Grice e Ceccato: l’implicatura
conversazionale del plusquamperfectum -- implicatura imperfetta -- il perfetto filosofo – filosofia italiana –
Luigi Speranza (Montecchio Maggiore). Filosofo italiano.
Grice: “I like Ceccato – like other Italian philosophers, he has an obsession
with geometrical conjunctions and my
favoruite of his tracts is “La linea e la strischia’ – but he has also
philosophised on other issues – notably on ‘cybernetics,’ where he purports to
give a ‘mechanical explanation’ of language – he has also talked about the
‘mind,’ – ‘mente’ – an expression Italian philosophers hardly use as they see
it as an Anglicism, preferring ‘anima,’ – “He has rather boldly philosophised
on ‘eudaimonia,’ without taking into account J. L. Ackrill’s etymological
findings – but then the Italians use ‘felicita’! – ‘the ingeneering of
happiness’ – and also of the ‘fabrica del bello’ --. Grice: “How to, and how
not to” “Are all ‘how not to’ ironic? Ceccato thinks not – he has philosophised
on sophistry in ‘how NOT to philosophise’ – and he sees Socrates, who claims to
be ‘imperfect,’ (i. e. ever unfinished), and echoing Shaw on Wagner, as the
perfect philosophy – ‘il perfetto filosofo’!” Filosofo irregolare, dopo aver
proposto una definizione del termine "filosofia" e un'analisi dello
sviluppo storico di questa disciplina ha preferito prenderne le distanze e
perseguire la costruzione di un'opzione alternativa, denominata inizialmente
"metodologia operativa" e in seguito "cibernetica".
Filosofo prolifico, ha numerosi saggi -- rendendosi noto in particolare nella cibernetica.
Pur ottenendo notevole successo di pubblico con i suoi saggi, riscosse scarso
successo nell’ambiene filosofico bolognese. Fu tra i primi in Italia ad
interessarsi alla traduzione automatica di testi, settore in cui ha fornito importanti
contributi. Sperimentò anche la relazione tra cibernetica e arte in
collaborazione con il Gruppo V di Rimini. Studioso della psicologia
filosofica, intesa come l'insieme delle attività che l'uomo svolge per
costituire i significati, memorizzarli ed esprimerli, ne propose un modello in
termini di organo e funzione, scomponendo quest'ultima in fasi provvisoriamente
elementari di un ipotetico organo, e nelle loro combinazioni in sequenze
operazionali, in parte poi designate dalla espressione semplice e della
espression complessa (frastico, frase) e del ‘codice’ utilizzato nel rapport sociale.
Fondò ed animò la "Scuola Operativa Italiana", il cui patrimonio è
tuttora oggetto di studio e ricerca. Studia Giurisprudenza, violoncello e composizione
musicale. Fonda Methodos. Costrue “Adamo II”, un prototipo illustrativo della
successione di attività proposte come costitutive dei costrutti (la lingua
adamica) da lui chiamati "categorie" per analogia e in omaggio a
Immanuele Kant. Insegna a Milano. Diresse il Centro di Cibernetica e di
Attività Linguistiche a Milano. Incontró, durante una cena di gala, il
Professore di Sistemi di controllo, a Pavia, Mella. Successivamente a questo
incontro ispiratore decise di partecipare come attore nel film "32
dicembre" di Crescenzo, interpretandovi il ruolo del folle Cavalier
Sanfilippo che si crede Socrate. Un tecnico tra i filosofi, così intitolò
il saggio apparso nelle Edizioni Marsilio di Padova, con i rispettivi sottotitoli:
"Come filosofare" e "Come non filosofare”. Altre opere: “Il
linguaggio con la Tabella di Ceccatieff”, Actualités Scientifiques et
Industrielles, Éditions Hermann, Paris); Adamo II, Congresso Internazionale
dell'Automatismo, Milano); “Un tecnico fra i filosofi, Marsilio, Padova); “Cibernetica
per tutti, Feltrinelli, Milano); “Corso di linguistica operativa, Longanesi,
Milano); “Il gioco del Teocono, All'Insegna del Pesce d'Oro, Milano); “L’anima vista
da un cibernetico, ERI, Torino); “La terza cibernetica. Per una anima creativa
e responsabile, Feltrinelli, Milano); “Miroglio, Ed. Priuli&Verlucca,
Ivrea); “Ingegneria della felicità” (Rizzoli, Milano); Il linguista
inverosimile, Mursia, Milano); “Contentezza e intelligenza (Rizzoli); Mille
tipi di bello” (Stampa alternativa, Viterbo); “C'era una volta la filosofia”
(Spirali, Milano); Il maestro inverosimile” (Bompiani, Milano) (CL In Italia la
Società di Cultura Metodologica Operativa a Milano, il Centro Internazionale di
Didattica Operativa. l Gruppo Operazionista di Ricerca Logonica. Dizionario
biografico degli italiani, Roma, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana, La
cibernetica italiana della mente nella civiltà delle macchine. Origini e
attualità della logonica attenzionale a partire da Ceccato, Mantova,
Universitas Studiorum. PRIMI STUDI PER UN ATTEGGIAMENTO ESTETICO NELLE MACCHINE,
di C.. LA TRADUZIONE NELL'UOMO E NELLO MACCHINA, by Silvio La Mecanizzizione
delle Attivita... L ' Anatomica methodus, di Andrés Laguna (1499 - 1560 ).
Pisa, Giardini, C., comp: Corso di linguistica operativa. A cura di Silvio
Ceccato. Centoventotto illustrazioni nel testo. Milano, Longanesi, lllus. Language and Behavior (1946 ) was
published in Italian translation in 1949, thanks to C. (cf. Petrilli). C.,
padre della cibernetica italiana, che in quegli anni stava mettendo a punto
insieme a Enrico Maretti un prototipo di calcolatore “ intelligente ”, di cui
si può leggere in una nota su “ La grammatica insegnata alle macchine. Studi
in memoria di C. - Page 5books.google.com › books· Translate this page 1999 ·
Snippet view FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 5 In memoria di Silvio Ceccato Felice Accame
Nei giorni immediatamente successivi alla sua morte, i giornali hanno dedicato
pochi, imbarazzati e, a volte, imbarazzanti articoli alla figura di C.. Se
qualcuno, tramite questi articoli... Silvio Ceccato's little volume Corso di
linguistica operativa (Ceccato 1969 ) sits on a quiet shelf in Lauinger library,
the work of a semantic pioneer. C.. C. (Civilta delle Macchine) This monograph
presents a discussion of the problems encountered by members of the Italian
Operational School in their attempts to develop techniques to be used in...
Foundations of Language, Page 171books.google.com › books 1965 · Snippet
view FOUND INSIDE .. with his hand, when he moves the pieces, he performs a
manual, a physical activity. Foundations of Language. The two types of activity
can be distinguished in a 171 C.. I use an operational approach to mental
activity based on C.. TECNICA OPERATIVA " (Ceccato), one of the earliest
approaches implemented on a computer (University of Milan). 2 - I look at the.
Debbo la spinta a studiare processi di questo tipo alla ' tecnica operativa '
di C., di cui un primo abbozzo in Language with the Table of Ceccatieff. Paris:
Herman & Cie. 1951. Die C. si verdano anche articoli in Methodos... C., the
Italian pioneer in the analysis of mental operations and construction, told me
that once, after a public discussion of his theory, he overheard a philosopher
say: " If Ceccato were right, the rest of us would be fools ! C.'s group
exploited semantic pattern matching using semantic categories and semantic case
frames, and C.s approach (1967 ) also involved the use of world knowled. It
is the purpose of this paper to define and differentiate the various uses
of the imperfect indicative, to discover if possible their origin and
trace their interrelations, to outline in fact the history of the tense
in early Latin. The term ' early Latin ' is used somewhat elastically as
including not only all the remains of the language down to about the time
of Sulla, but also the first volume of inscriptions (to 44 B. c.) and the
works of Varro, for Varro belongs distinctly to the older school of
writers in spite of the fact that the Rerum rusticarum libri were written
as late as 37 B. c. But exact chronological periods are of little
meaning in matters of this sort, and the present outline, being but a
frag- ment of a more complete history of the tense, may stop at
this point as well as another. Before proceeding to the
investigation of the cases of the imperfect occurring in early Latin it
is necessary to describe briefly the system by which these cases have
been classified. In the first place all cases of the same verb have been
placed together so that the individual verb forms the basis of
classification. 1 Then verbs of similar meanings have been combined to
form larger groups. There result three main groups (and some
subdivisions) which for the better understanding of this paper may be
tabulated thus: Verbs of physical action or state. Motion of
the whole of a body, e. g. eo, curro. 2. Action of a part of a
body, e. g. do, iacio.Verbal communication, e. g. dico,promilto. 4.
Rest or state, e. g. sum, sto, sedeo. II. Verbs of psychic action
or state. 1. Thought, e. g.puto, scio, spcro. 2.
Feeling, e. g. metuo, atno. 3. Will, e. g. volo, nolo.
1 Cf. Trans. Am. Philolog. Ass., XXX, 1899, pp. 14-15. Auxiliary
verbs, i. e. verbs which represent such English words as could, should,
might, &c, &c, e. g. possum, oportet, decet. Such a system
has, of course, many inconsistencies. The verb ago, for instance, may be
a verb of action (I. 2) or of verbal com- munication (I. 3), but since
instances of this sort were compara- tively rare and affected no
important groups of verbs it has seemed best not to separate cases of the
same verb. Again I. 3 is logically a part of I. 2, or the verbs
grouped under III might perhaps have been distributed among the
different subdivisions of I and II. But the object of the classification,
to discover the function of each case, has seemed best attained by
grouping the verbs as described. By this system verbs of similar meaning,
whose tenses are therefore similarly affected, are brought together and
this is the essential point. In a very large collection of cases a
stricter subdivision would doubtless prove of advantage. 2.
The Facts 1 of Usage. There are about 1400 cases of the imperfect
indicative in the period covered by this investigation. Of these,
however, it has been necessary to exclude 2 from 175 to 180 leaving 1226
from a consideration of which the results have been obtained. The
tense appears, therefore, not to have been a favorite, and its
comparative infrequency which I have noted already for Plautus and
Terence 3 may here be asserted for the whole period of early Latin. About
three-quarters of the total number of cases are supplied by Plautus,
Terence, and Varro (see Table I). A study of these 1226 cases
reveals three general uses of the imperfect indicative : I.
The progressive or true imperfect. II. The aoristic
imperfect. III. The' shifted' imperfect. Let us consider
these in order. In the following pages I have made an effort to state and
illustrate the facts, reserving theory and discussion for the third
section of this paper. These are cases doubtful for one reason or another,
chiefly because of textual corruption or insufficient context. For the
latter reason perhaps too many cases have been excluded, but I have
chosen to err in this direction since so much of the material consists of
fragments where one cannot feel absolutely certain of the force of the tense.
Trans. Am. Philolog. Ass.. The true imperfect shows several subdivisions
: I A. The simple progressive imperfect. I B. The
imperfect of customary past action. I C. The frequentative
imperfect. Of these I A and I B include several more or less
distinct variations, but all three uses together with their
subdivisions betray their relationship by the fact that all possess or
are immediately derived from the progressive ' function. This pro-
gressive idea, the indication of an act as progressing, going on, taking
place, in past time or the indication of a state as vivid, is the true
ear-mark of the tense. The time may be in the distant past or at any
point between that and the immediate past or it may even in many contexts
extend into the present. In duration the time may be so short as to be
inappreciable or it may extend over years. The time is, however, not a
distinguishing mark of the imperfect. The perfect may be described in the
same terms. The kind of action * remains, therefore, the real
criterion in the distinction * of the imperfect from other past
tenses. I A. The Simple Progressive Imperfect. Under this
heading are included all cases in which the tense indicates simple
progressive action, i. e. something in the 'doing', ' being ', 4 &c.
The idea of progression is present in all the cases, but there are in
other respects considerable differences according to which some distinct
varieties may be noted. All told there are 680 cases of this usage
constituting more than half the total. I I have chosen progressive
as more expressive than durative which seems to emphasize too much the
time. 2 'Kind of action' will translate the convenient German
Aktionsart while ' time ' or ' period of time ' may stand for
Zeitstufe. % Herbig in his very interesting discussion, Aktionsart
und Zeitstufe (I. F. '896), comes to the conclusion that 'Aktionsart ' is
older than ' Zeitstufe ' and that though many tenses are used timelessly
none are used in living speech without 'Aktionsart.' The progressive
effect is also found in the present participle (and in parti- cipial
adjectives), and indeed the imperfect, especially in subordinate clauses,
is often interchangeable with a participial expression, falling naturally
into participial form in English also. How close the effect of the
imperfect was to that of the present participle is well illustrated by
Terence, Heaut. 293-4 nebat . . . texebat and 285 texentem . . .
offendimus. Cf. Varro R. R. Ill, 2. 2 cited on p. 167. Of these 449
are syntactically independent, 231 dependent. 1 In its ordinary form this
usage is so well understood that we may content ourselves with a few
illustrations extending over the different groups of verbs. I.i.
Verbs of motion. Plautus, 2 Aul. 178, Praesagibat mi animus frustra me
ire, quom exibam domo. 1 With the principles of formal
description as last and best expressed by Morris (On Principles and
Methods of Syntax, 1901, pp. 197-8) all syntacticians will, I believe,
agree. Nearly all of them will be found well illustrated in the present
paper. For purposes of tense study, however, I have been unable to see
any essential modification in function resulting from variation of person
and number, although some uses have become almost idiomatic in certain
persons, e. g. the immediate past usage with first person sing, of verbs of
motion (p. 15). Just how far tense function is affected by the kind of
sentence in which the tense stands I am not prepared to say. In cases
accompanied by a negative or standing in an interrogative sentence the
tense function is more difficult to define than in simple affirmative
sentences. It is easier also to define the tense function in some forms
of dependent clauses, e. g. temporal, causal, than in others. This is an
interesting phenomenon, needing for its solution a larger and more varied
collection of cases than mine. At present I do not feel that the
influence upon the tense of any of these elements is definite enough to
call for greater complexity in the system of classification. While,
therefore, I have borne these points constantly in mind, the tables show
the results rather than the complete method of my work in this respect.
' In the citation of cases the following editions are used:
Fragments of the dramatists, O. Ribbeck, Scaenicae Romanorum poesis
fragmenta (I & II), Lipsiae -8 (third edition). Plautus, Goetz
and Schoell, T. Macci Plauti comoediae (editio minor), Lipsiae, Terence,
Dziatzko, P. Terenti Afri comoediae, Lipsiae Orators, H. Meyer, Oratorum
romanorum fragmenta, Turici. Historians, C. Peter, Historicorum
Romanorum fragmenta, Lipsiae. Cato, H. Keil, M. Porci Catonis de
agricultura liber, Lipsiae, and H. Jordan, M. Catonis praeter lib. de re
rustica quae extant, Lipsiae i860. Lucilius, L. Mueller, Leipsic, Auctor
ad Herennium, C. L. Kayser, Cornifici rhetoricorum ad C. Herenium libri tres,
Lipsiae. Inscriptions, Th. Mommsen, C. I. L. I. Ennius
(the Annals), L. Mueller, Q. Enni carminum reliquiae, Petropoli.
