whilethepresent stemsundoubtedlyexpressaprocessin development, the ao rist function maynot be preciselydefinedbasedonthe evidencefrom Indo- European languages.Itiseithera process that isdefinitelyaccomplishedora "pure and simple process". Heclaims that comparative evidence indicatestha i the aspectual oppositio n betweenthepresent and aorist ste rns was not aswelldefinedasin Ancient Greek.Thaiis to say, in Indo-Iranianand Slavicthedistinctionbetweenthepresentand the aorist isnot veryclear. Healso indicatesthat Hittitedoesnot have the aorist ca tegory.

Inreconstructing the PIEverbsystem,itisveryimportant 10 distinguish between the earlierand the later stagesofPIE. It isalsocrucialtocomparethestages of evolvinglanguagesof approximately iden ticalchro nological periods. Iwouldliketo emphasize thatthe evidence found in all I-Ela nguagesshouldnot be taken as re presentingthesame chronological level. Chronologicaland geographicaldistinctions should be takeninto account. Forexample,wehave to keep in mindthatHittitehad separated fromthe central phylumveryearly andwas geographicallymore distant than the other daughter languages.' Also,the earliestSlavicdocuments date onlyto the to/11th century A.D. We mi:.Jnot equallycompareall I-E languages in attemptinga reconstruc tion.Inthis thesis itwillbeshe wn that theinternal reconstructionof Ancient Slavicand the comparative reconstructionbasedon AncientGreek and VedicSanskrit showthat the Ancient Slavicverbal systemresembled the Hellenic-Aryan system.

"Thishas been challengedby Renfrew (1987) .

14

Therefore,the PIEaoristfunctionprobablyresembled that ofAncientGreek (see§2..&) andVedic,expressinginherentlya completepastevent.Itwillbeshownthaithe aorist mayalsoemphasizethe endoftheeventdependingon the Aktionsartandcontext.Relics ofthe PIEaoristfunclionarealso preservedinAncientSlavic.althoughthenewtypeof aspecrualmarkingbyAktionsartisintroduced.

Kurylowicz (1964:92)distinguishesthetypes of verbalsystems found inAncient Greek andAncientSlavic,ontheonehand. andinLatin.ontheotherhand. The AncientGreek and AncientSlavicverbalsystems,asshown below,representthebase for thereconstruction ofPIE.Kurylowlcz provides amodel whichexplainsa change fromone typeofsystemtoanother,namely the systemfoundinlatin.

Before proposingthe PIE modelwhich explains thefunctional mergersthattook place insomedaughterlanguages,Kurylowiczpresents thebasicconceptualissues related10tense andaspect. AccordingtoKurylowiczlheinterrelation betweentense and aspect categoriesisdeterminedbyrelatingthe momentofspeechtothe infiniteextension ofuniversetime. Amoment ofspeechisrepresentedby apoint whichjoinsthe past and future representedby-theinfinitelinear extensions"(Kurylowicz 1964:92).The verbal action which overlaps Ihispoint, i.e.the momentofspeech,isthepresentaction represented as a linear extension of themomentofspeech. Relativetotheextension of the pastand futureintoinfinity,the same actionis perceivedasapoint,i.e.apunctual action.Consequently,thepresent tense hasan imperfective aspectual function,while the pastandfuture have aprimary punctualorperfective aspectua!function.Torepresent

15

the imperfectiveespectcat functionsinthe pest andfuture,additionalimperfecnvizlng morphemes areused.

According to Kurytowicz(1964:98) the PIE verb systemwas dominatedby fundamcnta!aspecroat contrasts. ThereconstructedI-E verbsystemresemblesthatof AncientGreekandAncient Slavic.Intheverbalsystemsof Ancient Greek and Ancient Slavic,the basic aspectuetoppositionis betweenimperfectiveandperfective.As shown in thefollowing diagram.stateand indeterminat e.l.e.neutral aspect, occupy the inter mediate position between thetwo.

Table 1 Aspectdiagramfor riEl

inderermined(rt imperfective(8)

state(y)

perfective(/3)

Stale is representedbythe perfectcategory which is notused asoften as thepast perfect ive, Kurylowicz assignsan intermediatepositionto the state. Urepresentsa linearstate(tithne:ka'tam dead' ) relative 10 theperfective orpunctualaoris t(bha non 'I died ' ), AIthe same timeit represents the staleensuing the perfectiveorpunctual

'This type ofsystem ,proposedbyKurylo wicz,referstothe latePIEstages.

"Kury lowicz's term'fndetermlned'' refers to "inde terminate"aspect.Itwillbe show ninChapter 4(§4.6) lhalindeterminateaspect represen ts alexical aspectuel function andshouldnotbeequated withI~esystemic,or grammaticalaspectuaIfunc tions.

