From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 36504
Date: 2005-02-26
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "squilluncus" <grvs@...> wrote:
> Another title is Pierre CHANTRAINE, GRAMMAIRE HOM�RIQUE, Paris
1953.
>
> �292: "Le sens originel du parfait est d'exprimer un �tat qui se
> situe dans le pr�sent, ou, du moins, dans l'actuel."
I think this should raise eyebrows: Why does a Homeric grammar point
out that this is the *original* meaning? If it is the *only* meaning
found in Homer this is a very strange wording. I do not find
explicit mention of cases of simple preterital use of the perfect in
the section, by why is the matter not directly addressed? This
strikes me as very odd.
> For this statement he gives references to Wackernagel Studien z.
> griech. Perfectum, G�ttingen 1904 (already!) and his own
Chantraine,
> Histoire du parfait grec, Paris 1927.
> He then gives examples similar to Monro's above.
>
> In the following �� he states:
> "Le r�le du parfait est d'exprimer un �tat acquis" �
> (The state has then its origin in the past)
>
> "En m�me temps que la r�f�rence au pass� devient sensible, le
> parfait, g�n�ralement intransitif, a pu �tre suivi d'un compl�ment
�
> l'accusatif." �
> "Le parfait leloipa est intransitif: psych�: d� l�loipen 'l'�me
s'en
> est all�'. Mais: epe� d�: pr�:ta tom�:n en �ressi
> l�loipen 'maintenant qu'il a quitt� l'arbre o� il fut coup�'."
> (Intransitivity was the original nature but when something has
been
> done objects will naturally be fitted to the verb).
>
> "On emploie le parfait pour d�signer un ensemble d'actions qui
> aboutissent � un �tat pr�sent: epe� kak� poll� p�pontha �"
> (Rendering "after a state of a lot of suffering" might be
> elucidating for Gef�hl of the transition from stative in present
to
> something started and accomplished in the past but valid now and
> here).
Does not the word <epe�> 'after, apr�s que' give it away? How can
something be reported as being 'after' the present? This must
contain a past-tense element.
Especially the example with l�loipen seems to show this (Il.
1.235): "This stick - it has never produced (literally 'never
produces') leaves or branches since it first left the stump in the
mountains, nor will it blossom". This is a clear reference to a
single moment in the past.
Another case of the same kind seems to be:
Il. 21.81 : h�:de duo:dek�te:, h�t' es �lion eil�:loutha / poll�
path�:n "it is now the twelfth day since I came to Ilios after much
suffering". Achilles is looking back on the day he arrived in Troy;
that must be in the past.
However, the line between a past event which has repercussions for
the present regarded as a pure event and the same regarded from the
standpoint of the present, is a thin one. Thus the same form is used
in:
Il. 5.204 h�:s l�pon, aut�r pez�s es �lion eil�:loutha / t�ksoisin
p�sunos "thus I left them (my horses) at home, and instead I have
come on foot to Ilios, trusting my bow".
But even in this example, the preposition <es> points to a *change*
of position and so is distinctly looking to the past, not the
present.
This all points to a mixing of the points of view, in that an event
may be regarded as something occurring in the past while at the same
time having after-effects of importance for the present, and the
linguistic form of a sentence may even be inconsistent in its choice
of adverbs and other accompanying pointers.
Then, if this so in Homeric Greek, I cannot help thinking that it
could be the same in Indo-European already.
Jens
____________________Thank you for a well-researched answer pointing out some clear examples of past meaning for the Homeric perfect. Thus as you said this past reference could be original.
Very impressed by your knowledge of Homer, by the way.
Andrew