Naevius (Bell, poen.), L. Mueller, Q. Enni carminum reliquiae, Petropoli.
Varro, H. Keil, M. Terenti Varronis rerum rusticarum libri tres, Lipsiae
1883. Varro, A. Spengel, M. Terenti Varronis de lingua latina,
Berolini 1885. Varro, BUcheler, M. Terenti Varronis saturarum
Menippearum reliquiae, Lipsiae. Id. Amph. 199, Nam quom pugnabant
maxume, ego turn fugiebam maxume. Lucilius, Sat., XVI. 12, l
ibat forte aries' inquit; I. 2. Verbs of action. Ex incertis
incertorum fabulis (comoed. pall.) p. 137, XXIV. R., sed sibi cum tetulit
coronam ob coligandas nuptias, T\b\ ferebat; cum simulabat se sibi
alacriter dare, Turn ad te ludibunda docte et delicate detulit.
Plautus, True. 198 atque opperimino : iam exibit, nam
lavabat. Cf. id. Men. 564 (ferebam), Mil. 1336 (temptabam),
Epid. 138 (mittebam); Terence, Andr. 545 (dabam); Auctor ad Herenn.
4, 20, 27 (oppetebat). I. 3. Verbal communication. Plautus,
Men, Quin modo Erupui, homines qui ferebant te. Apud hasce aedis.
tu clamabas deum fidem, Ex incert. incert. &c. 282. XXXII. R., Vidi
te, Ulixes saxo sternentem Hectora, Vidi tegentem clipeo classem
Doricam : Ego tunc pudendam trepidus hortabar fugam. I. 4.
State. Plautus, Aul. 376, Atque eo fuerunt cariora, aes non
erat. Id. Mil. 181, Sed Philocomasium hicine etiam nunc est? Pe.
Quom exibam, hie erat. Varro, R. R. III. 2. 2., ibi Appium Claudium
augurem sedentem invenimus . . . sedebat ad sinistram ei
Cornelius Merula . . . Cf. also Plautus, Rud. 846,
(sedebanf), Amph. 603 (stabam) &c. &c. II. 1.
Verbs of thought. Hist. frag. p. 70, 1. 7, Et turn quo irent
nesciebani, ilico manserunt. Plautus, Pseud. 500-1, Non a me
scibas pistrinum in mundo tibi, Quom ea muss[c]itabas ? Ps.
Scibam. Cf. also Plautus, Rud. 1 186 ,(credebam); Varro R. R. I. 2.
25. (ignorabat), &c. II. 2. Feeling. Plautus, Epid.
138, Desipiebam mentis, quom ilia scripta mittebam tibi.
Id. Bacch. 683, Bacchidem atque hunc suspicabar propter
crimen, Chrysale, II. 3. Will. Lucilius, Sat. incert.
48, fingere praeterea adferri quod quis- que volebat: In
these cases the act or state indicated by the tense is always viewed as
at some considerable distance in the past even though in reality it may
be distant by only a few seconds. The speaker or writer stands aloof, so
to speak, and views the event as at some distance and as confined within
certain fairly definite limits in the past. If, now, the action be
conceived as extending to the im- mediate past or the present of the
speaker, a different effect is produced, although merely the limits
within which the action progresses have been extended. This phase of the
progressive imperfect we might term the imperfect of the immediate past 1
or the interrupted 2 imperfect, since the action of the verb is
often interrupted either by accomplishment or by some other event.
A few citations will make these points clearer : Plautus, Stich.
328, ego quid me velles visebam. Nam mequidem harum miserebat. — '\
was coming to see what you wanted of me (when I met you) ; for I've been
pitying (and still pity) these women.' In the first verb the action
is interrupted by the meeting ; in the second it continues into the
present, the closest translation being our English compound pro- gressive
perfect, a tense which Latin lacked. The imperfect ibam is very common in
this usage, cf. Plautus, True. 921, At ego ad te ibam = l was on my way
to see you (when you called me), cf. Varro, R. R. II. 11. 12; Terence, Phorm.
900, Andr. 580. But the usage is by no means confined to verbs of
motion (I. 1) alone. It extends over all the categories: I.
2. Motion. Plautus, Aulul. 827 (apparabas), cf. Andr. 656. 1
In Greek the aorist is used of events just past, but of course with no
pro- gressive coloring, cf. Brugmann in I. Miiller's Handbuch, &c. E.
Rodenbusch, De temporum usu Plautino quaest. selectae, Argentorati 1888,
pp. n-12, recognizes and correctly explains this usage, adding some
examples of similar thoughts expressed by the present, e. g. Plautus, Men.
280 (quaeris), ibid. 675 (quaerit), Amph. 542 (numquid vis, a common
leave-taking formula). In such cases the speaker uses imperfect or
present according as past or present predominates in his mind, the
balance between the two being pretty even. Verbal communication.
Terence, Eun. 378 (iocabar), Heaut. 781 (dicebam) ; Plautus, Trin. 212
(aibanf). I. 4. Rest. Plautus, Cas. 532 (eratn), cf.
Men. n 35. Terence, Eun. 87 (stabam), Phorm. 573 {cotnmorabar).
II. 1. Thought. Terence, Phorm. 582 (scibam), cf. Heaut. 309.
Plautus, Men. 1072 (censebam), cf. Bacch. 342, As. 385 &c. II.
2. Feeling. Plautus, Stich. 329 (miserebaf) ; Turpilius, 107 V
R. (sperabam). II. 3. Will. Plautus, As. 392 and
395 (volebatn), Most. 9, Poen. 1231. 1 III. Auxiliary verbs.
Plautus, Epid. 98 (so/ebam), cf. Amph. 711. Terence, Phor- mio 52
(conabar). In this usage the present or immediate past is in the
speaker's mind only less strongly than the point in the past at which the
verb's action begins. The pervading influence of the present is evident
not only because present events are usually at hand in the context, but
also from the occasional use with the imperfect of a temporal particle or
expression of the present, cf. Plaut. Merc. 884, Quo nunc ibas = '
whither were you (are you) going ? ' Terence, Andr. 657, immo etiam, quom
tu minus scis aerumnas meas, Haec nuptiae non adparabanfur
mihi, ' Rodenbusch (p. 26) labors hard to show that this case is
like the preceding and not parallel with the cases of volui which he
cites on p. 24 with all of which an infinitive of the verb in the main
clause is either expressed or to be supplied. Following Bothe, he alters
deicere to dice (which he assigns to Adelphasium) and refers quod to the
amabo and amflexabor of I230 = 'meine Absicht'. But there is no need of
this. Infinitives occur with some of the cases cited by Rodenbusch
himself on p. II, e. g. Bacch. 188 (189) Istuc volebatn . . .
fercontarier, Trin. 195 Istuc voUbam scire, to which may be added Cas.
674 Dicere vilicum volebatn and ibid. 702 illud . . . dicere volebatn. It
is true that the perfect is more common in such passages, but the
imperfect is by no means excluded. The difference is simply one of the speaker's
point of view: quod volui = ' what I wished * (complete) ; quod valebant
= ' what I was and am wishing ' (incomplete). As. 212, which also
troubles Rodenbusch, is customary past. Nee postulabat nunc
quisquam uxorem dare. Merc. 197, Equidem me tarn censebam esse in
terra atque in tuto loco : Verum video . . . In
the last two cases note the accompanying presents, set's and video.
The immediate past also is indicated by a particle, e. g. Plautus,
Cas. 594 ad te hercle ibam commodum. There are in all 207 l cases
of this imperfect of the immediate past. They are distributed pretty
evenly over the various groups of verbs as will be seen from the
following table: No. of Cases. I. I Verbs of
motion, 26 I. 2 it " action,
17 I. 3 (i "verbal communication, 31 I. 4 state, 35 II. 1 it "
thought, 36 II. 2 " " feeling,
35 II. 3 " " will, 13 Auxiliary
verbs, The verbs proportionately most common in this use are ibam
and volebam which have become idiomatic. The usage is especially common
in colloquial Latin, but 16 cases 5 occurring outside the dramatic
literature represented chiefly, of course, by Plautus and Terence.
By virtue of its progressive force the imperfect is a vivid tense
and as is well known, became a favorite means in the Ciceronian period of
enlivening descriptive passages. It was especially used to fill in the
details and particulars of a picture (imperfect of situa- tion). 8 This
use of the tense appears in early Latin also, but with much less
frequency. The choice of the tense for this purpose is a matter of art,
whether conscious or unconscious. At times, indeed, there is no apparent
reason for the selection of an imper- fect rather than a perfect except
that the former is more graphic, 1 Somewhat less than one-third of
the total (680) progressive cases. 5 These cases are Ennius, Ann.
204, C. I. L. I. 201. 1 1 (3 cases), Varro, L. L. 5. 9 (1 case), and
Auctor ad Herenn. 1. 1. 1 (2 cases), 1. 10. 16, 2. 1. 2, 2. 2. 2 (2
cases), 3. 1. 1 (2 cases), 4. 34. 46, 4. 36. 48, 4. 37. 49. All of these are
in passages of colloquial coloring, either in speeches or, especially
those in auctor ad Herenn., in epistolary passages. 3 I use
this term for all phases of the tense used for graphic purposes. and if
it were possible to separate in every instance these cases from those in
which the imperfect may be said to have been required, we should have a
criterion by which we might dis- tinguish this use of the imperfect from
others. But since the progressive function of the tense is not altered,
such a distinction is not necessary. Statistics as to the
frequency of the imperfect of situation in early Latin are worth little
because the chief remains of the language of that period are the
dramatists in whom naturally the present is more important than the past.
The historians, to whom we should look for the best illustrations of this
usage, are for the most part preserved to us in brief fragments.
Nevertheless an examination of the comparatively few descriptive passages
in early Latin reveals several points of interest. In Plautus
and Terence the imperfect was not a favorite tense in descriptions.
Bacch. 258-307, a long descriptive passage of nearly 50 lines,
interrupted by unimportant questions, shows only 4 imperfects (1
aoristic) amid over 40 perfects, historical presents, &c. Capt.
497-5151 Amph. 203-261, Bacch. 947-970, show but one case each. Stich.
539-554 shows 5 cases of erat. In Epid. 207-253 there are 10 cases.
In the descriptive passages of Terence the imperfect is still far
from being a favorite tense, though relatively more common than in
Plautus, cf. Andr. 48 ff., 74-102, Phorm. 65-135 (containing 11
imperfects). But Eunuch. 564-608 has only 4 and Heaut. 96-150 only
3. Another very instructive passage is the well-known description
by Q. Claudius Quadrigarius of the combat between Manlius and a Gaul
(Peter, Hist. rom. fragg., p. 137, 10b). In this passage of 28 lines
there are but 2 imperfects. The very similar passage describing the
combat between Valerius and a Gaul and cited by Gellius (IX, n) probably
from the same Quadrigarius contains 8 imperfects in 24 lines. Since
Gellius is obviously retelling the second story, the presumption is that
the passage in its original form was similar in the matter of tenses to
the passage about Manlius. In other words Gellius has 'edited' the story
of Valerius, and one of his improvements consists in enlivening the
tenses a bit. He describes the Manlius passage thus : Q. Claudius primo
annalium purissime atque illustrissime simplicique et incompta orationis
antiquae suavitate descripsit. This simplex et incompta suavitas is due
in large measure to the fact that Quadrigarius has used the simple
perfect (19 times), varying it with but few (4) presents and imperfects
(2). A closer com- parison of the passage with the story of Valerius
reveals the difference still more clearly. Quadrigarius uses (not
counting subordinate clauses) 19 perfects, 4 presents, 2 imperfects ;
Gellius, 4 perfects, 9 presents, 8 imperfects. In several instances
the same act is expressed by each with a different tense :
Quadrigarius. Gellius. processit (bis), f procedebat,
\ progrediiur, constitit, c congrediuntur, \ consistent,
constituerunt, conserebantur manus, 8 perfects of acts in 5 imperfects
of acts combat. of the corvus. Gellius has secured
greater vividness at the expense of simplicity and directness.
This choice of tenses was, as has been said, a matter of art,
whether conscious or unconscious. The earlier writers seem to have
preferred on the whole the barer, simpler perfect even in passages which
might seem to be especially adapted to the imperfect, historical present,
&c. The perfect, of course, always remained far the commoner tense in
narrative, and instances are not lacking in later times of passages 1 in
which there is a striking preponderance of perfects. Nevertheless the
imperfect, as the language developed, with the growth of the rhetorical
tendency and a consequent desire for variety in artistic prose and
poetry, seems to have come more and more into vogue. 2 The
fact that the function of a tense is often revealed, denned, and
strengthened by the presence in the context of particles of various
kinds, subordinate clauses, ablative absolutes, &c, &c, 1
E. g. Caesar, B. G. I. 55 and 124-5. s The relative infrequency of
the tense in early Latin was pointed out on p. 164. Its growth as a help
in artistic prose is further proved by the fact that the fragments of the
later and more rhetorical annalists, e. g. Quadrigarius, Sisenna, Tubero,
show relatively many more cases than the earliest annalists. This is
probably not accident. When compared with the history of the same
phenomenon in Greek, where the imperfect, so common in Homer, gave way to
the aorist, this increase in use in Latin may be viewed as a revival of a
usage popular in Indo-European times. Cf. p. 185, n. 2. was pointed out in
Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. XXX, pp. 17 ff. What was there 1 said of Plautus
and Terence may here be extended to the whole period of early Latin. The
words and phrases used in this way are chiefly temporal. Some of
those occurring most frequemly are: modo, commodum ; turn, tunc;
simul; dudum, iam dudum; iam, primo, primulum ; nunc; ilico; olim,
quondam; semper, saepe; fere, plerumque ; Ha, 2 &c, &c. A rough
count shows in this class about 120 cases,' accompanied by one or more
particles or expressions of this sort. Some merely date the tense, e. g.,
turn, modo, dudum, &c. Others, as saepe, fere, primulum, have a more
intimate connection with the function. Naturally the effect of the latter
group is clearest in the imperfects of customary past action, the
frequentative, &c, and will be illustrated under those headings. Here
I will notice only a few cases with iam, primulum, &c, which
illustrate very well how close the relation between particle and tense
may be. The most striking cases are : Plautus, Merc. 43,
amare valide coepi[t] hie meretricem. ilico Res exulatum ad illam <c>lam
abibat patris. Cf. Men. 1 1 16, nam tunc dentes mihi cadebant
primulum. id. Merc. 197, Equidem me iam censebam esse in terra
atque in tuto loco : Verum video . . . id. Cist.