'6

action relative10 the linear present(hllOl/on'Idied'as opposed toupothnerska:"am dying') ,

Kurytowicz's modelpredicts thatunification of the indeter minate forms representedbyrand imperfectiveforms representedbyB wouldresult inan ambiguous formwiththe primaryindeterminate and secondaryimperfective function. In Ancient Slavicpile/IIhas theprimary meaning 'he is in the habit of writing,he can write'and the secondary imperfective function. In Indo-Iranian,Ancient Greekand Latin.these two functionswere not distinctin form in the historicalperiod.That is, imperfectivehad mergedwiththeindeterminatefunction. The neutralorindetermina te aspectcould be exemplifiedbyAncient Slavicxoditi,fltati,nositias opposed toimper fectiveiti,klt"i, nesti,Also unification of the aorist (perfective) represented bypandtheperfect (state) represented byVwouldresult ina form withthe primary perfectivefunctionandthe secondary state function,e.g.Polishprzysz.edlmeaning 'he came,hehas come' has the secondarystalefunction 'heis come,he is here'.

According toKurylowicz (1964:9:5-6) bothtypes ofmerger occurredinLatin, where thebinary oppositionobtainsbetweenB and{J representinganinnovato ry aspecruat distinction between simultaneityornon-antertority andanteriority. Anteriori tyis the relative aspectwhich shows reference of an action to a moment,eitheramo ment of speaking,or apast orfuture moment. The PIEperfectand aoristme rgedproducing a new "perfectum"category whichhas a primaryfunctionof amerio rttyand secondary functionof perfectivity. The Latinperfectumsen.psisfunctionsprimarily as anterio r

17

whenopposed tothe presentscri.bit and secondarilyas perfectivewhen opposed to the imperfectscri:behat.

Kurylowicz(1964:97)representsthe threetypes of aspect,l.e.imperfective, perfective, resultative(stative)in the followingdiagram.

Table2

Fundament al aspectua l contras tsforf-Elan guages

M 0 N

1 ···1··· ···1

Imperfective result (state) perfective

In AncientGreek and AncientSlavicthe aoristisrepresentedbythe fulfilmentpoint0 andcontrasted againstthe imperfectivesegment MO. The Latin"perfectum"is represented by ON.i.e.resultorstate, whichwhen opposedto the"infectum" MO may beinterpretedas anterioraction(presupposedbystate).

Kurylowicz's modelforthe postulatedPIE (see Table I) verbsystempredicts the twotypes of merger thatoccurred inthe examined daughterlanguages. This model also shows that thePIEverbsystemwas dominatedbythe fundamentalaspectualcontrasts andthatthemerger of the oldaorist and perfectcategoriesdid nottransform theaspect category intotense inLatin.The Latinverbalsystemis also dominated by aspect.

although adifferenttypeof aspect. This isthe aspectof"anter lority"whichis based on thetwo types ofstems,l.e.'pertectum'and "infectum",Thereforeaspect"domtnares"

18

tensein Ancient Greek,AncientSlavicand Latinas well asin theverbsystem postulated for PIE(Kurylowicz1964:93).

Szemerenyi(1970178:390)arguesthatthePIE verb systemwas not dominatedby aspectual contrasts,but the present-non presentopposition.There werethreetypes of

"temporalsterns"in PIE, l.e.present,aoristOrfuture, and perfect. ThePIE verb systemwas characterizedbythe binary temporaloppositionbetween the presentand aoristwithinthe active.media-passiveopposition.

Szemerenyi (1970178:390)claims that the present-aoristopposition was based onthestems and only secondarilyon the personalendingsandtheaugmentThe perfect wasclassified as atype of a present. Atthe earlier PIE stages theperfect strictly indicated the stateand was possible only in themedto-passwevoice. Consistent correspondencesbetweenactive and medto-passivevoice emerged onlyatalater:;~gc of PIE. In theearlierPIEstages therewas a simplebinary temporaloppositionbetween thepresent and non-present(orpast) representedby thepresent andaoriststems, respectively. Thisbasic binaryoppositionchangedin/a theternaryoppositionwith the rise of thesecondpast formwhichwasbasedonthepresent stems. Thereforethe

"ancientpreterite" was continuedasthe aorist. while the "newpreterite-whichwas based on thepresentstem came toindicate the pastcurativeaction. This splitinthepast triggered the complementaryrise of thefuture.

Szemere nyi(1970/18:394)recognizes thatthe present/aorist oppositionin Ancient Greekwaslabe lledas aspectual.He claims thatthebinaryaspectualcorresponde nces

19

peculiar10Slavicexisted neither in AncientGreeknor any other ancientI·E languages.

