diachronic explanation of 1st/2nd aorist

Trevor Peterson 06PETERSON at cua.edu
Tue May 21 07:05:35 EDT 2002


This is probably something I could go to the library and look up if I were 
feeling ambitious enough, but at this point it's mainly just a curiosity. I 
think in every discussion I've seen of 1st and 2nd aorist, it's been presented 
that there are just two different ways to form the aorist. But what is the 
diachronic explanation for how the two paradigms originated? Specifically, it 
seems to me that the sequence would somehow have gone 2nd aorist, then 
present, then 1st aorist, then imperfect, or maybe with the last two reversed. 
After all, I would think you'd have to have the present stem in existence 
before forms like 1st aorist and imperfect could build off of it. But this is 
just speculation, of course. As I say, I could probably find some answers by 
looking myself, but if someone likes this sort of topic and feels inclined to 
provide a brief explanation, I'd appreciate it.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics




More information about the B-Greek mailing list