566, Iam perducebam illam ad me suadela mea, Anus ei <quom>
amplexast genua . . . id. Merc. 212, credet hercle: nam credebat iam
mihi. The unquestionably inceptive force of these cases arises
from the combination of tense and particle. No inceptive* function
can be proved for the tense alone, for I find no cases with inceptive
force unaccompanied by such a particle. Cf. also Morris, Syntax, p.
83. 5 How far the nature of the clause in which it stands may
influence the choice of a tense is a question needing investigation. That
causal, explanatory, characterizing, and other similar clauses very often
seem to require an im- perfect is beyond question, but the proportion of
imperfects to other tenses in such clauses is unknown. Cf. p. 166, n.
1. s No introductory conjunctions are included in this total, nor
are other particles included, unless they are in immediate connection
with the tense. 4 In Trans. Am. Philolog. Ass. XXX, p. 21, I was
inclined to take at least Merc. 43 as inceptive. This I now believe to
have been an error. The inceptive idea was most commonly expressed by
coepi -\- m&n. which is very common in Plautus and Varro. We have
here the opposite of the phenomenon discussed on p. 177. There are a
few cases in which the imperfect produces the same effect as the
imperfect of the so-called first periphrastic conjuga- tion : Terence,
Hec. 172, Interea in Imbro moritur cognatus senex. Horunc: ea
ad hos redibal lege hereditas.=reditura erat, English ' was coming ', '
was about to revert ', cf. Greek pi\\a> with infinitive.
Cf. Phorm. 929, Nam non est aequum me propter vos decipi, Quom ego
vostri honoris causa repudium alterae Remiserim, quae dotis tantundem
<fti£«/.=datura erat &c. In these cases the really future event is
conceived very vividly as already being realized. Plautus,
Amph. 597 seems to have the effect of the English 'could':
Neque . . . mihi credebam primo mihimet Sosiae Donee Sosia . . .
ille . . . But the * could ' is probably inference from what is a very
vivid statement. A Roman would probably not have felt such a
shading. 1 I B. The Imperfect of Customary Past Action.
The imperfect may indicate some act or state at some appreci- able
distance in the past as customary, usual, habitual &c. The act or
state must be at some appreciable distance in the past (and is usually at
a great distance) because this function of the tense depends upon the
contrast between past and present, a contrast so important that in a
large proportion of the cases it is enforced by the use of particles. 2
The act (or state) is conceived as repeated at longer or shorter
intervals, for an act does not become customary until it has been
repeated. This customary act usually takes place also as a result or
necessary concomitant of certain conditions expressed or implied in the
context, e. g. maiores nosiri olim &c, prepares us for a statement of
what they used to do. The act may indeed be conceived as occurring only
as a result of a certain expressed condition, e. g. Plautus, Men. 484
mulier quidquid dixerat, 1 Some of the grammars recognize '
could' as a translation, e. g., A. & G. § 277 g- 8
E. g. turn, tunc, olim &c. with the imperfect, and nunc &c. with the
con- trasted present. Idem ego dicebam = my words would
be uttered only as a result of hers. 1 There are 462 cases of
the customary past usage of which 218 occur in independent sentences, 244
in dependent. This large total, more than one-third of all the cases, is
due to the character of Varro's De lingua latina from which 289 cases
come. This is veritably a ' customary past ' treatise, for it is for the
most part a discussion of the customs of the old Romans in matters
pertaining to speech. Accordingly nearly all the imperfects fall under
this head. Plautus and Terence furnish 112. The remaining 61 are
pretty well scattered. As illustrations of this usage I will cite
(arranging the cases according to the classes of verbs) : I.
1. Plautus, Pseud. 1180, Noctu in vigiliam quando ibat miles, quom tu Has
simul, Conveniebatne in vaginam tuam machaera militis ? Terence,
Hec. 157, Ph. Quid ? interea ibatne ad Bacchidem ? Pa.
Cottidie. Varro, L. L. 5. 180, qui iudicio vicerat, suum sacramentum
e sacro auferebat, victi ad aerarium redibat. I. 2. Plautus,
Bacch. 429, Saliendo sese exercebant magis quam scorto aut saviis.
(cf. the whole passage). Hist, fragg., p. 83. 27, Cn., inquit, Flavius,
patre libertino natus, scriptum faciebat (occupation) isque in eo tempore
aedili curuli apparebat, . . . I. 3. Terence, Eun. 398, Vel rex
semper maxumas Mihi agebal quidquid feceram : Varro, L. L.,
5. 121, Mensa vinaria rotunda nominabalur Cili- bantum ut etiam nunc in
castris. Cf. L. L. 7. 36, appellabant, 5. 118, 5. 167 &c.
1 This usage seemed to me formerly sufficiently distinct to deserve a
special class and the name 'occasional', since it is occasioned by
another act. It is at best, however, only a sub-class of the customary
past usage and in the present paper I have not distinguished it in the
tables. It is noteworthy that the act is here at its minimum as regards
repetition and that it may occur in the immediate past, cf. Rud. 1226,
whereas the customary past usage in its pure form is never used of the
immediate past. The usages may be approxi- mately distinguished in
English by 'used to', 'were in the habit of &c. (pure customary
past), and 'would' (occasional), although 'would' is often a good
rendering of the pure customary past. Good cases of the occasional usage
are : Plautus, Merc. 216, 217 ; Poen. 478 S ; Terence, Hec. 804 ; Hist,
fragg. p. 202. 9 (5 cases), ibid. p. 66. 128 (4 cases). Plautus, Bacch.
421, Eadem ne erat haec disciplina tibi, quom tu adulescens eras
? C. I. L. I. 1011.17 Ille meo officio adsiduo florebat ad omnis.
II. 1. Auctor ad Herenn. 4. 16. 23, Maiores nostri si quam unius
peccati mulierem damnabant, simplici iudicio multorum rnaleficiorum
convictam putabant. quo pacto ? quam inpudicam iudicarant, ea venefici
quoque damnata existutnabatur. Cato, De ag., 1, amplissime laudari
existimabatur qui ita lau- dabatur. II. 2. Plautus, Epid. 135,
Illam amabam olim: nunc tarn alia cura impendet pectori.
Varro, R. R. III. 17.8, etenim hac incuria laborare aiebat M.
Lucullum ac piscinas eius despiciebat quod aestivaria idonea non
haberent. III. 3. Plautus, As. 212, quod nolebant ac votueram,
de industria Fugiebatis neque conari id facere audebatis
prius. Cf. the whole passage. Varro, L. L. 5. 162, ubi quid
conditum esse volebant, a celando Cellam appellarunt. III.
Terence, Phorm. 1 90, Tonstrina erat quaedam : hie sole-
bamusfere Plerumque earn opperiri, . . . Varro, L. L. 6. 8,
Solstitium quod sol eo die sistere videbatur . . . The influence of
particles 2 and phrases in these cases is very marked. I count about 1 10
cases, more than I of the total, with which one or more particles appear.
Those expressions which emphasize the contrast are most common, e. g.
turn, olim, me puero with the imperfect, and nunc, iam &c. with the
contrasted present. This class also affords excellent
illustrations of the reciprocal influence of verb-meaning' and
tense-function. In Varro there are 50 cases, out of 289, of verbs of
naming, calling, &c, which are by nature evidently adapted to the
expression of the customary past. Such are appellabam, nominabam,
vocabam, vocitabam, &c. But the most striking illustration is found
in verbs of customary action, e. g. soleo, adsuesco, consuesco, which by
their 1 Cf. Trans. Am. Philolog. Ass. XXX, p. 19. s
Note as illustrations the italicized particles in the citations, pp.
175-6. 3 Cf. Morris, Syntax, p. 47, and p., with note.
meaning possess already the function supplied to other verbs by the tense
and context. When a verb of this class occurs in the imperfect of
customary past the function is enhanced. Naturally, however, these verbs
occur but rarely in the imperfect, for in any tense they express the
customary past function. It is interesting to note the struggle for
existence between various expressions of the same thought. A Roman
could express the customary past idea in several ways, of which the
most noticeable are the imperfect tense, soleo or the like with an
infinitive, or various periphrases such as mos erat. Of these
possibilities all are rare save the first, the imperfect tense. There are
but 12 cases of soleo, consuesco, &c, occurring in the imperfect
indicative in early Latin. These are all cases of solebam, and 9 of them
are imperfects of customary past action. 1 One would expect to find in
common use the perfect of these verbs with an infinitive, but, although I
have no exact statistics on this point, a pretty careful lookout has
convinced me that such expressions are by no means common. 2 Periphrases
with mos, consuetudo, &c, are also rare. Comparing these facts with
the large number of cases in which the customary past function is
expressed by the imperfect, we must conclude that this was the favorite
mode of expression already firmly established in the earliest literature.
8 I C. The Frequentative Imperfect. In the proper
context 4 the imperfect may denote repeated or insistent action in the
past. Although resembling the imperfect of customary past action, in
which the act is also conceived as 1 Terence, Phorm. go; Varro,
R.R. 1.2. 1, and II. 7. I, L. L. 5. 126; Auctor ad Herenn. 4. 54. 67 ;
Lucilius, IV. 2, &c. s A collection of perfects covering 18
plays of Plautus shows but 15 cases of solitus est, consuevit, &c. My
suspicion, based on Plautus and Terence, that these periphrases would
prove common has thus been proven groundless. 8 The variation
between imperfect and perfect is well illustrated by Varro, L. L. 5. 162,
ubi cenabant, cenaculum vocitabant, and id. R. R. I. 17. 2, iique quos
obaeratos nostri vocitarunt, where the frequentative verb expresses even
in the perfect the customary past function. For the variation
between the customary past imperfect and the perfect of statement cf.
Varro's L. L. almost anywhere, e. g. 5. 121, mensa . . . rotunda
nominabatur Clibantum. 5. 36, ab usu salvo saltus nominarunt. So compare
5. 124 (appellarunt) with R. R. I. 2. 9 (appellabant). Cf. also L. L. 5. 35
qua ibant . . . iter appellarunt ; qua id auguste, semita.ut semiter
dictum. 4 Cf. Herbig, Aktionsart und Zeitstufe (I. F. 1896, § 59). repeated,
the frequentative usage differs in that there is no idea of habit or
custom, and the act is depicted as repeated at intervals close together
and without any conditioning circumstances or contrast with the present.
I find only 13 cases of this usage, 7 of which are syntactically
independent, 6 dependent. All occur in the first three classes of verbs.
The cases are : Plautus, Pers. 20, miquidem tu iam eras mortuos,
quia non visitabam. Ibid. 432, id tibi suscensui, Quia
te negabas credere argentum mihi. Rud. 540, Tibi auscultavi : tu
promittebas mihi Mi esse quaestum maxumum meretricibus :
Capt. 917, Aulas . . . omnis confregit nisi quae modiales erant
: Cocum percontabatur, possentne seriae fervescere : As. 938,
Dicebam, pater, tibi ne matri consuleres male. Cf. Mil. Gl. 1410
(dicebaf). True. 506, Quin ubi natust machaeram et clupeum
poscebat sibi ? Epid. 59, Quia cottidie ipse ad me ab legione
epistulas Mittebat: cf. ibid. 132 (missiculabas). Merc. 631,
Promittebas te os sublinere meo patri : ego me[t] credidi
Homini docto rem mandar<e>, . . . Ennius, Ann. 43, haec ecfatu'
pater, germana, repente recessit. Nee sese dedit in conspectum corde
cupitus, quamquam multa manus ad caeli caerula templa iendebam
lacrumans et blanda voce vocabam. Hist, fragg., p. 138. 11 (Q. Claudius
Quadrigarius), Ita per sexennium vagati Apuliam atque agrum quod his per
militem licebat expoliabaniur. This class is so small and many of
the cases are so close to the simple progressive and the imperfect of
situation that it is tempting to force the cases into those classes. 1 A
careful con- 1 How close the frequentative notion may be to the
imperfect of the immediate past is well illustrated by As. 938 (cited
above). In this case we have virtually an imperfect of the immediate past
in which, however, the frequentative coloring predominates : dicebam
means not ' I've been telling ', but 'I've kept telling', &c. Cf.
also Pseud. 422 (dissimulabam) for another case of the imperfect of the
immediate past which is close to the frequentative. In its pure form,
however, the frequentative imperfect does not hold in view the
present. sideration of each case has, however, convinced me that the
frequentative function is here clearly predominant. In Plautus, Pers. 20,
E pid. 131, Capt. 917, it is impossible to say how much of the
frequentative force is due to the tense and how much to the form of the
verbs themselves ; both are factors in the effect. Verbs like
mitto,promitio, voco, and even dico, are also obviously adapted to the
expression of the frequentative function. It is noteworthy that in
this usage a certain emphasis is laid on the tense. In eight of the cases
the verb occupies a very em- phatic position, in verse often the first
position in the line, cf. the definition on p. 177. I D. The
Conative Imperfect. The imperfect may indicate action as attempted
in the past. There must be something in the context, usually the
immediate context, to show that the action of the verb is fruitless.
There are no certain cases of this usage in early Latin. I cite the
only instances, four in number, which may be interpreted as
possibly conative : Plautus, As. 931, Arg. Ego dissuadebam,
mater. Art. Bellum filium. Id. Epid. 215, Turn meretricum
numerus tantus quantum in urbe omni fuit Obviam ornatae
occurrebant suis quaeque | amatoribus : Eos captabant. Auctor
ad Herenn., 4. 55. 68, . . . cum pluribus aliis ire celerius
coepit. illi praeco faciebat audientiam; hie subsellium, quod
erat in foro, cake premens dextera pedem defringit et . . .
Hist, fragg., p. 143. 46, Fabius de nocte coepit hostibus castra
simulare oppugnare, eum hostem delectare, dum collega id
caperet quod capiabat. But in the second and fourth cases the
verb capto itself means to 'strive to take', 'to catch at' &c, and none
of the conative force can with certainty be ascribed to the tense. In the
first case, again, the verb dissuadebam means 'to advise against',
not 'to succeed in advising against' (dissuade). Argyrippus says :
' I've been advising against his course, mother', not ' I've been trying,
or I tried, to dissuade him'. The imperfect is, therefore, of the common
immediate past variety. 1 1 Cf. a few lines below (938)
dicebam. In Auct. ad Herenn., 4. 55. 68, the imperfect is
part of the very vivid description of the scene attending the death of
Tiberius Gracchus. Indeed the whole passage is an illustration of
demon- stratio or vivid description which the author has just
defined. The acts of Gracchus and his followers are balanced
against those of the fanatical optimates under Scipio Nasica:
'While the herald was silencing 1 the murmurs in the contio, Scipio
was arming himself &c. Though it may be true that the act indi-
cated by faciebat audientiam was not accomplished, this seems a remote
inference and one that cannot be proved from the context. If
my interpretation of these cases is correct, there are no certain 1
instances of the conative imperfect in early Latin. There is but
one case of conabar (Terence, Phorm. 52) and one of temptabam (Plautus,
Mil. gl. 1336). Both of these belong to the immediate past class, the
conative idea being wholly in the verb. II. The Aoristic
Imperfect. The imperfect of certain verbs may indicate an act or
state as merely past without any idea of progression. In this usage
the kind of action reaches a vanishing point and only the temporal
element of the tense remains. The imperfect becomes a mere preterite, cf.
the Greek aorist and the Latin aoristic perfect. The verbs to which this
use of the imperfect is restricted are, in early Latin, two verbs of
saying, aio and dico, and the verb sum with its compounds.
