liT laN luN: Vedic

Source: TW

Terminology

Aorist: लुङ्, imperfect: लङ्, perfect: लिट्

As a side note, the terms “perfect”, “imperfect” and “aorist” are used in Sanskrit studies because of the correspondence of the verb forms with Greek forms, but should not be confused with the actual meaning of these in general linguistics out of Sanskrit.

Aspect vs Tense

The Vedic aorist, imperfect (with present) and perfect only mark the aspect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tense%E2%80%93aspect%E2%80%93mood) and not the tense.

The tense is marked by the augment ‘a’ before verb forms and even that can be detached if its implied through other means, like the co-occurrence of other past form(s). Even in case of perfect:

यत्रापि॒ नू चि॑त् पु॒रा चि॒द् इत्ये॒नम् अर्थं॑ वर्जयि॒त्वान्यत्र॑ पुराश॒ब्दस्य॑ प्रयो॒गं पश्या॑मि, स॒र्वत्र॒ स लि॑ट्धा॒तोस्तस्मि॑न् वा॒क्ये॑ भू॑तकालार्थ॒त्वं प्रति॑पादयुतम् ए॒व प्रयु॑क्तः। यथा॑-। तमु॑ स्तुष॒ इन्द॑रं॒ तं गृ॑णीषे॒ यस्मि॑न् पु॒रा वा॑वृ॒धुः शा॑श॒दुश्च॑। २.२०.४

If we view them like this, its no surprise +++(how??)+++ that they may occur together in a sentence. Whitney gives some examples to show their equivalence but uses temporality as the concept, and thus misses the point.

Aortist and imperfect

The sense of the Vedic aorist is well preserved (action that has happened, also expressed by क्त).

Imperfect was used for repetitive or continuing actions (happening in the past) but in classical Sanskrit is also employed somewhat in the Vedic aorist sense.

Perfect

Perfect was used for describing state (either in past or present). Thus वेद meant “knows” or “used to know”. But in classical Sanskrit, it is used solely for narrative purpose, actions in a distant past, whether continuous (Vedic imperfect sense) or describing event (Vedic aorist sense) or state (Vedic perfect sense).

By “describing state” I mean that the verb form is only interested in telling you the final state at the time of saying. This is different from the Vedic aorist form (which has the real perfective aspect) which tells that an event has happened. Thus इन्द्रश् चकार means Indra did it, of course, and (importantly) it remains the way he intended, with little reference to when he did it. रुरुचे means shines (has the state of being shiny). Note that this doesn’t at all have the perfective aspect (that denoted by the Vedic aorist).

अपरोक्षे ऽपि भवति -

भ॒द्रा द॑दृक्ष उर्वि॒या वि भा॑सि। ६.६४.२

This understanding hasn’t yet failed me while reading the Rigveda (mostly the older books). It would be great if you can point to a counter-example if you know of one.

Also, I just remembered this from Whitney -

“In the Brāhmaṇas, the distinction of tense-value between perfect and imperfect is almost altogether lost, as in the later language” (822).

Indeed it seems the tense-aspect system there is quite different from the Rigveda, so no need to compare the rigidity between the two.