In Slaviclanguagesa pair of verbs indicatesan oppositionbetween the perfectiveand imperfective"manner of action",Szemerenyi(1970178:393)claims that the"manners ofaction",the equivalentof Russianvidiserroneouslytranslatedas"aspect". The perfectivevidsoverUnnyj indicates a complete action, whilethe imperfectivevid tlcsovcrflnnyjindicatestheincomplete action. The perfective present inRussianis the future. Since perfective indicatescompletion,the perfectivepresent is not a realpresent, c.g.iatill-pi/ii'Jwillwrite'. The imperfectivein thefuture isrepresentedbya compound,e.g.ja bUdu pistit''I willbe writing' ,

According to Szernerenyi(1970/78:394)the dualism of theSlavic v..tbsystemis not inherited andwas fully establishedonly later. Therefore the I-E verb systemwasnot aspecmal.The aspectualoppositionfound in Slavic could nothaveexistedin I-E;itwas an innovationin thisparticular group.TheI-E verb systemwas primarilycharacterized bytenseand mood.Thedominant oppositionin theindicativewas between the present and thepast, with thefuture arisingonly later. However,theearliest distinctionwas basedneither ontense,noron aspect, but onthe modeofaction,i.e.theprimordial distinction wasbetweenthe active andstativeverbs.

Szcmcrcnyi distinguishes betweenthe earlier and later stages ofPIEand his chronological ordering ofdevelopmentsrelated to tense and aspectisgenerally correct.

Howeverthenature of the threetypesof sternsin I-E,i.e.present, aorist andperfect, wasnot temporal butespecrual.Itwill be shown in thisthesis that the verbsystems of

zo

AncientGreek andAncientSlavicarccharacterizedbythe threetypesof aspects fo und both inthe past andnon-pastrepresenting perfectlysymmetricalsystems. Thethree mentionedsternscouldnotbetemporal,since theyare representedboth inthepast and non-past,indicatingthree"manners

or

Szemerenyi (1970178:394)claimsthatthe perfectivepresentformsinAncient Slavic resultin the futureforms.The same aspectuatmeans of representing future is observ ed in Ancient Greekwhere theaoriststemscombinewith the primary ,i.e. non- past,inflection10form thefuture.e.g.!USl/:'Iwillloosen'. IIwillbeshown inChapter 2(§2.3)thatthe AncientGreek aoriststemscorrespondto theperfective aspect thaiis expressedby Aktionsartin AncientSlavic.as well as in Modem Slavic. Jftheaorist stemswerestrictlytemporal. consistentusageofthe aorist sternsin formingfuture could notbeexplained. Alsothe imperatives in Ancien! Greek arebased onbothtypes of stems,i.e. the presentand aoriststems. Sincethe imperativemood does notnormally have a temporaldistinction.the aorist imperatives are obviously perfective.Szemcrcnyi (1970/78:391) statesthat certainlanguagespossess an aoristsubjunctive,which does not havepasttense reference. AccordingtoSzemerenyithisisnot10 beexplainedbythe aspecmal(unction o(the aorist.He explainstheassociatiOIlof the .r-aorislsubjunclJvc withthenon-pastor present as aninheritancefrom the earlierperiod.That is to say. the present formswith~Swere possible beforethepresent -aoristdifferentiation.Therefore,

21

thenon-past meaning ofthe aorist subjunctive is notasemantic characteristic ofthe aorist itself.

Itwillbearguedin thisthesis thattheaspectualcontrastswere fundamentalal the laterstages of PIE.Thethree daughter languagesexaminedinthisthesis,i.e. Ancient Greek,Latin and AncientSlavic,retainthefundamental aspectualcontrasts,althoughthe mergerofthe aoristandperfectinLatinresultsin a differenttypeof category.In these threelanguages aspeciualcontrasts aremore prevalen t than tense contrasts.

Distinction inthe mode ofactionwas dominant in theearlier PIE stages!

BesidesSzemerenyi, thisviewis also propagatedby KUTZOV;!(1993). Kurzova.

however,like manyotherlinguistsand philologistsdoes notdistinguish explicitly betweenearlierandlater stagesofthe PIE verb system.'LikeSzemerenyi,sheconsiders the mode ofactionto represent themostoriginalor primordialcontrast oftheverb system. UnlikeSzemerenyi,sheregardsthistypeof contrastas fundamental,preceding disintegrationinto variousdaughterlanguages,in otherwords atthelater PIE stages.

AccordingtoKurzova,a majorcontrast obtained between"active and inactive verb classes"whichrepresents a"radical" proposalaccordingto which the evolutionof the Inflectionalverb system is seen as"decomposition"of the earlier derivationaltype.