There are 56 cases of the aoristic imperfect in early Latin (see
Table II), 48 of which occur in syntactically independent sen- tences.
Some citations follow: Plautus, Bacch. 268, Quotque innocenti ei
dixit contumelias. Adulterare eum aibat rebus ceteris. Id.
Most. 1027, Te velle uxorem aiebat tuo gnato dare : Ideo aedificare hoc
velle aiebat in tuis. Th. Hie aedificare volui? Si. Sic dixit mihi.
Id. Poen. 900, Et ille qui eas vendebat dixit se furtivas vendere:
Ingenuas Carthagine aibat esse. 1 Faciebat audientiam seems a
technical expression, cf. lexicon. 2 The case cited by
Gildersleeve- Lodge, § 233, from Auct. ad Herenn., 2. I. 2, ostendebatur
seems to me a simple imperfect and there is nothing in the context to
prove a conative force, cf. 3. 15. 26 demonstrabatur. In these cases note
the parallel cases of dixit, cf. id. Trin. 1140, Men. 1 141 &c,
&c. I note but three cases of dicebam: Terence, Eun. 701,
Ph. Unde [igitur] fratrem meum esse scibas ? Do. Parmeno Dicebat
eum esse. Cf. Plautus, Epid. 598 for a perfect used like this.
Varro, R. R. II. 4. 11, In Hispania ulteriore in Lusitania [ulteriore]
sus cum esset occisus, Atilius Hispaniensis minime mendax et multarum
rerum peritus in doctrina, dicebat L. Volumnio senatori missam esse
offulam cum duabus costis . . . Ibid. III. 17. 4, pisces . . . quos
sacrificanti tibi, Varro, ad tibicinem [graecum] gregatim venisse dicebas
ad extremum litus atque aram, quod eos capere auderet nemo, . . .
In these cases the verb dico becomes as vague as is aio in the preceding
citations. Plautus, Poen. 1069, Nam mihi sobrina Ampsigura tua
mater fuit, Pater tuos is erat frater patruelis meus,
Et is me heredem fecit, Id. Mil. gl. 1430, Nam illic qui | ob oculum habebat
lanam nauta non erat. Py. Quis erat igitur? Sc. Philocomasio
amator. Id. Amph. 1009, Naucratem quem convenire volui in navi
non erat, Neque domi neque in urbe invenio quemquam qui ilium
viderit. 1 Id. Merc. 45, Leno inportunus, dominus eius
mulieris, Vi sum<m>a[t] quicque utpoterat rapiebat
domum. In such cases as the last the imperfect has become
formulaic, cf. quam maxime poter at, &c. 1 Rodenbusch,
pp. 8-10, after asserting that the imperfect of verbs of saying and the
like is used in narratio like the perfect (aorist), cites a number of
illustrations in which (he adds) the imperfect force may still be felt ! But
a case in which the imperfect force may still be felt does not illustrate
the imperfect in simple past statements, if that is what is meant by
narratio. Only four of R.'s citations are preterital (aoristic), and
these are all cases of aibam (Plautus, Amph. 807, As. 208, 442, Most.
1002). The same may be said of the citations on p. g, of which only Eun.
701 is aoristic. J. Schneider (De temporum apud priscos latinos usu
quaestiones selectae, program, Glatr, 1888) recognizes the aoristic use
of aibat, but his statement that the comic poets used perfect and
imperfect indiscriminately as aorists cannot be accepted. The Shifted
Imperfect. In a few cases the imperfect appears shifted from its
function as a tense of the past, and is equivalent to (i) a mere present;
or (2) an imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive. The cases equivalent
to a present 1 are all in Varro, L. L., and are restricted to verbs of
obligation {oportebat, debebaf) : L. L. 8. 74, neque oportebat
consuetudinem notare alios dicere Bourn greges, alios Boverum, et signa
alios Iovum, alios Ioverum. Ibid. 8. 47, Nempe esse oportebat vocis
formas ternas ut in hoc Humanus, Humana, Humanum, sed habent quaedam
binas . . . ibid. 9. 85, si esset denarii in recto casu atque infinitam
multi- tudinem significaret, tunc in patrico denariorum dici
oportebat. Ibid. 8. 65, Sic Graeci nostra senis casibus [quinis non]
dicere debebant, quod cum non faciunt, non est analogia.* The
cases equivalent to the subjunctive are confined to sat &c. + erat (6
cases), poteram (3 cases), decebat (1 case), and sequebatur (1 case). As
illustrations may be cited : Plautus, Mil. gl. 755, Insanivisti
hercle : nam idem hoc homini- bus sat [a] era\ti\t decern.
Auct. ad Herenn. 2. 22. 34, nam hie satis erat dicere, si id modo quod
esset satis, curarent poetae. = ' would have been,' cf. ibid. 4. 16. 23
(iniquom erat), Plautus, Mil. gl. 911, Bonus vates poieras esse : = '
might be ' or ' might have been '. Id. Merc. 983 b, Vacuum
esse istac ted aetate his decebat noxiis. Eu. Itidem ut tempus anni,
aetate<m> aliam aliud factum condecet. Varro, L. L. 9. 23, si
enim usquequaque non esset analogia, turn sequebatur ut in verbis quoque
non esset, non, cum esset usquequaque, ut est, non esse in verbis . . .
This is a very odd case and I can find no parallel for it.* 1
Varro uses the perfect also of these verbs as equivalent to the present
of general statements. Cf. L. L. 8, §§ 72-74, where debuit occurs 4 times
as equivalent to debet, § 48 (debuerunt twice), § 50 (pportuit =
oportet). The perfect infinitive is equivalent to the present, e. g. in
8, §61 and §66 (debuisse . . . dici). The tenses are of very little
importance in such verbs. 8 Note the presents expressed in the
second and fourth citations. 3 The remaining cases are: Plautus,
True. 511 (poterai), id. Rud. 269 (aequittserat), Lucilius, Sat. 5. 47 M.
(sat erat), Auctor ad Herenn. 4. 16. 23 (iniquom erat), ibid. 4. 41. 53
(quae separatim dictae infimae erant). Total. Imperfect. Aoristic. Shifted. Progressive. Cust.Past. Frequent. Terence Dramatists
Historians Auctor ad Her. Inscriptions The fragments of Cato's historical
work are included in the historians. 'Including the epic fragments of
Ennius and Naevius. Verbs and Functions. Cases. Imperfect. Classes
of Verbs. Progressive. Cust. Past. Frequent. Aoristic. Shifted.
Ind.Dep. Ind. Dep. Ind. Dep. Ind. Dep. Ind. Dep
.I. Physical. Verbal commun. Rest, state, &c. (tram
220) Psychical. Will Auxiliaries. american
journal of philology. Historical and Theoretical. The
original function of the imperfect seems to have been to indicate action
as progressing in the past, the simple progressive imperfect. This is
made probable, in the first place, by the fact that this usage is more
common than all others combined, including, as it does, 680 out of a
total of 1226 cases. This proportion is reduced, as we should remember,
by the peculiar character of the literature under examination, which
contains relatively so little narrative, and especially by the nature
of Varro's De lingua latina in which the cases are chiefly of the
customary past variety. 1 Moreover, the customary past usage itself, and
also the frequentative and the conative, are to be regarded as offshoots
of the progressive usage of which they still retain abundant traces, so
that if we include in our figures all the classes in which a trace of the
progressive function remains we shall find that 11 55 of 1226 cases are
true imperfects (see table II). Another support for the view
that the progressive function is original may be drawn from the probable
derivation of the tense. Stolz 2 (after Thurneysen) derives the imperfect
from the infinitive in -e and an old aoristof the root *bhu. The idea of
progression was thus originally inherent in the ending -bam.
Let us now establish as far as possible the relations subsisting
between the various uses of the true imperfect (IA, B, C, D), turning our
attention first to the simple progressive (IA) and its variations.
The relation between the progressive imperfect in its pure form and
the usage which has been named the imperfect of the immediate past is not
far to seek. The progressive function remains essentially unchanged. The
only difference lies in the extension of the time up to the immediate
past (or present) in the case of the immediate past usage. The transition
between: ibat exulatutn'' = ' he was going into exile ' (when
l See p. 175. 2 In I. Muller's Handb. d. kl. Alt. II., 2 §
113, p. 376. Lindsay, Latin Lang., pp. 489-490, emphasizes the nominal
character of the first element in the compound, and suggests a possible
I. E. *-bhwam, -as, &c, as antecedent of Latin -bam, -ids, -bat. He
also compares very interestingly the formation of the imperfect in
Slavonic, which is exactly analogous to this inferred Latin formation,
except that the ending comes from a different root. 3 Cf. Plautus,
Merc. I saw him at a more or less definite point in the
past) and ibat exulatum = ' he was going (has been going)
into exile' (but we have just met him) is plain enough. The
difference is one of context. In this imperfect of the immediate past the
Romans possessed a sub- stitute for our English compound perfect tense,
'have been doing ', &C 1 In the imperfect of situation
also the function of the tense is not altered. The tense is merely
applied in a different way, its progressive function adapted to vivid
description, and we have found it already in the earliest 2 literature
put to this use. In its extreme form it occurs in passages which would
seem to require nothing more graphic than a perfect. Indeed, we must
guard against the view that the imperfect is a stronger tense than
the perfect; it is as strong, but in a different way, and while the
earlier writers preferred in general the perfect, 8 the imperfect grew
gradually in favor until in the period marked by the highest development
of style the highest art consisted in a happy combination * of the
two. The imperfect of customary past action is, as we have
seen, already well established in the earliest literature. A glance
at Table I would seem to show that it grew to sudden prominence in
Varro, but the peculiar nature of Varro's work has already been pointed
out, so that the apparent discrepancy between the proportion of cases in
Varro and in Plautus and Terence, for instance, means little. It should
be remembered also that this discrepancy is still further increased by
the nature of the drama, whose action lies chiefly in the present. While,
therefore, in Plautus and Terence the proportion of customary pasts is
i, 1 Latin also exhibits some similar compounds, cf. Plautus, Capt.
925, te carens dum hie fui, Poen., ut tu sis sciens, and Terence, Andr.,
ut sis sciens. Cf. Schmalz in I. Mttller's Handb. s In the
Greek literature, which begins not only absolutely but relatively much
earlier than the Latin, the imperfect was used to narrate and describe,
and Brugmann, indeed, considers this a use which goes back to Indo- European
times. Later the imperfect was crowded out to a great extent by the
aorist, as in Latin by the (aoristic) perfect. Cf. Brugmann in I.
Mailer's Handb. i The power of the perfect lies in its
simplicity, but when too much used this degenerates into monotony and
baldness. and in Varro f , the historians with J probably present a
juster average. The relation of this usage to the simple
progressive imperfect has already been pointed out, 1 but must be
repeated here for the sake of completeness. If we inject into a sentence
containing a simple progressive imperfect a strong temporal contrast, e.
g., if facit, sed non faciebat becomes nunc facit, olim autem non
faciebat, it is at once evident how the customary past usage has
developed. It has been grafted on the tense by the use of such particles
and phrases, expressions which were in early Latin still so necessary
that they were expressed in more than one-quarter of the cases ; or, in
other words, it is the outgrowth of certain oft-recurring contexts, and
is still largely dependent on the context for its full effect.
Transitional cases in which the temporal contrast is to be found, but no
customary past coloring, may be cited from Plautus, Rud., Dudum
dimidiam petebas partum. Tr. Immo etiam nunc peto. Here the action
expressed by petebas is too recent to acquire the customary past notion.
2 The progressive function caused the imperfect to lend itself more
naturally than other tenses 3 to the expression of this idea. 4
Although the customary past usage was well established in the
language at the period of the earliest literature, and we cannot actually
trace its inception and development, I am con- vinced that it was a
relatively late use of the tense by the mere fact that the language
possesses such verbs as soleo, consuesco, &c, and that even as late
as the period of early Latin the function seemed to need definition, cf.
the frequent use of particles, &c. The small number of cases
(13) which may be termed frequenta- tive indicates that this function is
at once rare and in its infancy in the period of early Latin. The
frequentative function is so closely related 5 to the progressive that it
is but a slight step from 1 Trans. Am. Philolog. Ass., Cf. Men.
