Part 59 (1/2)

_Indicative_ | _Subjunctive_ _Singular_ _Plural_ | _Singular_ _Plural_ 1 I was We were | If I were If ere

2 Thou wast Ye were | If thou wert If ye were

3 He was They were | If he were If they were

{303}

CHAPTER XXII

ON TENSES IN GENERAL

-- 359 The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to the Greek; since in that language they are ly marked than elsewhere

_I strike, I struck_--Of these words, the first i, the second marks an action that has already taken place

These two notions of present and of past tie of form, are true tenses They are however, the only true tenses in our language In _I was beating_, _I have beaten_, _I had beaten_, and _I shall beat_, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by a coe of form, no true tenses are constituted

In Greek the case is different [Greek: Tupto] (_typto_)=_I beat_; [Greek: etupton] (_etypton_)=_I was beating_; [Greek: tupso] (_typso_)=_I shall beat_; [Greek: etupsa] (_etypsa_)=_I beat_; [Greek: tetupha] (_tetyfa_)=_I have beaten_; [Greek: etetuphein] (_etetyfein_)=_I had beaten_ In these words we have, of the saation, six different tenses;[47] whereas, in English, there are but two The forly nise them wheresoever they occur The first is formed by a reduplication of the initial [tau], and, consequently, may be called the reduplicate form As a tense it is called the perfect In the fore of Italy {304} the [epsilon] disappears, whilst the [sigma] (_s_) remains [Greek: Etupsa] is said to be an aorist tense _Scripsi_ : _scribo_ :: [Greek: etupsa] : [Greek: tupto]

-- 360 Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two tenses Both forms exist They are used, however, indiscriminately The aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect The perfect has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist In the following pair of quotations, _vixi_, the aorist forit_, the perfect form, is translated _he touched_

_Vixi_, et quena o--_aen_ iv

Ut prialia plantis--_aen_ iv

When a difference of for, it has become superfluous This is the case with the two forms in question

One of theh in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the sa, and _vice versa_ The two ideas _I have struck_ and _I struck_ are eneral, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sorammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to _five_; for dealt with as one and the same tense The true view is, that in _curro_ the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in _vixi_ the perfect forlish there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate for not with [Greek: tetupha] and _momordi_, but with [Greek: etupsa] and _vixi_ Its sense is that of [Greek: etupsa], and not that of [Greek: tetupha] The notion given by [Greek: tetupha] we express by the circumlocution _I have beaten_ We have no such form as _bebeat_ or _memove_ In the Moeso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist It {305} is by the possession of this forations are characterized

1st Fala, _I fold_Faifal, _I have folded_, or _I folded_

Halda, _I feed_Haihald, _I have fed_, or _I fed_

Haha, _I hang_Haihah, _I have hanged_, or _I hanged_

2nd Haita, _I call_Haihait, _I have called_, or _I called_

Laika, _I play_Lailaik, _I have played_, or _I played_

3d Hlaupa, _I run_Hlailaup, _I have run_, or _I ran_

4th Slepa, _I sleep_Saizlep, _I have slept_, or _I slept_

5th Laia, _I laugh_Lailo, _I have laughed_, or _I laught_

Saija, _I sow_Saiso, _I have sown_, or _I sowed_

6th Greta, _I weep_Gaigrot, _I have wept_, or _I wept_

Teka, _I touch_Taitok, _I have touched_, or _I touched_