'The verb systemofthe earlierPIEis beyondthe scopeof thisthesis.

'We shouldkeepin mind thatSzemerenyimakes a carefuldistinctionbetween various chronologicalstatesof the PIEverb evolution.

22

A characteristic feature of theIE verb is itslarge varietyof derivative- flectionalformations. Thereis aclose structural affinity and historical connection between derivationalandinflectional verb categories.

semantically motivatedbytherelevance of the lexicalsutcetegcrtzaucn of verbs. As a consequence.the suffixalderivationsbecome thesource of theinflectionalcategories.thelatterdeveloping via grammaticalizatlon from the derivatio nalcategories. The derivationalsuffixes arethen adapted10expressaspecto-temporal andmodaldistinctions(Kurzova 1993:108).

Thisderivationaltype ofverb systemdifferentiatesbetween the"active" and"inactive"

verb classes. These two classes arc characterizedby"the diatheticmeaning"(Kuraova 1993:112). Theactive classdevelopedinto the aorist/present represented by the inflectionalendings·m,·S,·1(SG)and the inactiveclass intoperfect/mediumendings-a, -tha, ·el·o(SG). This type of divisiondidnororiginally have aninflectional,but a lexical character whereboth active andinactiveverbshad only one seriesofendings (Kurzov<f1993:115).These two classes areessentiallylexical, butmorphosyntactlcajly relevant."TIle lexicalactiveand inactive classes yieldedaspcctuarsub-ctsuncuons:

Table3 Active nndInactive classes in PIE active

imperfective perfective

inactive

process state

medium perfec t medium perfect

(Kurzcva1993:118)

'For thedetailed semanticand grammaticalcharacterization of these classes, see Kurzcva(1993:116-41).

23

As Kurzovaproposes,the originallexicaldistinctiondevelopedintoa grammatical aspectualltcmporal contrast in Ancient Greek and Aryan.forexample." Sheclaims (1993:143), however.thatthe restructuringof the Latinverb system doesnotfollow the perfect/ ao rist merge r,as traditionallyassumed.Rather,theGreek/Aryanandthe Latin verbsystemsrepresentparalleldevelopments fromtheoriginal lexical distinction. While inlanguages such as Greekand Aryan the aoristoriginates withthe active ,andthe perfectwiththeinactive class,the Latinperfect partlyorig inateswiththe active,and partlywiththe inactiveclass." The developmentof the Latinperfect,whichreliespartly onthe originalinactive class (perfectmeaning)and active class (aoristmeaning) is justifiedby the centralposition of theprese nt inrelation to the perfect/aorist.l~The same present for m is opposedeitherto theperfect withthe aorist meaning ,ortheperfectwith the stative meaning.

'~urzova(1993: 144) statesthatthe three types of stems are"aspecto - temporat".

thus confusing aspect andtense. Differe nt typesof stemsboth in Greek andAryan are clearlyaspectualyielding distinct formsinthe pastand non-past. Te nse in these languagesis expressed by theaugmentand inflectionalending(see Chapter2 forthe represe ntation of theAncientGreek verb system).

"Inflectional endings,however,originate withthe inactive class, seeKurzova (l993:147·8) forthe derivati on of the Latinperfectinflection.

"Poradetailed explana tion,seeKurzova (1993:145·56).

24

Table.$

Opposillonbetweenthe present, aoristand perfect In Latin

perfective di:xi:

thematicpresent di:oo:

video:

state

vi:di:

(Kurzov;f1993:146) Weshallsee,however, in Chapter 3 thatparticularperfectformsin Latin,c.g.

vi:d/: fromvideo:'Isee'may have differentfunctions.dependingonthecoruext.Thus, the perfectform suchasvb//:doesnot always represent a slate,but may also denote a pastperfecti ve event,i.e.aoristfunction(see§3.4.1). Kurzova doesootprovide sufficientevidencein denyinga separateexistenceof the aorist andperfectcategoriesin latePIEandtheirmerger inLarin,Reviewofdifferenttypes of perfect or'perfecunn"

inLatin (in§3.1.1)reveals formalcorrespondencesof aorist and perfect forms.

Moreover.examinationof the perfectfunctionin differentcontextsrevealsbothtypesof function:.e.aorist(pastperfective)andperfect (presentrewltative).

The proposal for theoriginalactive/ inactive oppositionis notincompatible with thetraditionalreconstruction according 10 which thelatinverbsystem represents a secondarydevelopmentfromlate PIE,whichresembledthe Greek/Arya nverb system.