729. s How strong the effect of particles on other tenses may be is
to be seen in such cases as Turpilius, p. 113. I (Ribbeck), Quem olim
oderat, sectabat ultro ac detinet. 4 The process was
therefore analogous to that which can be actually traced in cases of the
frequentative and conative uses. 5 Terence, Adel. 332-3, affords a
good transitional case : iurabat . . . dicebat — (almost) ' kept swearing
' ... 'kept saying' &c, cf. p. 47 n. 1. It should the latter to
the former. Latin 1 seems, however, to have been unwilling to take that
step. The vast number of frequentative, 2 desiderative and other
secondary endings also prove that the tense was not the favorite means
for the expression of the frequentative idea. Nevertheless since the
progressive and fre- quentative notions are so closely related and since
frequentative verbs must again and again have been used in the
imperfect subject to the influence of the progressive function of
particles such as saepe, etiam atgue etiam, and since finally a simple
verb must often have appeared in similar situations, e. g. poscebat
for poscitabat, the tense inevitably acquired at times the
frequentative function. We have here, therefore, an excellent
illustration of the process by which a secondary function may be grafted
on a tense and the frequentative function is dependent to a greater
degree than the customary past upon the influence and aid of the
context. That it is of later origin is proved by its far greater rarity
(see Table II). If the frequentative imperfect in early Latin
is still in its infancy, the conative usage is merely foreshadowed. The
fact that there are no certain instances proves that relatively too much
im- portance, at least for early Latin, has been assigned to the
conative imperfect by the grammars. Statistics would probably prove
it rare at all periods, periphrases with conor &c, having sufficed
for the expression of the conative function. The most
powerful influence in moulding tense functions is context. 3 In the case
of the conative function this becomes all powerful for we must be able to
infer from the context that the act indicated by the tense has not been
accomplished. The also be pointed out that the frequentative imperfect
is very closely related to the imperfect of situation. To conceive an act
as frequentative necessarily implies a vivid picture of it. (Cf. next
note). It is possible, therefore, to interpret as vivid imperfects of
situation such cases as Ennius, Ann. 43-4; Plautus, True. 506, Capt. 917,
but a careful study of these has convinced me that the frequentative idea
predominates. 1 In Greek, however, the imperfect was commonly used
with an idea of repetition in the proper context. This use is correctly
attributed by Brugmann (I. Milller's Handb. &c.) to the similarity
between the progressive and frequentative ideas as well as to the
fondness for description of a re- peated act. 5 Ace. to
Herbig, § 62 (after Garland?) there were probably no iterative formations
in Indo-European. 8 Cf. Morris, Syntax, pp. 46, 82, &c. 1function
thus rests upon inference from the context- The presence in the language
of the verbs conor, tempto, &c, proves that the conative function,
like the frequentative, was a secondary growth grafted on the tense in
similar fashion, but at a later period, for we have no certain instances
in early Latin. This function of the imperfect certainly originates
within the period of the written language. The fact that the
preponderance of the aoristic cases occurs in Plautus and Terence (see
Table I) indicates that this usage was rather colloquial. This is further
supported by the fact that the majority of the cases are instances of
aibam, a colloquial verb, and of eram which in popular language would
naturally be con- fused with/i«. In this usage, therefore, we have an
instance of the colloquial weakening of a function through
excessive use in certain situations, a phenomenon which is common
in secondary formations, e. g. diminutives. The aoristic function
is not original, but originated in the progressive usage and in that
application of the progressive usage which is called the imperfect of
situation. Chosen originally for graphic effect the tense was used in
similar contexts so often that it lost all of this force. All the cases
of aibam, for instance, are accompanied by an indirect discourse either
expressed (38 cases) or understood (2 cases). The statement contained in
the indirect discourse is the important thing and aibam became a
colorless introductory (or inserted) formula losing all tense force. 1 If
this was the case with the verb which, in colloquial Latin at least, was
preeminently the mark of the indirect discourse it is natural that by
analogy dicebam, when similarly employed, should have followed suit. 2
With eram the development was similar. The loss of true imperfect
force, always weak in such a verb, was undoubtedly due 1 Cf. Greek
iXeys, tjv <5' iyi> &c. and English (vulgar) ' sez I ' &c„
(graphic present). Brugmann (I. Muller's Handb. &c. II, 2 p. 183)
denies that the Greek imperfect ever in itself denotes completion, but he
cites no cases of verbs of saying. Although one might say that the tense
does not denote completion, yet if there was so little difference between
imperfect and aorist that in Homer metrical considerations (always a
doubtful explanation) decided between them (cf. Brugmann, ibid.),
Brugmann seems to go too far in dis- covering any imperfect force in his
examples. The two tenses were, in such cases, practical equivalents and
both were colorless pasts. 8 Rodenbusch, p. 8, assigns as a cause
for the frequency of aibat in this use the impossibility of telling
whether ait was present or perfect. This seems improbable. to
the vague meaning of the verb itself. Indeed it seems probable that eram
is thus but repeating a process through which the lost imperfect of the
root *fu} must have passed. This lost imperfect was doubtless crowded out
" by the (originally) more vivid eram which in turn has in some
instances lost its force. If the aoristic usage is not original,
but the product of a collo- quial weakening, we should be able to point
out some transitional cases and I believe that I can cite several of this
character: Plautus, Merc. 190, Eho . . . quin cavisti ne earn
videret . . .? Quin,sceleste,<eam>afo/7'«dfe&w,ne earn
conspiceret pater? Id. Epid. 597, Quid, ob earn rem | hanc emisti,
quia tuam gnatam es ratus ? Quibus de signis agnoscebas? Pe.
Nullis. Phi. Quarefiliam Credidisti nostram ?* In these
cases the tense is apparently used for vivid effect (im- perfect of
situation), but it is evident that the progressive function is strained
and that if these same verbs were used constantly in such connections,
all real imperfect force would in time be lost. This is exactly what has
occurred with aibam, dicebam, and eram. The progressive function if
employed in this violent fashion simply to give color to a statement,
when the verbs themselves {aibam, dicebam) do not contain the statement
or are vague (eram), must eventually become worn out just as the
diminutive meaning has been worn out of many diminutive endings.
In the shifted cases also the tense is wrenched from its proper
sphere. But whereas the aoristic usage displays the tense stripped of its
main characteristic, the progressive function, though still in possession
of its temporal element as a tense of the past, in the shifted cases both
progressive function and past time (in some instances) are taken from the
tense. In those cases where the temporal element is not absolutely taken
away it becomes very unimportant. This phenomenon is apparently due
in the first place to the contrary-to-fact idea which is present in the
context of each case, and secondly to the meaning of some of the verbs
involved. In many of the cases these two reasons 1 There was no
present of this root ace. to Morris, Syntax, p. 56, but cf. Lindsay, Lat.
Lang., p. 490. 'Also if *bhwam <.-bam was derived from *bhu
</«- in fui &c., then the fact that it was assuming a new function
in composition would help to drive it out of use as an independent form,
eram (originally *isom) taking its place. 3 Cf. Terence, Phorm.;
Adel. 809, Eun. 700. Ennius, Fab. 339. are merged into one,
for the verbs themselves imply a contrary- to-fact notion, e. g. debebat,
oportebat, poterat (the last when representing the English might, could,
&c). In Varro, L. L. the phrase sic Graeci . . . dicere debebant implies
that the Greeks do not really so speak; so Plautus, Mil. gl., 911
Bonus vaies poteras esse implies that the person addressed is not a
bonus vales. In these peculiar verbs, which in recognition of their chief
function I have classified as auxiliary verbs, 1 verb- meaning coincides
very closely with mode, just as in soleo, conor, &c, verb-meaning
coincides closely with tense. The modal idea is all important, all other
elements sink into insignificance, and the force of the tense naturally
becomes elusive. 2 Let us summarize the probable history of the
imperfect in early Latin. The simple, progressive imperfect represents
the earliest, probably the original, usage. Of the variations of
this simple usage the imperfect of the immediate past and the im-
perfect of situation are most closely related to the parent use. Both of
these are early variants, the latter probably Indo- European, 3 and both
may be termed rather applications of the progressive function than
distinct uses, since the essence of the tense remains unchanged, the
immediate past usage arising from a widening of the temporal element, the
imperfect of situation from a wider application of the progressive
quality. Later than these two variants, but perhaps still pre-literary,
arose the custom- ary past usage, the first of the wider variations from
the simple progressive. This was due to the application of the tense
to customary past actions, aided by the contrast between past and
present. Later still and practically within the period of the earliest
literature was developed the frequentative usage, due chiefly to the
close resemblance between the progressive and frequentative ideas and the
consequent transfer of the frequentative function to the tense. Finally
appears the conative use, only foreshadowed in early Latin, its real
growth falling, so far as the remains of the language permit us to infer,
well within the 1 Cf. Whitney, German Grammar, § 342. 1.
8 The same power of verb-meaning has shifted, e. g., the English ought
from a past to a present. Cf. idei, &c. If I understand Tobler,
Uebergang zwischen Tempus und Modus (Z. f. V51kerpsych., &c.), he
also con- siders the imperfect in such verbs as due to the peculiar
meaning of the verbs themselves. Cf. Blase, Gesch. des Plusquamperfekts,
§ 3. »Cf. note. Ciceronian period. In all these uses
the progressive function is more or less clearly felt, and all alike
require the influence of context to bring out clearly the additional
notion connected with the tense. The first real alteration in
the essence of the tense appears in the aoristic usage in which the tense
lost its progressive function and became a simple preterite. This usage,
due to colloquial weakening, is confined in early Latin to three verbs,
aidant, dicebam, and eram (with compounds). It is very early, pre-
literary in fact, but later than the imperfect of situation, from which
it seems to have arisen. A still greater loss of the essential features
of the tense is to be seen in the shifted cases in which the temporal
element, as well as the progressive, has become insignificant. This
complete wrenching of the tense from its proper sphere is confined to a
limited number of verbs and some phrases with eram, and is due to the
influence of the pervading contrary-to-fact coloring often in combination
with the meaning of the verb involved. In his Studien und Kritiken zur
lateinischen Syntax, I. Teil, Mainz, 1904, Dr. Heinrich Blase has devoted
considerable space to my article, "The Imperfect Indicative in Early
Latin" (American Journal of Philology). Since Blase professes
to present the substance of my article, except to the 'relatively few'
German scholars who have access to the American periodical, and since he
makes a number of errors in mere citation and statement, it becomes
necessary for me in self-defense to make some corrections. 1 But apart
from these errors of detail, which will be pointed out at the proper
places, Blase disagrees with some of the more important conclusions of my
paper and it is with the purpose of elucidating these views in the light
of his criticism and contributing something more, if possible, to a
better understanding of the problem that I offer the present
discussion. The functions of the imperfect indicative in early
Latin may be summarized as follows: I. The Progressive 2 or
True Imperfect, comprising several types or varieties: A.
Simple Progressive. 1. dicebat = il he was saying."
1 That such corrections are justifiable is proved by the fact that K.
Wimmerer, who knows my article only through Blase's presentation,
reproduces several of Blase's in- correct statements. I regret the
unavoidable delay in the publication of this paper the less because it
has enabled me to use Wimmerer's article, "Zum Indikativ im
Hauptsatze irrealenBedingungsperioden," Wiener Studien. The first four
pages of his article are devoted to a general discussion of Blase's
critique of my views. 2 In this paper technical terms will be used
as follows : progressive = German vor sich gehendes (less exactly
fortechreitendes) ; continuative or durative = wiaftrendes; nature or
kind of action=^Lfc<ionsarf; shifted = verschobenes ; descA\)tive=
schilderndes; reminiscent = erz&hlendes (see p. 365) ; relation
(relative, etc.)= Beziehung, etc. Other terms are, it is hoped,
intelligible or will be defined as they occur. Classical Philology. The
nature of the action may be either progressive 1 or con- tinuative
(durative). The time is past, but the period covered by the action of the
tense may vary with the circumstances described from an instantaneous
point to any required length. The time is contemporaneous with, usually
more extensive than, the time of some other act or state expressed or
implied. When the tense- action is continuative and extends into the
immediate past or, by inference, the present of the speaker, I would
distinguish a sub-class : a) The Imperfect of the Immediate
Past: dicebat—"he was saying" or "he's been
saying." The action may or may not be interrupted by something in
the context. If interrupted, it ends sharply and we may term the
tense the "interrupted" type of this immediate past. 2.
The Descriptive Imperfect (better, the imperfect used in description)
. dicebat="he was saying" (in English often rendered
by "said"). This is in its purest form a simple
progressive imperfect employed in the vivid presentation of past actions
or states. 3. The Reminiscent Imperfect (better, the imperfect used
in reminiscence). dicebat=^ u he was saying" (as I
remember, or as you will remember). In this usage the
imperfect is a simple progressive implying an appeal to the recollection
of the speaker or hearer. B. Customary Past Type.
dicebat="he used to say, would say, was in the habit of
saying, etc." The nature of the action is the same as in A
except that with the aid of the context there is an implication that the
act or state recurred on more than one (usually many) occasions.
These recurrences are usually at some considerable distance in the
past and contrasted with the present, but cases of the immediate
past usage (Ala)) with customary coloring occur. i Hoffmann
Zeitpartikeln 2 , p. 185, characterizes excellently this feature of the
im- perfect : " die actio infecta, pendens, die Handlung in der
Phase ihres Vollzuges, ein Geschehenes im Verlaufe seines Geschehens, ein
Vergangenes Sein noch wahrend seines Bestehens." Impebfect
Indicative in Eably Latin 359 C. The Frequentative or Iterative
Type. dicebat = "he kept saying" (at intervals very close
together). This type is like B, except that it has no customary element
and the repetitions refer to one situation within comparatively
narrow limits of time. The link connecting all these
varieties with one another is the progressive function. 1 II.
The Aoristic Imperfect. aibat = "he said" (equivalent to
dixit, aoristic perfect). The time is still past, but the progressive
force is lost. III. The Shifted Imperfect. debebat = "he
ought" (now). The time is shifted to the present and the
progressive force is very much weakened, in some cases wholly lost,
because of the auxiliary character of the verbs involved. For
a more detailed treatment of the foregoing classes (except the imperfect
in reminiscence) I must refer to Am. Jour. Phil. In what follows I shall select
certain points for discussion by way of elucidation and supplement to
what was said there. the impebfect of the immediate
past The simplest progressive usage is well enough understood,
but the usage termed by me the imperfect of the immediate past or
interrupted imperfect 2 calls for some remarks. As a type of this
imperfect in its interrupted form cf. Plautus Cas. 178: nam ego ibam ad
te. — et hercle ego istuc ad te. Here the action is con- ceived as
continuing until interrupted by the meeting of the speak- ers. The fact
of the interruption does not, of course, inhere in the tense but is
inferred from the context. Indeed, the interruption may not occur at all,
as will be seen by comparing the second type, e. g., Stick. 328 f. : ego
quid me velles visebam. nam mequidem harum miserebat. Here visebam is
interrupted like ibam above, 1 The nature of the action seems to me
the most distinctive feature of the tenses. In this I differ radically
from Cauer, who considers contemporaneousness the essential feature of
the imperfect, cf. Grammatical militans, against Methner, whose
Untersuchungen zur lat. Tempus- und Moduslehre, Berlin, 1901, 1 have not
seen. 2 B. Wimmerer Wien. Stud., Anm. 2, calls attention to the
fact that this imperfect of the immediate past in its interrupted form is
still common in Italian. 360 Arthur Leslie Wheeler
but the action of miserebat is conceived as continuing not only up
to the immediate past, but into and in the present of the speaker. But
again this continuance in the present is not inherent in the tense; it is
inferred from the context. The nature of the action is in both these
types still progressive, or more exactly, continua- tive, but temporally
stress is laid on that period of time immediately preceding or even
extending into the present. 1 In this usage the Romans possessed a
somewhat inexact sub- stitute for the English progressive perfect
definite, e. g., mequidem . . . . harumnusere6a/ = (practically)
"I've been pitying,"a form which, like the Latin, may be used
in the proper context to indi- cate that the pity still continues in the
present. 2 On the other hand, the English "I was pitying,"
superficially a more exact rendering, does not so clearly indicate this
continuance in the present, though "I was going to your house,
etc." is an exact rendering of Cas. 178. Blase himself
has collected some exactly similar cases, 3 of which he says:
Das Imperf. wird gelegentlich auch von Zustanden gebraucht die zwar
in der Gegenwart des Redenden noch fortdauern aber nur mit Bezie- hung
auf die Vergangenheit genannt worden: Plaut. As. 392 quid quae- ritas?
