Re: Augment revisited (was: NUN+Verb.Aorist)

From: Jonathan Robie (
Date: Wed Apr 30 1997 - 19:11:11 EDT

At 03:58 PM 4/30/97 -0800, Don Wilkins wrote:
>I thought I would take a momentary break from my programming (hopefully the
>next version of Prometheus will be ready in a few more days--and I can
>still use some more alpha/beta testers!) to jump back in on this
>At 3:33 PM 4/30/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>But there *are* aorists which do not have the augment, and some forms which
>>are used with and without the augment. So far, I haven't heard anybody argue
>>that aorist forms without the augment do not have past time referent, but
>>aorist forms with the augment do. Do you know if anyone would argue this
>>position? Would you? (Please? Pretty please? It would be kind of fun! ;->)
>Jonathan, if you are referring to the absence of the augment in
>non-indicative moods, then of course we would say that such aorists
>inherently do not have reference to the past. As always, the problem is
>with the indicative. Do you have in mind some aor. ind's that do not have
>the augment? Offhand I can't think of any except those which are from the
>Homeric time period or are "missing" the augment due to purely
>morphological reasons (e.g. those verbs which begin with a long vowel).

But does anybody argue that aorists of the Homeric period which do not have
augments have different time properties than those which do have augments?


Jonathan Robie
POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:14 EDT