Itisonlynecessaryto distinguishbetween the earlyPIEstages,characterizedbythe

25

active/inactivediatheticcontrast,and late PIE stages characterizedby athreeway aspectuet contrastcontinuedintheGreek/Aryanverbsystemtype.

1.2 SynchronicApproaches toAspect /Tense

Anumber of linguistshave examinedthesubjectof aspect and tense froma synchronic point of view. Among them Comrie (1976) exposes a general linguistic theory ofaspect.Herelieson thetradi tionalgrammarwiththe special emphasis onthe semanticsofaspect. He also discusses somestructuralistandphilosophicalconcepts related to aspect (asstated in the Prefaceof"Aspect".1976). Comrie(1976and 1985/86)provides definitionsof tenseand aspectcomplementedbyareview of aspect andtense systemswithina widerangeof languages."

Comrie (1985/86:vii) definestenseas"a grammaticalizedexpression of location in time.~Time is representedbya straightlinewith thepresent moment representedby apoint.

Table5 Representa tionoftime

- --- -- ----1-- - - - --- ---

past 0 present

The presentmoment is referredto at;the deicticcentre. A major distinction between tense and aspect isthattenseis deictic, l.e.itrelates asituationtoa pointintime.

"Comrie has writtentwo separate booksrelated10thisissue, "Aspect"(1976)and

"Tense"(1985/86).

26

Comrie (19BS/86:6)makes a distinctionbetween absoluteand relativetense,foll owing Reichenbach(1947:288).An absolutetenserelates past,present orfuturesituations to a presentmoment.Arelative tense,on the oiherhand, may relate a past,present or futuresituation to the present oranotherpointintime.Inother words.the dcicriccentre is notre stricted10apresent moment. Aspectis ncn-deictic,itemphasizesthe internal structureof a situationwithoutreferringto a pointinlime. A distinction between absolutetense referring10the"poin t ofthe event"and relat ivetensereferringtothe

"point ofreference"was originallyproposedbyReichenbach (1947:288), Accordingto Comrie (1976:16-9)perfectiveaspec treferstothe view of the situatio nas awhole withouttheemphasis on the internalphases. The impe rfective aspect, ontheother hand, refersto the"internal structureofthe situation".'. Comrie argues againstdefining perfectivityas a shortorpunctual,i.e.momentarysitua tion. A perfectiveverbmay refer 10 a situationthatlast s overalonger periodoftime,e.g, ebastleuse dikaere:'he reignedfor ten years'.Perfective verbsrefe r to situationswith internal complexityandthe momentary orpoint-li kedefinitionprecludes the ir interna l structure.Comrie(1976:18)comparesa perfectivesituationto a blobwhich is a three- dimensionalobjectwith aninter nalcomp lexityrep resented as a circ umscribedwhole.

Comriealso stales that perfectiveindica tesa "complete" rather than "co mpleted"

situatio n.The term"co mpleted" emphasizestheterminat ing pointofa situatio n. A perfecti ve verbdoesnotnecessar ilyrepresent a terminatedsituation,whil e it does

"Comrie'sterm"situation"include sevents,stalesand processes.

27

represent a completesituationseenas a whole. Itwillbeshownthat the aorist in Ancient Greek(~2.4.1)ant!Ancient Slavic(§4.5.1) representsinherently a complete event as a who le.whilethe aoristmarked forthe Aktionsartalwaysrepresentsa completedperfectiveevent.

Comrie (1976:52)classifiesthe perfectasan aspect.He suies,however.that the perfect isdifferentfromtheperfectiveandimperfectiveinthatit relates two pointsin time, i.e. thepresent and thepast. Theper fectrepresentsthepresent state thatrelates to a past situation.

Inherent,i.e. semantic,aspectualcharacteristicsmay affectgrammaticalaspect classtflcations. Comrie(1976:41)providesaverbclassification withregardtoinherent aspectuatfeatures. Someverbs,suchas Russian perfectives are inherentlydurative implying thatthesituationlastsa certainperiodoftime, e.g.[a posrojal(PFV)tamlas '1stoodthereforan hour'. Theyaredifferentfromthe imperfectiveverbs,whichrefer toaninternal viewofasituation. Inherentlydurativeverbs are opposedto punctual verbs. Aclassof verbs with the suffix·nuin Russian,kG..fljal/ut''cough' could be classifiedaspunctual.Theseverbsrefer10 situationswhich may nothaveduration, they could representonly a punctualsituationora seriesof punctualacts.Certain verbsare semelfactivereferring toasinglesituation,suchas one coughor iterativereferring10a repeated situation,suchas seriesofcoughs.Comrie(1976:44)alsomakes a distinction