Demaenetum volebam. Das Wollen dauert fort, aber hier ist es nur in
Beziehung auf die in Gedanken vorschwebende vorausgehende Zeit bis zur
Ankunft vor dem Hause gebraucht. 'Blase {Kritik, p. 6)
misrepresents my statement concerning this usage. He cites from my paper
Stich. 328, apparently as given by me in illustration of both the pro-
gressive use in its simplest form and of this immediate past usage, although it
was used as an illustration of the immediate past usage only. Again he
quotes me as believing that in the immediate past usage the action takes
place within exactly defined limits ("genau bestimmten
Granzen"). Here is atwofold error. My statement (Am. Jour. Phil.) is
"fairly definite limits" and refers to the simple progressive
usage, not to the immediate past usage. Blase's critique confuses the two
usages. 2 There are traces of a tendency on the part of the Romans
to express these shades of thought with greater exactness, e. g., by the
combination of a present participle with the copula, Plautus Capt. 925 :
quae adhuc te carens dum hie fui sustentabam. Here carens .... fui is
exactly equivalent to the English "I've been lacking," whereas
sustentabam is inexactly equivalent to "I've been supporting." But
Latin did not develop such expressions as carens .... fui into real
tenses, and remained content with the less exact imperfect, cf . also iam
diu, etc., with the present. See Am. Jour. Phil. XXIV, p. 185, and Blase
Hist. Syntax, p. 256. A complete collection of such cases would be
interesting. I would add here Amph. 132 : cupiens est, Rud. 943 : sum
indigens, and cf. the verse-close ut tu sis sciens (Poen. 1038), etc.
"Hist. Syntax III, 1903, Tempora und Modi, p. 148, Aran. This book
had not reached me when my article in Am. Jour. Phil. XXIV was
written. Imperfect Indicative in Eably Latin 361 With the
first part of this statement I fully agree, but is it true that in As.
395 the imperfect is used "nur mit Beziehung auf die Vergangenheit,
etc." ? If, as Blase says, "das Wollen dauert fort," then
we are forced to say that the imperfect is used not merely with reference
to the past, but with reference to the present. The speaker really has in
mind both past and present, and uses the imperfect to express this double
temporal sense, the action continuing from the past into the present, because
at the moment of speaking the past is somewhat more prominent. The tense
is, therefore, as explained above, only an approximate expression
of the thought. Had the present been more prominent, other elements being
equal, some expression like iam diu volo would have been employed. Blase
asserts (Kritik, p. 6) that my statement that the speaker has in mind
both beginning and end of the action is not capable of proof. It is true,
I think, that the speaker has usually no definite point in mind at which
the action began. He simply indicates the action as beginning somewhere
in the past and con- tinuing in the present. But in the very numerous
"interrupted" cases he has in mind a sharply defined end of the
action. Blase's criticism seems justified, then, only with reference to
those cases of which Stich. 328, .... harum miserebat is a type. But
Blase classifies cases of this usage under no less than three different
heads in his Tempora und Modi. In addition to the case cited above, As.
392 volebam, which he interprets, as I have tried to show, almost
correctly, he cites Trim. 400: sed 'Of. also the use of nunc, etc.,
with some of the cases: Plautus Merc. 884; quo nunc ibas? , Ter. Andr.
657 f. : iam censebam. 2 B. Wimmerer Wien. Stud., says:
"Sohalteich .... die Konsta- tierung eines," imperfect of the
immediate past or the interrupted imperfect, "fiir einen glucklichen
Gedanken," though he would not make a special type of this use. It
seems to me so common (about 200 cases) as to deserve the degree of special
notice which I have given it (Am. Jour. Phil He adds in a note:
"Hier tut Blase m. E. Wheeler einigermassen unrecht, wenn er dessen
Behauptung, dass der Sprecher in diesen Fallen Anfang und Ende der
Handlung tiberschaue, unerweislich nennt. Wheeler kann dies mit Becht
behaupten, wenn es sich um einen Gedanken handelt, der einen beherrschte
bis zu dem Augenblick, wo man ihn konstatiert," pointing out also
that Blase would be justified only in criticizing the form of my ex-
pression so far as I wished to apply it to the cursive " Aktionsart"
(i. e., those cases where there is no interruption?).
362 Arthur Leslie Wheeler aperiuntur aedes, quo ibam 1 as
"erzahlendes" (p. 148), Merc. 885: quo nunc ibas as
"sogenannt. Oonatus." The function of the tense is essentially
the same in all these cases, the only variant being the presence or
absence of interruption which is inferred in all cases from the
context. Since Blase classifies so many of these cases under the
head of the conative imperfect, a consideration of that usage seems
here in place. A "conative" imperfect ought to mean
an imperfect which expresses attempted action, but since there is no
trace, at least in early Latin (cf. Am. Jour. Phil. XXIV, pp. 179, 180),
of such a function, the term is a bad one. 2 Why then retain it, as
Blase does, for those imperfects which express "den wahrenden,
aber nicht zu Ende, geftihrten Handlung?" These imperfects are
chiefly of the type which I have termed "interrupted," where
the context implies it, or imperfects of the "immediate past," where
there is no interruption. 3 In neither case is there anything more than a
simple variation of the progressive (here more exactly continuative)
imperfect. But most of Blase's cases are not even of this idiomatic
inter- rupted or immediate past variety. They are simple
progressives in contexts which imply that the action was interrupted 4 or
not liftam occurs often in this use : True. 921, Cas. 178, 594,
Merc. 885, Tri. 400, etc. ; cf . Am. Jour. Phil. XXIV, pp. 168-70.
2 Blase Syntax, p. 148, recognizes the inexactness of the term by his
expression, "sogenannten Oonatus." In Greek its unfitness is
well expressed by Mutzbauer (cited by Blase Kritik, p. 10, and Delbriick,
Vergl. Syntax II, p. 306): "Ungenau werden solche Imperf ekta
conatus bezeichnet, von einem Versuch liegt in der Form nichts"
(Grundlagender griech. Tempuslehre, p. 45) ; cf. now Wimmerer Wien.
Stud., 1905, p. 264 : " In der Form liegt allerdings von einem
Versuche nichts." ^Wimmerer Wien. Stud., 1905, pp. 263, 264,
remarks that he does not see why Blase appears to think that there is a
difference between his conception of the imperfect de conatu and mine.
Blase says (Kritik, p. 11), after defining these imperfects as above :
" Die hier vertretene Anschauung scheint mehr auf die Imperf ekta zu
passen, die Wheeler," the interrupted imperfect " nennt."
This is the case, so far as Blase confines his citations to instances of
the interrupted type. There is, then, no essential difference in our
interpretation of the function of the tense in these cases. Blase clings,
apparently against his will, to the old terminology to which everybody
seems to object, whereas I would group these cases under a new term which
seems to me more exact. But Blase does not, as it seems to me, group
together all the cases that belong together. 4 1 use
interrupted here not of what has been termed the "interrupted"
usage, whose distinctive feature lies in the fact that the time is in the
immediate past, but as Impeepect Indicative in Early Latin
363 completed: Men. 564 pallam ad phrygionem deferebat
(Peniculus simply depicts Menaechmus as he had last seen him; cf.
469: pallam ad phrygionem fert) ; Cic. Sulla 49 consulatus vobis
pariebatur (just like all the other imperfects in the passage —
progressive of the descriptive variety); id.Milo 9: interfectus ab eo
est, cui vim afferebat (simple progressive, the interruption being
expressed by interfectus est) ; id. Ligar. 24: veniebatis in Africam
(progressive, the interruption being implied in prohibiti 1 five lines
below) ; Caesar B. G. v. 9. 6 : ipsi ex silvis rari propug- nabant
nostrosque intra munitiones ingredi prohibebant (but prohibebant is
exactly like propugnabant — both were interrupted by the act expressed by
ceperunt in the next sentence, and note the verb-meaning); Sallust Jug.
27. 1: atrocitatem facti lenie- bant. at ni, etc. ( progressive = they
were in the act of mitigating, but, etc.); ibid. 29. 3 redimebat
(progressive); Livy: mittebatur (progressive); Florus 1. 10. 1: nam
Porsenna .... aderat et Tarquinios manu reducebat. hunc reppulit
(progressive in description — that the act did not succeed is shown by
reppulit) ; Curtius vi. 7. 11: alias .... effeminatum et muliebrieter
timi- dum appellans, nunc ingentia promittens .... versabat animo
tanto facinore procul abhorrentem (again graphic description: there is
here nothing in the immediate context to show that an effect was or was
not produced. In fact versare animum does not mean necessarily to succeed
in turning one's mind, but merely to work on one's mind; cf. Livy i. 58.
3 : Tarquinius .... ver- sare muliebrem animum in omnes partes, where
versare sums up the preceding infinitives, but no effect is produced. So
in Cur- tius, loc. cit. , versabat has the same kind of action as is
indicated by the participles appellans .... promittens, which are
summed up in versabat); Ammianus xvi. 12. 29: his et similibus
notos pariter et ignotos ad faciendum f ortiter accendebat ( again
graphic description, cf. ibid. xvi. 32: his exhortationibus
adiuvabat). referring to interruptions in the more distant past.
Where the interruption belongs to the immediate past I have so indicated
in the following criticism. 1 Surely the hearer in such a case as
this would not have connected even the idea of " nicht zu Ende
gefiihrten Handlung " with veniebatis until he heard prohibiti, i.
e., the interruption belongs purely to the context and not the immediate
context at that. This is true of many other so-called conative
imperfects. 364 Arthur Leslie Wheeler Vergil
Aen. i. 31: arcebat longe Latio, cf. errabant (graphic description = what
Juno "was doing" at the time, and only the outcome of the story
proves that she did not succeed). : hoc equidem occasum Troiae tristisque
ruinas solabar, fatis contraria fata rependens; nunc eadem fortuna viros
.... inse- quitur (immediate past with customary coloring, cf. contrast
in nwnc = I have been in the habit of comforting .... but now, etc.
This is one of the transitional cases between the pure custo- mary part
and the pure immediate past; cf. Am. Jour. Phil. XXIV, p. 186, where
Plautus, Mud. 1123: dudum dimidiam petebas partem, immo nunc peto; Men. 729:
at mihi negabas dudum surripuisse te, nunc ea<V>dem ante oculos,
attines, are cited. In both of these passages, though there is no
customary coloring, there is the same contrast between continuance in
the past and the present as in Vergil loc. cit. Blase would probably
term both of the Plautus passages "erzahlende"). Tacitus Ann.
i. 6. 3 trudebantur in paludem ni Caesar, etc. (a very common form of
graphic description in Tacitus = the soldiers were being crowded into
.... but (ni) . . . . i. e., the effect was partly produced, but was
prevented, cf. Sallust Jug. 27. 1 above). In all these cases, then,
I can see no essential alteration in the function of the tense. The idea
"der nicht zu Ende geftihrten Handlung" is derived in each case
wholly from the context and there is no reason for making a special
category of imperfects which happen to occur in contexts of this kind.
Moreover, the meaning of the verb has often been overlooked, e. g.,
prohibebant (Caesar B. G. loc. cit.) may easily, with but slight aid from
the context, express "die nicht zu Ende gefuhrte Handlung;"
cf. redimebat, mittebatur, versabat, etc. Whether the idea of
real attempted action ever became con- nected functionally with the
imperfect remains to be investigated. Certainly this did not occur in
early Latin, and I doubt whether it ever occurred. Among the cases cited
by Blase are two which more closely approximate this idea than any
others. These are Sallust Jug. 29. 3 : sed Jugurtha primo tantummodo
belli moram redimebat, existumans sese aliquid interim Romae pretio aut
gratia effecturum; postea vero quam, etc.; cf. Florus i. 10. 1:
reducebat. Impebfect Indicative in Early Latin 365
It is hard for us to feel the progressive force as the more promi-
nent in such cases. We regard as more important the attempt which is
implied in the context, but the Romans preferred to rep- resent the act
graphically as in progress, leaving the idea that it was not successful
to be inferred. When a Roman wished clearly to express attempt (real
conatus), he chose a clear conative expression, 1 e. g., conari with
infinitive. In strict accuracy we ought not to speak of a
"descriptive" imperfect, but of the progressive imperfect in
description. The term "descriptive" imperfect would be
justified only in case we could distinguish from the simple progressives
those cases in which the tense is used purely for graphic presentation of
actions which might more naturally have been indicated by the perfect.
Such a distinction may often be drawn, especially after the
development of a consciously artistic style, but the separation would be
worth little since the progressive function is equally characteristic
of both. The tense was chosen for graphic purposes because its pro-
gressive function made it the most vivid of the past tenses. The
chief difference between Blase's treatment here and my own will become
evident from a consideration of his definition (Hist. Syntax) :
Aber seiner Hauptverwendung nach ist das Imperf. im latein. ein
Tempus der Schilderung geworden welches einmal im Nebensatz seine Stelle
hat zur Bezeichnung von Zustanden und Handlungen, die wahrend anderer
genannter Zustanden und Handlungen dauerten, und dann im Hauptsatz bei
Schilderungen von Zustanden, Sitten, Gebrauchen, welche in Beziehung
stehen zu irgead einer vorher oder nachher genannten praeteritalen
Handlung. ! This whole question needs investigation. All the forms
of expression of real conatus should be collected and compared with the
tenses as has been done for "cus- tom" by Miss E. M. Perkins
The Expression of Customary Past Action or State in Early Latin, Bryn
Mawr dissertation, 1904. 2 " Reminiscence, reminiscent"
are here proposed as equivalents for the German "Erz&hlung,
erz&hlendes, etc.," since the English "narrative," whether
noun or adjective, does not, as may the German "Erz&hlung,"
etc., imply an appeal to the memory or recollection. Blase points out
(Kritik, p. 12) that I misunderstood the Latin equivalents narratio,
etc., as employed by Rodenbusch (De temporum usu Plautino, Strassburg,
1888) who thus translates this peculiar German "Erzahlung" into
Latin. My error may seem pardonable under the circumstances.
366 Abthub Leslie Wheeler This elevates the descriptive power
of the imperfect to a higher position than seems to me justified, unless
one defines all cases having the progressive function as descriptive
which Blase evi- dently does not do, for he makes separate categories of
the "erzahlendes" (reminiscent) function and, as has been seen,
of the conative, 1 in all of which he recognizes the nature of the
action as progressive. Again it is to be noted that he speaks
of the 'description of customs,' etc., i. e., he does not regard the use
of the imperfect to indicate customary action as important enough even
for a sub- class, although he makes at least varieties of the reminiscent
and conative uses. I shall take up this point more fully below, 2
merely remarking here that the cases usually termed customary are
fully as peculiar as those termed by Blase conative and far more
numerous, at least in early Latin. 1 would, then, understand as an
imperfect used in description one which is used in a descriptive passage
to present any act or state vividly to the hearer or reader. What Blase's
conception is, I can not discover. He appears to make a distinction
(Kritik, p. 7) between "Erzahlung" 3 (= here
"narrative"?) and"Schilde- rung" ( — description),
e.g., in Plautus Bacch. 258-307, Capt. 497-515, Terence Andr. 48ff.,
74-102 — passages which I had cited as descriptive, 4 he sees "reine
Erzahlung, keine Schilde- rung." On the other hand, in Terence
Phorm. 60-135, which I had also cited, he sees "eine Erzahlung mit
einzelnen Situations- malereien." Without quibbling over our
characterization of the i "Conative" is used in this
passage merely as representing Blase's classification. 2 With
regard to Blase's peculiar distinction between imperfects in dependent
and independent clauses I would remark that in the study of probably two
or three thousand cases of the tense I have never been able to see any
essential difference in function due to the presence of a case in a dependent
clause, cf . Am. Jour. Phil. And certainly customs, etc. ("Sitten,
Gebrauchen") maybe described in a subordinate clause as well as in
an independent clause. sif " Erzahlung " is here used by
Blase in its technical sense as explained on p. 365, note, my objections
are strengthened, for there is certainly no special "appeal to
recollection" in the imperfects of these passages. One might as well say
that the descriptive presents and infinitives (so-called historical) in
the Bacchides passage, etc., are different from the same usages in, say,
Livy, because here the speaker is supposed to be telling of personal
experiences, which is chronologically impossible in Livy's case.
