> Back to linguistics:
>
> This means that a suffix that changes a stative or durative
> verb to make it denote something punctual, will by that same
> act make it denote something punctual in the past *or* in the
> future.
>
>
> Which means that the -s- of the s-aorist might be identical to
> the Baltic future in -s-, if we define the primary function of
> that suffix as that of making the verb denote something punctual
> (we might have to give up the link to the desiderative, though).
>
> What do you guys think?
>
I found this on Baltic s-future:
http://www.lituanus.org/1999/99_1_02.htm
"
Klimas (1996: 71-72) says that Lithuanian formal/real futures are used
to express "certain sudden, unexpected past" actions and gives the
following examples partially reproduced: "...e.jome, ...kad
uz^re.ks...; Lijo... kad trenks...; e.jome... kad spirs" with the
futures as past tense translated as: "all of a sudden shrieked,
suddenly struck, just kicked" and with the following interpretations:
("formally a future tense and) literally (it) means "will screech",
"will strike", "will kick", but (here) the (real) meaning is past/kicked".
"
which seems to back my idea that the verbal s-suffix is originally
purely aspectual (namely perfective) and that is the logical
structure of time that makes it become future *or* past in practice.
Torsten