28

betweentellc"and atelic situa tions. Thesetwo types refer to theintemalstructure of a situation.Atelic situationisa sillJationwith aterminalpointthai mustbeaccomplished suchasJohn ;s makinga chair. An atelic situation maylastindefin itely or be interrupted, such asJohnissingillN.However. the semanticsof a lelicverb is allcrcd when combined with theperfectiveaspe ct,e.g.fin sde/afstul(PFV,Russian)'he made/has mad e acha ir'where theperfective aspect indicates completion of the situation.

relic situations whichlead\0aterminationsuch aslonn is't'uchingtile summitareto be distinguishedfrom theachievements(Vendler 1967:102·3) suchasJI/hn r('Ud'I'dthe summit,

A dis ti nction between "slate"and"action"has been addressedbyLyon s(1963), Lakoff(1966)and Vendler(1967). Comrie (1976:48-51)proposesaterm"dynamic situati on"rather than"action".giventhatit does not necessarilyimplyparticipationof the agent. Stative verbs suchasknowrefertosituatio ns with the constant internal structure, consistingof identicalphases. Dynamicsituat ionssuch asrun,ontheother hand consist ofvary ing phases.Accordin gto Comrie"events"and"proc esses"ale classified under"dynamic situations". The term'process'em phasizes the internal con stituency ofadynamicsituationreferring toanimper fective aspect."Bv cnt" onthe other handindicatesadynamicsituationviewedas awhole referring to theperfective aspec t.

"The term "telic'was firstusedbyGarey;itis referred to as"acco mplishme nt"

byVendler(1967:102).

2 .

Comrie(1976and1985)attempts toestablishtenseand aspec tuniversalsbased onthewide-ranging cross-linguisticevidence.Semanticimplications of thetenseand

aspectcategorie sart discussedinconnectio nwithnumerousexamples from anumberof languages. However, grammaticalfunctionsct theverb categoriescannotbeprecisely determinedwithouttakinginto considerationfunctions ofthe other categorieswithina particularsystem. Com riedoesnotconsid erseman ticandgrammatical implic ationsof thesecategories withinthesystems of particularlanguages.Verbcategories maynotbe rando mlycomparedacrosslanguages;a verbcateg o ry labelledas perfec tin Latin does nothave thesame grammatical functionastheperfectinEnglishorModem Romance languages. forexample.

SimilartoComrie,Dahltaxes atypologicalperspecti ve10 thestudyof tenseand aspect. Dahl's work(1985)foundedona typological survey oftenseandaspectsystems in more thansixtylanguagesprovidesa commonset ofcategory feat uresfoundacross languages. Thesetofcross-linguistictenseilKl.aspectcategorytypes isre lated to particular languagesthat arcexamined. Dahl'spostulatedsetofuniversal featuresis basedonthedatain a widerange of languages,which ashe slatcs,is a responsetothe earliertraditionally orientedworks ontenseand aspect basedonrestricteddata .That is 10say, there isnoattempt10make a connection between theconce ptualbasis ofthe linguisticdescription andthecross-linguistictense and aspectcategories.

Dahl (1985)makes adistinctionbet weenabsolute"languageuniversals", thatis.

propertiespostulatedforallhumanlanguages and the categoriesactuallymanifestedin

JO

world'slanguages. He proposes fhal a limited setof tenseand aspect categoryty pes representsa foundationof the tenseandaspect systemsactuallymanifested inworld's lang u ages. Hencetheterm "cross-Ii n guaricvariation"asopposed to "langua g e unive rsals"whichimpliesthe absolute presenceof certaincategoriesinalllanguages.

Dahl'stheory (1985) of tense andaspect is basedoncategoriesratherthanbinary semanticfeatu res.Therefore,specificcategoriesofpartic ularlanguages,suchasperfect in English,aremanifestationsof"3cro ss-linguisticcateg orytype".Dahl proposesthe term"foci"fortheprototypicalusesof categories(followingBertinandKay'sstudyof colour terms , 1969) forthe identificati onof tense and aspect categories cross- linguistically. Actuallymanifested categoriesareselectedfroma set of cross-linguistic cate g o ries whilethe imprecisenessof acategorytypeis reduced withth eeven tu al assignmentofnon-focalorsec ondary functions. Adistinctionbet weencate gory types andthe languagespeci ficcateg o ries is relatedtothe semant icnotionsof"im p recisene s s"

and"focusin g"."Thenotionottmprecisenessrefersto theprototypecategory orfocus.

Apro totype categoryrepresentsaconceptwhich isessentiallyimprecise. Dahl introd ucesthe noncnof"con ceptual space"as. a backgro undforthe foci of ihecross- Jinguisticcategory ty pesrepresented as"points " andcategoryextensionsas'regio ns"

given that focior prototype categoriesareesse n tiallyim precise . Dimensionsof the

"conc eptualspace"maynotho weverbeclearlydefined. Sincethe featuresoftheproto-

'&rhenotionofimprec iseness is often refe rred toas'vagueness'and"fuzziness"

byphilosoph e rs, rela ted10the"fuu ysettheory".