4 Some of the imperfects are primarily customary.
Imperfect Indicative in Early Latin 367 passages in question
let us consider the main point, so far as it can be discerned in Blase's
discussion: that there is to him some difference between the imperfects
in the first group of passages and those in the Phorm. 60-135. With his
characterization of the latter passage I agree, and I had classified the
imperfects in it as imperfects used in description
("Situationsmalereien"). 1 But what is the difference in the
effect of imperfects in this pas- sage and those in the Bacchides or
those, to take a typical passage from Blase's Tempora und Modi, in Caesar
Bell. civ. i. 62. 3 ? I give the essential parts of the three
passages: Phorm. 80 if. : hie Phaedria continuo quandam nactus est
puellulam .... hanc amare coepit . . . . ea serviebat lenoni .... neque
quod daretur quicquam .... restabat aliud nil nisi oculos pascere, ....
nos otiosi operant dabamus 2 .... in quo discebat ludo exadvorsum
ilico tonstrina erat quaedam, etc. Bacch.flf . : dum
circumspecto, atque ego lembun conspicor .... is erat communis cum
hospite et praedonibus .... is ... . nostrae navi insidias dabat. occepi
ego opservare .... interea nostra navis solvitur .... homines remigio
sequi, navem extemplo statuimus .... Caesar Bell. civ. i. 62. 3 (in
which Blase expressly characterizes nun- tiabatur, etc., reperiebat as
" schildernde," cf . Syntax III, p. 147): Caesar .... hue iam
reduxerat rem, ut equites, etsi difficultate, .... fiebat, possent tamen
.... flumen transire, pedites vero ad transeundum impediuntur. sed tamen
eodem fere tempore pons in Hibero prope effectus nuntiabatur, etc.
To me there is no difference between the imperfects in the passages
of the Phormio and Bellum civile, on the one hand, and those of the
Bacchides, Captivi, and Andria on the other. All seem to me to be
progressive imperfects in description, some are also customary (see the
collection) and have been classified under that head as the more
important element. Is it not better to separate such cases as Phorm. 87
operant dabamus, 90 solebamus from the progressive-descriptive types than to
group all together, 3 as is done by Blase?* 1 This term
refers to the imperfects, I suppose, though Blase does not specify
exactly what he means. 2 Primarily customary. 3 Blase
apparently takes a similar view of the frequentative imperfect; cf.
Kritik, p. 7 and see below. 4 In his Kritik, p. 7 Blase
attempts to refute my assertion that the words of Quad- rigarius are not
exactly given by Gellius ix. 11 by pointing to the words of Gellius : ea res
368 Arthur Leslie Wheelek The usage termed by Blase
"erzahlendes," for which I have proposed in English the term
"reminiscent," seems to me to be closely related to the
so-called descriptive imperfect. Blase not only considers this an
important variety {Syn. Ill), but is inclined to regard it as perhaps an
original function. 1 According to his definition {Syn., loc. cit. after
Delbriick) the imperfect is thus used "wenn der Sprechende etwas aus
seiner personlichen Erinnerung mitteilt oder an die personliche
Erinne- rung des Angeredeten appelliert." Both the descriptive
and reminiscent uses, therefore, result from the use of the
progressive function to represent a past act vividly. The reminiscent
effect is due to the fact that in this usage the past acts are restricted
to those which concern the personal experience of the speaker or
hearer; it is a more intimate usage. As clear cases I cite from Blase's
list: Cicero Rep. iii. 43; ergo ubi tyrannus est, ibi non vitiosam, ut
heri dicebam, sed ut nunc ratio cogit, dicendum est plane nullam esse rem
publicam. Here Cicero clearly indicates that he is repeating the
substance of his own words of the day before = " as I was saying
yesterday, let me remind you." 2 So Catullus 30. 7: eheu quid
faciant, die, homines, cuive habeant fidem ? certo tute iubebas animam
tradere, inique, me .... idem nunc retrains te, etc., where the poet
reminds his friend (?) of the latter's advice. In both cases the
progressive force is clear, and, as Blase says, the tenses stand in no
clear temporal relation to any preterite in their context. Now since the
peculiar .... sicpro/ecfoest in libris annalibus memorata. But
profecto refers to the content, not to the exact, words of the passage in
the libri annates. And when Gellius gives a word-for-word citation, he
introduces it by more definite language, cf . ix. 13. 6 verba Q. Olaudii
.... adseripsi. In ix. 11 he is almost certainly paraphrasing, cf. haut
quisquam est. nobilium scriptorum, and in libris annalibus. This is the opinion
of Hertz, who prints this passage in ordinary type. The name of
Quadrigarius is not given, but Gellius was probably taking the substance
of the account from him. I have excluded this passage from the certain remains
of early Latin. iKritik, p. 15: "War die vorliterarische
Periode des Lateinischen ahnlich der des Alt-Indischen (vgl. Delbruck, p.
272) und des Alt-Griechischen (Brugmann Gr. Or. s , § 539. 2), so haben
wir in den Resten des erzahlenden Gebrauchs ebenfalls eine uralte
Verwendung zu sehen;" cf. pp. 49 f. 2 The English imperfect is
employed in the same way, e. g., " The facts are as fol- lows, as I
was saying yesterday," or in vulgar expressions like " Warn't I
tellin' ye?" Usually the time is denned by some adverb as by heri in
Cicero. Notice, too, the contrast between past and present as expressed
in both passages by nunc. Impebfect Indicative in Early
Latin 369 appeal to recollection is the distinguishing feature of
this remi- niscent imperfect, it would seem proper to confine the usage
to those cases in which such an appeal is clear. Without discussing
doubtful cases I content myself with indicating those found in Blase's
lists which seem to me clearly not reminiscent. Plautus Tri. 400: sed
aperiuntur aedes quo ibam 1 (an immediate past of the interrupted type).
In the same category I would place Cicero Att. i. 10. 2: quod ego etsi
mea sponte ante faciebam, eo nunc tamen et agam studiosius et contendam —
-except that here the action of faciebam is not interrupted, but is
continued in the present, cf. agam et contendam. Other immediate pasts
are Ovid Fasti i. 50: qui iam fastus erit, mane nefastus erat; ibid.
718: si qua parum Komam terra timebat, amet; ibid. ii. 79: quern
modo caelatum stellis Delphina videbas, is fugiet visus nocte sequente
tuos (notice modo) ; ibid. 147: en etiam si quis Borean horrere solebat,
gaudeat; a zephyris mollior aura venit. Varro R. r. iii. 2. 14: libertus
eius, qui apparuit Varroni et me absente patrono accipiebat, in annos
singulos plus quinquagena milia e villa capere dicebat. Here accipiebat
seems simply progressive and (also against Blase) contemporaneous with
vidi just above. dicebat is difficult and may, as Blase says, be reminiscent
; cf . the exact details given by the speaker ; or did the phrase in
annos singulos influence the choice of the tense ? So in Cic. Off.
i. 108 : erat in L. Crasso, .... multus lepos; 109 : sunt his alii
multi multum dispares .... qui nihil ex occulto, nihil de insidiis
agendum putant ut Sullam et M. Crassum vide- bamus, the imperfect seems
to be progressive used in description. In Ovid Fast. viii. 331: et pecus
antiquus dicebat 'Agonio' sermo, the imperfect seems to be customary; cf.
antiquus and Paulus s. v. Agonium: Agonium dies appellabatur quo
rex hostiam immolabat; hostiam enim antiqui agoniam vocabant.
But however much the interpretation of single cases may vary, this
is clear: the progressive force is discernible in all these cases. It
would be better, therefore, to content ourselves with this and not to
discover an additional appeal to recollection, unless such force is
perfectly clear, since the real imperfect function is not altered whether
the reminiscent force be present or absent. lOf. p. 359. One more remark needs to be made
concerning the remini- scent imperfect. This category has served as a
convenient catch- all for many cases of the imperfect which are difficult
to classify and especially for those in which it is difficult or
impossible to discern any progressive force, many of which I have
classified as aoristic. To classify these last cases as reminiscent is
doubly wrong ; first, because it usually involves a petitio principii, i.
e. , an effort to discover imperfect function because the form is
imperfect; secondly, because the reminiscent coloring is con- nected only
with instances in which the imperfect (progressive) function is clear.
The shadowy appeal to memory does not exist as a separate function It
has already been pointed out that Blase would not elevate this variety of
the progressive imperfect to the dignity of a sub- class. The tense,
however, occurs so often in the expression of custom, habit, method,
etc., that it seems to me worthy of sepa- ration from other varieties of
the progressive. In early Latin I have counted about 450 instances in
which the customary coloring seems tome the most prominent element (see
the table). Blase (Kritik, p. 9) has objected to my statement ( Am.
Jour. Phil.) that verbs whose meaning implies repe- tition (vocito)
or even custom (soleo) are especially well adapted to the expression of
the customary past function. He gives no reason with regard to the first
group, vocito, etc., where the mean- ing is connected with the form. With
regard to soleo, etc., he says only that the reciprocal influence of
verb-meaning and tense- function appears "nicht nachweisbar, da doch
der Verfasser selbst ihr seltenes Vorkommen im Imperfekt natiirlich
findet, weil sie in jedem Tempus der Vergangenheit 'the customary
past function' ausdrucken." There appears here to be some mis-
understanding on Blase 's part and perhaps my statement was too brief. I
did not mean by reciprocal influence of verb-meaning and tense-function
that the tense borrows anything, as Blase seems to understand me, from
the meaning of the verb, but that when a verb whose meaning implies
repetition or custom occurs i See p. 378 for further remarks.
Imperfect Indicative in Eaely Latin in the imperfect tense,
the expression of custom becomes especially clear. The meaning of the
verb and the function of the tense are mutually helpful to the expression
of the thought. 1 Verbs like appello, voco, vocito, dico (="name")
imply not merely a single act of naming, but usually many acts at
intervals. 2 There are numerous instances of such verbs in the imperfect
(see the collection) and nothing seems to me to be clearer than that
these verbs are especially well adapted to the expression of custom —
• past, present, or future. If we compare Varro, M. r. i. 17. 2:
iique quos obaeratos nostri vocitarunt with id. L. L. v. 162: ubi
cenabant, cenaculum voeitabant, etc., we see that in the first case the
tense merely states, while the verb-meaning, together with the context,
gives the idea of custom or habit; in the second (voeitabant) the verb-
meaning is reinforced by the imperfect tense — both aid in the expression
of custom. This does not mean that a Roman more often used the imperfect
tense of such verbs when he wished to express custom, but that when the
imperfect was used, a clearer expression of customary past action
resulted. 3 As to soleo, consuesco, etc., the same principle holds, for
cus- tom and repetition are inseparably connected; but since these
verbs imply by their meaning the very function (custom) in question, it
is clear that the imperfect tense would occur more rarely. When, however,
the imperfect was used, there was, just as in vocito, etc., a more
emphatic expression of the customary idea; cf. Phorm. 90: Tonstrina erat
quaedam: hie solebamus fere plerumque earn opperiri .... Here tense,
verb, and particles all lend their aid to the expression of the idea of
custom or habit. The same idea would have been expressed less clearly by
hie fere plerumque opperiebamur, or by hie fere plerumque soliti
sumus opperiri, or by hie opperiebamur. In the last form only does
the i Cf . Trans. Am. Philolog. Ass., where I first expressed
this view. That verbs like soleo "dominate the tense" I no
longer believe; they aid the tense, but it is impossible to say whether
the tense or the verb-meaning is more influential in the total effect.
Cf. also Morris, Principles and Methods in Syntax, 1901, p. 72.
2 If the intervals are very close together without the implication of
custom, I would classify as frequentative ; see below. 3 Am.
Jour. Phil., and the dissertation of Miss Perkins cited above.
tense-form become entirely dissevered from the influence of verb-
meaning and accompanying particles, and even here context is operative.
The progressive function inherent in all true imperfects renders the
tense well fitted to express repetition in the past. The repeated acts
may naturally occur at wider or narrower intervals, as the case may
require. All expressions of custom, for example, involve an idea of
repetition, but it is only to cases of the imperfect which indi- cate an
act as repeated insistently, usually at intervals very close together,
that I would give the title "frequentative" or
"iterative," i. e., imperfects in which this element of
repetition becomes more prominent than any other. It seems to me that the
existence of a few such cases in early Latin is not fanciful. In
Plautus' Captivi: aulas .... omnis confregit nisi quae modiales
erant: cocum percontabatur, possentne seriae fervescere, 2 a single
situation is described wherein the parasite repeatedly and insist- ently
asked, kept asking, whether, etc. There is something more than mere
progressive force, on the one hand, and there is no idea of habit or
custom, on the other. The primary element of the tense is here
repetition. When, therefore, Blase sees in As. 207 ff. repetition, he is
right, for repetition in a general way is present in all cases of the
customary imperfect; but he is wrong in viewing repetition as the more
important element. The more important element seems to me custom and in
accordance with this we ought to classify these cases as customary.
3 iln a review of Miss Perkins' dissertation Woch.f. kl. Phil.,
1904, cols. 1277-80, Blase has since admitted the truth of my assertion
with regard to the influence of verb-meaning: "Die Verbalbedeutung
ist massgebend z. B.bei alien Verben, die 'nennen,' 'benennen,'
bezeichnen, wie appellare dicere vocare, denn der Name entsteht durch ein
gewohnheitsmassiges Nennen. Damit ist der Grand gegeben (by Miss Perkins)
fur eine Behauptung, die ich .... bei Wheeler bezweifelt habe."