31

typecategorymay notbewelldetermined,theco nceptualsystem oftense andaspect catego riesshouldnol bedescribedjntermsota set of binaryfeatures."

Dahl(1985)points to a crucialdistinctionbetween thelevelsof categ ory type s

andconccp nat spacein hisgeneral theory.For example,thetraditionalterm"past"may beidentifiedeitherasa"cross-linguisti c"catego ryor the'va lueofan underlying dimensio n", Thefeature of an"unde r lyingdimension " hasa broader sense, it encompasses past,butalsoperfective. Dahlproposesthreelevels of linguistic descri p tion,i.e.'unive rsalseman ticcatego ries'I"u niversalgrammaticalcategories'and 'tanguage-spec iflograrnmancatcategories".Dahl's proposalisanextenstonofComriet s

descri p tionwi th twolevels."universalsemantic catego ries" and"langua g e-specifi c gramm aticalcategories".Dahljustifiesthis distinc tionat the'cross-linguistic" level by acorre lation between thecategorytypesandthe categories manifested in particular languages.Specifically, thecross-linguisticlevel is characterized by Illemarkedness consistency,i.e.agive nmember of anoppositionisalwaysmarked.Also,the factthat thecategories are exp ressed eithermorp hological lyor periphrasticallyatthecross- linguis ticlevel callsfor thedtsnncuon of grammaticalcategory type s.

Dahlarguesthat Comrie's definitio n of aspectisstrictly semantic and thaiaspect is cruciallyrelated to the grammaticalfunctionof tensewithinthe context. In other words.perfectiveespec tcould beidentified onlyinrela tion tothe tense. Dahlalso

"Phono logical theory withaset of binaryfeaturesrepresenting linguistic universals wasproposedbyJakobsonand Halle(1956171) .

J2

pointsout thatComri e'sdistinCfionbetween tenseand aspect ide ntified as a distinct ion betweendeicticandnon-deicticeaegoriesmaynotcoincidewit hthetensesubdivision between"absolut e"and"relative"lenses.Dahl arguesIha l lhe "re lative"tense functions areindeed aspectual asidefrom theirdetcucstatus.This position(alsopropagatedearlier

byKurylowic z1964 ) isadopted in this thesis.The ana lysisofthe Latin verbalsystem (see§3.3) willsho wthat"anrer ior ity" coincideswiththe perfectiveaspect.Le.

pcrfectum, while"si multane i ty "coincides withtheimpe rfectiveaspect, i.e.infectum.

In lightof Dahl' sco nceptual framewo rk, ten se andaspect may notbe so clearly delineatedaslanguage particularorevencross-linguisticcategories.althoughtheyare clearlydefinedasproto-typical conceptualcategories.

The momentof speechandthepositionofthesubjectrelative to theeventand universetimeare crucialindistinguishingtenseand aspect.Comrie'sclassificati on of tense asdeicticandaspectas non-dei cticisvery similartoJakobson's classification ('1971) ofcategoriesaccordingtothere ference ofmenarratedevent10thespeechevent.

Ctessi flcationoftenseandaspectare basedon dtsnoc ucnsbetween speechandthe narrated topicaswellas between theevent andIheparticipants. Whiletense retatesthe narrated eventtothe speechevent,aspectrepresentsthenarrated event withoutre fe rring toits partic ipan tsor the speechevent. According10Jakobson"rela tivetense"15covered bya moregeneralterm"o rder"(Bloo mfield1946) orevenmoreapp ropriate"tans".

"Taxis'relates thenarrated event10 another narra ted event without referringtothe speecheven t.The ·simultaneit y-and"enteriod ty" taxis is classifiedas dependentsince

3J

itrelates10theindependent verb.Taxis categories,or ca tegorieswhich relate anarrated eventto another narratedevent, are also classifiedas"c onnecto rs".Cate gories suchas tenseand aspectwhichrepresenta singlenarratedevent areclassified as"designators".

The "shifter"•"no n-shifte r"distinctionisbased onthespeech eventre ference. Thus tenseisa "shifter"sinceitrelatesthenarratedevent tothespeechevent.Aspectisa

"non-shifter"and"quantifier"sinceit express thelluantityof the narratedevent.

The significa nceofthepositionof thesubjectinrelation to event time in determining aspectandthepositionofthesubjectinre lation10 eventtime and universe time is capturedby the cognitiveframework. Asshownbelow, thepositionof a subject iscardinalinrepre sentingtheverbalcategoriesas theparts of a system. Gustave Guillaume (1929) proposed a cognitive model according towhich certain verbal categoriesare represented atdistinct.successivecognitivestagesinthe constructionof atime-Image. Themodelincorporatesthe fundamentalconcept thatthe verbsystemis re presentedby"ch ronogene sis", l.e .evolvementof the linguistictime construc tedin distinctstages. Ve rbalcategories introducedat eachcognitive stagerepresent the constructive blocksofsuchaverbsystem.Theidea of linguistic categoriesbelonging toa systemandbeing identifiedaccording totheirpositionwithin a systemorigi nated with Saussure(Hewson199 3:1). Employing Hjelmslev ' s terminology,delineationofthe underlying system as"content"is perceived throug hthe "e lementsofexpression"

(Hewson1993:4). GustaveGuillaumeadheresto thestructuralist traditionofdelineating theunderlying syste msof grammatical categories.Acc o rding tohim,the contentsystem

34

oralanguage. whichisnotdirectl yobserved,isdiscernedthro ughthemorpholo gicaland syntacticstructureswhic h represe nt lheexpression aspect of thesurfacerepre senarlon.

Guilla umeexpo undseve nmorefully lhenotionof grammatica lcontentshowingthatthe conten tsystem isconstructedofdistinctcognitivestages,Le.subsystems,represented bythedistinc t verbal formsand perceivedas a progressivedevelopmentofthe representationoflinguistictime.

"Chronogenesis"inGuillaume'smodelsofFrench(1929/65) , Latin.andGree k (1945/65)consistsofthreestage s."Chro nogeeesis isthementalformationoflinguistic timeperceivedingenes isaccord ing10thelongitud inal sens eofope rativeprogression "

(Guilla ume 1945/65:23 )." Guillaume relates theterm "chronogenests" to"th e spatianzadon"of time(Guillau me1945/65:25)and"chro ncmests '' \0 theinterva ls obtain ed in successive transversal cutsof the"chroncgenesis "(Guillaumc1945/65:23).

Thein tervalsres ultingfr o m tran sversalcutsofthe chroncgenesls re ferto threedistinc t stage s of theverbalco ntentsystemwh ichparal1elprogr essive developm ent ofthe lingui s tictime perceivedthrough observa bleverba lcategories.

Guillaumc's dev e lopmentalscheme,l.e."c bronoge n esls",integratesthenot io n ofcogn itiveprocess ing. Cogniti v eprocessingrefe rs tolheoperationofpicki nga lexeme andallocating it to ace rtainposit ionwithi nthe'ch ronogenesis", tha tiswilhintheverba l repre se ntationalsystem. Theidea that linguisticconlent systems are basedupon th e speake r'sexperiential ex istence wasproposedbyJohnson (1987). Referri ng10 the

"transl atedbyS.M,

J5

ontologicalissueofclas s ifying andorde ringtheformalstructuresandcategories,he claimsthaithereisagapbetweentheconceptual,formalorrationalaspectof the human mindand thebodily,perceptual andemotionalaspects ofexperie nce.Consequently traditio nalphilo sophersdonotconsiderno n-proposi tiosalexpeneulalstructuresrelevant in deducingmeaningan dlogicaloperations (Johnson1987:xxv). Johnson does not entirelyrefutethesigni ficallCe offormal systemsand structures. However .heclaims thatfor malsystemsarenot atemporalandaspattal entitie s,butre present conceptual systemsandformalizationsbasedonourexperience.Inothe rwords,bodilyexperience allowsthesubjecttoform ulateconsciously experientialpatternsinto abstractschematic structuresandorganize thecaregoncslntoformalconceptualsystems (Johnson1987:38), Johnsonstales tha tthesubject's conceptualsystemconverges withex perienceat lwolevels,(I)thebasic levelofunderstandingatwhich thesubjectconsciously make s adisti nctionamongobjectsand livingbeingsand(2) theimage-schematiclevelatwhic h thesubjectframestheunderstan ding intocertainformsof structureanddefinesitin orderto properlyidentifythese formsas experientialpatterns(Johnson1987 :208). The verbalcontent system represen tedbychrooogenesisconvergeswith thesubject's experienceatthesetwolevels:(I) thebasiclevel involvespicking alexeme,e.g. aver b, and distinguishingitfromothertexemesandcategoriesand(2) theimagesche maticlevel whichallowsustoprovid ethislexemewithaform , defineitasacertain verbalcatego ry based onexperiencingitintime.and ultimatelyallocadngittoaparticulartimesphere.

Thesetwoexperientiallevels,thatis,the "basic"and"image-schematiclevel-(Johnson