2 Blase (Kritik) misses among my cases Rud. 540, which was
nevertheless cited, but escaped him because by a misprint the imperfect
was not italicized. On the same page he cites ten passages and says that
I "hier uberall gewohnheitsmftssige Handlungen erkenne." This
is very inaccurate, unless "hier" refers to the last two
passages, As. 207 ff., Bacch. 424 — the only two of the list which I have
classified as customary. My classification of the other eight passages
may be seen by referring to the collection at the end of this
paper. 3 Blase (Kritik) seems to imply that I have said that the
frequentative imperfect is commoner in later Latin. I have nowhere said
this and my statement, Imperfect Indicative in Early Latin
373 the aoristic imperfect Excessive deference to the
principle that a difference of form implies a difference of meaning and
the well-known tendency of investigators to abhor an exception are
chiefly responsible for the unwillingness of some scholars to admit that
the imperfect occurs in Latin with no progressive force, i. e., as an
aorist. While I can not pretend to criticize this method as applied to
Sanskrit and Greek by Delbruck, 1 it seems to me that there are reasons
against its application, in the same degree at least, to Latin. The
situa- tion in early Latin differs essentially from that in Sanskrit and
in Greek. In the first place there is no 'great mass' 2 of cases of
the imperfect in which real progressive force is not discernible,
and the cases (about sixty) are restricted almost entirely to two
verbs, aibam and eram. This seems to indicate that the phenomenon
arose on Latin ground alone and has its explanation in some peculiarity
of the few verbs concerned. Again the greater wealth of tenses in
Sanskrit and Greek would lead us a priori to expect Am. Jour. Phil,
"Latin seems .... to have been unwilling to take that step,"
implies the opposite belief. When I added (ibid., p. 187), " If the
fre- quentative imperfect in early Latin is still in its infancy,
etc.," it was naturally not implied that it ever passed out of its
infancy ! The facts in later Latin are not known because they are not
collected. Wimmerer naturally repeats from Blase's Kritik both these
errors ( Wien. Stud., 1905, p. 263). He, too, is of the opinion that it is of
no ad- vantage to separate so-called iterative imperfects from those of
customary nature: " wenn doch in jedem Falle erst auf Grund des
gewahlten Tempus aus dem Zusam- menhange erkannt wird, dass es sich um
eine Gewohnheit handelt." To this it must be answered, first, that
it is by no means always, and often not at all, on the basis of the tense
that we recognize the presence of customary action. Such action may be
expressed in many ways, the tense being but one element ; and, secondly, if the
cases interpreted by me as frequentative are really essentially different
from any other variety of the progressive, then they should be classified
separately, at least until it can be proved that they belong
elsewhere. 1 It will suffice to quote two of Delbruck's statements.
He says of the Greek tenses : "Man muss sich eben mit der Erwagung
begnugen, dass es einem Schriftsteller bald gut schien, zu konstatieren,
bald zu erzahlen, ohne dass wir uns seine Motive immer klar machen
konnten" (Vergl. Syn. II, p. 304, cf. pp. 302, 303). A saner. method
is evinced ibid.: " Den Unterschied zwischen Perfekt und Imperfekt
(of Sanskrit) in den einzelnen Stellen nachzuweisen, sind wir nicht mehr
im Stande." This is at least safe agnosticism, biding its time until
the lost distinctions shall be found. Blase is in entire agreement even
as regards Latin with the first statement of Delbrflck, cf . Kritik, p.
12. 2 Delbruck (ibid., p. 304, of Greek) : "Aber .... bleibt
doch auch eine grosse Menge von Stellen ubrig, bei denen wir einen Grund
fur die Wahl des Tempus nicht ausfindig machen konnen."
374 Arthur Leslie Wheeler in those languages a larger number
of instances in which it is hard to differentiate similar tenses, whereas
the much narrower tense-system of Latin exhibits a tendency to merge the
functions of similar tenses, cf. the perfect in -v- with the reduplicated
per- fect and the formally aoristic perfect in -s-. In accordance
with this preliterary development we should expect indications of the
same tendency in the literary period. The aoristic imperfect is, I
believe, an illustration of this tendency, resulting from the merging of
the functions of imperfect and preterite (aorist) in certain verbs. The
restricted range of the phenomenon and its probable explanation (see
below) would make it unlikely that we are here dealing with a survival of
an Indo-European confusion. As illustrations of the aoristic usage
I will cite : Plautus Poen. 1069 : nam mihi sobrina Ampsigura tua mater
fuit (cf. fecit), pater tuos is erat frater patruelis meus. Here there
seems to be no difference between erat and fuit. Ibid. 900: et ille qui
eas vendebat dixit se furtivas vendere: ingenuos Carthagine aibat
esse, where aibat and dixit seem to be equivalent. For other cases see
the collection. It is quite possible that others may be able to
detect true im- perfect force in some of the cases which I have
classified as aoristic. Blase, though not quite certain of his own
classification, has con- vinced me that I may have been wrong with regard
to Varro H. r. ii. 4. 11: in Hispania ulteriore in Lusitania .... sus cum
esset occisus, Atilius Hispaniensis minime mendax .... dicebat ....
L. Volumnio senatori missam esse offulam cum duobus costis, etc. There
are so many exact details here that we suspect Scrofa of reminiscing. So
possibly Varro ibid. iii. 17. 4 dice- bat. 1 But though perhaps a dozen 2
cases might be taken from the total of those which seem to me aoristic,
enough remain to establish this category on a firm basis. The
exact process by which the progressive function became lost can not, of
course, be proved. I have suggested (Am. Jour. Phil.) that it is a
weakening due to the constant 'Blase is quite right (Kritik, p. 11)
in classifying As. 208 aibas as customary. I neglected to exclude this
from four cases cited from Rodenbusch. It was classified on my own slips
as customary. 2 1 have indicated in the collection those which seem
to me questionable. Imperfect Indicative in Early Latin
375 use of certain verbs in ever-recurring similar contexts,
until in the case of aibam the originally graphic ' force was used out
of the form and aibam became a mere tag to indicate an indirect
discourse. 2 With eram the vagueness of the verb-meaning and the
frequency of its occurrence side by side with fui were the chief
influences. In contexts where there are many other imper- fects all of a
definite time, these usually colorless verbs naturally take the
prevailing color 3 of the context; cf. As. 208 aibas. In his
"Tempora und Modi" (Syn. Ill, p. 145) Blase expresses his
belief that an aoristic imperfect as accepted by Luebbert and J. Schneider
has been proven not to exist by E. Hoffmann (Zeit- partikeln 2 , pp. 181
ff . ) . But neither Luebbert nor Schneider seems absolutely to have
believed in an aoristic usage. 4 Luebbert says (Quom, pp. 156 ff.) that
in Men. 1145 and 1136 ff. we find aoris- tic perfect and the imperfect,
etc. "promiscue gebraucht da der Unterschied zwischen beiden gering
war." "Grering" indicates that there was to him some
difference, even though it was slight. Schneider's statements are not
consistent. In his De temporum apud priscos scriptores latinos usu
quaestiones selectae, Glatz, he says correctly that in many cases no
difference can be seen between aibat and dixit, and that "aibat
aoristi munere fungi," but he adds that the imperfect represents an
act as "infectam ideoque aliter intellegendam acsi perfectam."
Hoff- mann's supposed refutation is very weak. In the first place
he 1 If originally reminiscent, the explanation is the same ; for
the reminiscent usage is due to the speaker's effort to represent a past
act graphically. 2 Cf. Am. Jour. Phil., where it is stated that the
indirect discourse is always present or implied (rarely) with aibam.
Occasionally the object is represented by a pronoun. Bacch. 982: quid
ait?, Capt. 676: ira vosmet aiebatis itaque, etc. 8 Cf. Blase
(Kritik, p. 11): "wo aibam mitten zwischen Imperfekta der wieder-
holten oder gewohnheitsmassigen Handlung steht und unmdglich anders gef asst
werden kann." 4 But cf. O. Seyffert in Bursian's
Jahresb.: " Das Imperf. findet sich. bekanntlich bei den Scenikern
mehrfach in einem so geringen Bedeutungsunterschiede vom Perf . und
bisweilen unmittelbar neben demselben, dass man ohne wesentliche Anderung
des Sinnes und oft auch unbeschadet des Metrums (Rud. 543, Capt. 717) das
eine Tempus f iir das andere einsetzen kann. Es zeigt sich dies besonders bei
den verba dicendi; das Imperf. von aio vertritt ja geradezu das fehlende
Perfect;" cf. ibid. LjXXX, p. 336, where Seyffert repeats the
statement that aibat, e. g., Ps. 1083, represents the lost perfect of
aio. In Am. Jour. Phil. I had overlooked
this remarkable anticipation of my own conclusions. confuses
different uses of the tense, asserting, for example, that in Plautus Tri.
400: aedes quo ibam, etc., the imperfect is wholly analogous to that in
Tacitus Ann. ii. 34: simul curiam relinquebat. commotus est Tiberius,
etc. ; cf. iv. 43 sequebatur Vibius Crispus, donee, etc., and that in the
last two cases the imperfect jars on us because such an action is not
usually presented "in der Phase ihres Vollzugs." Such an
application of the tense may seem strange to a German, but to one who
speaks English, it is entirely natural and could not for a moment be
mistaken for anything but a simple progressive imperfect. To refute such
a usage as a supposed aorist is to knock down a man of straw. The
supposed analogy of these cases to Tri. 400 does not bear on the point,
but it may be remarked that ibam is analogous only in the fact that its
action is progressive and interrupted, but it belongs to the immediate
past type. 1 Hoffmann then cites ten cases of aibat, six of which
may be taken aoristically, and asserts that the tense is in all
used "in voller Gesetzmassigkeit." This assertion rests on
entirely inadequate foundation. 2 the shifted imperfect
Blase seems right in restricting the 'shifted' imperfect to one class
(Kritik) = an imperfect subjunctive with present meaning; for, as he
says, there is no real shifting if the preterital sense remains. But when
he adds 3 that "ein sicherer derartiger Fall ist weder bei Plautus
und Terenz, noch sonst im Altlatein vorhanden," I can not agree. He
accepts as cases of shifting Varro, L. L. viii. 65: sic Graeci nostra
senis casibus .... dicere debebant, quod cum non faciunt, non est
analogia, and ix. 85: si esset denarii in recto casu .... tunc in
patrico denariorum dici oportebat, and ix. 23: si enim usquequaque
esset analogia, turn sequebatur, ut in his verbis quoque non esset,
non, 2 J. Ley Vergilianar. quaestion. specimen prius de
temporum usu, Saarbriicken, 1877, apparently believes that eram and fui
in Vergil are so nearly equivalent that metrical convenience often
decided between them ; cf . Blase Syn. Ill, p. 164 Anm. I have not seen
this dissertation, but the explanation is, on its face, insufficient.
S0f. his Syntax: " Der Indikativ des Imperfekts hat erst seit Beginn
der klassischen Zeit eine allmahliche Verschiebung aus der Sphfire der
Vergangenheit in die der Gegenwart erfahren."
Imperfect Indicative in Eably Latin 377 cum esset
usquequaque, ut est, non esse in verbis. If these are real cases of
shifting, how do the following differ ? Plautus Merc. 983 e : temperare
istac aetate istis decet ted artibus .... vacnom esse istac ted aetate his
decebat noxiis. itidem at tem- pus anni, aetate alia aliud factum
convenit; Mil. 755: insanivisti hercle (perf. def.): nam idem hoc
hominibus sa/[a] era[n]t decern; ibid. 911: bonus vatis poteras esse: nam
quae sunt futura dicis. 1 If the passages from Varro move in the
present (Blase Kritik, pp. 13, 14), the same is true here; cf. Auct.
ad Herenn. ii. 22. 34: satis eratjiv. 41. 53 infimae (infirmae?) erant.
2 That Varro L. L. viii. 74 oportebat stands "zwischen zwei
Per- fekten" (Blase) is accidental. 3 This peculiar
shifting was explained by me Am. Jour. Phil. as due to the unreal
(contrary-to-fact) idea present in the context or in the meaning of the
verb (oportebat, etc.) or in both ; cf. Blase (Syn. Ill, p. 149) who also
calls attention to the auxiliary character 4 of the verbs involved and
thinks that the shifting began with verbs of possibility and necessity
which seems a probable view. In conclusion a few words are
necessary with regard to some general aspects of the subject and its
method of treatment. The original function or functions 5 of the imperfect
can not, of course, be certainly inferred from a syntactical
investigation of material which is relatively so late even with the aid
of etymology and comparative philology. My statement (loc. cit., p. 184)
that the progressive function was probably original was therefore
intended i Cf. Rud. 269 aequius erat, True. 511 poterat, Aul. 424.
For the other eases see collection. 2 But not iv. 16. 23,
which I now see is not shifted. 8 And both are cases of debuerunt!
In his Kritik, p. 13, Blase denies my assertion (loc. cit., p. 181, n.
1), that the perfect indie, and the perfect infin. of these verbs are
shifted in Varro, cf . L. L. viii. 72-74 ; viii. 48 ; viii. 50 ; viii. 61, 66.
I am glad to find my view supported by Wimmerer Wien. Stud., 1905, p. 264
: " Denn da der Grund der Ver- schiebung hier vor allem in der
Bedeutung der Verba liegt, so kann konsequenterweise ebenso gut ein
debuit wie ein debebat verschoben werden." «Cf. Am. Jour. Phil.
XXIV, p. 190. 6 It is uncertain whether the original meaning of the
tense was vague, admitting several uses which gradually became narrowed
to one (the progressive), or whether there was one original meaning which
split into several related uses. The facts seem to point to the second
alternative. 378 Arthur Leslie Wheeler only as a
probability based upon the existence of this force in nearly all the
cases and upon the generally accepted etymology of the imperfect form.
But nothing like proof was claimed for this theory. Blase is inclined,
following Delbrtick and Brugmann, to regard the reminiscent usage also as
an original one (cf. p. 26, n. 2), but he rightly says that no statistics
can prove which of these two is earlier. If my view that the reminiscent
usage is rather an application of the progressive than itself a
separate function is correct, then the progressive is older. The
existence of the reminiscent imperfect in Sanskrit and Greek
certainly makes it very probable, as Blase says, that it existed in
preliterary Latin also. If this is so, I am inclined to refer it to the
same general origin as the so-called descriptive imperfect — to the
effort to present a past act (here a personal experience) vividly.
1 But the search for original meanings must ever remain
within the realm of theory; nor can we hope even theoretically to
reach any considerable degree of probability in the establishment
of such meanings without the most careful collection and
classifica- tion of the facts within the period of written speech. And
this should precede the appeal to etymology and comparative phi-
lology. What is actually found in any given language, not what according
to comparative philology ought to be found, should be our first aim.
Although I would not minimize the importance in syntactical study of the
comparative method, it seems to me prop- erly applied only as a
supplement, not as the controlling factor to which all else is
subordinated. Indeed, a premature appeal to comparative philology may
result in premature conclusions, for an investigator whose head is filled
with preconceived notions drawn from Sanskrit and Greek is all too apt to
imagine peculi- arities in Latin phenomena which he would not have
perceived at all, had he approached by a Latin route alone; and
such peculiarities have little value unless they can be recognized
as Latin without foreign assistance. Once recognized they may, and
often do, receive much additional light from comparative philology. While
it is true, then, that scholars will differ with •Cf. Am. Jour.
Phil., where it was surmised that the descrip- tive application of the
tense was Indo-European. Imperfect Indicative in Early Latin
379 regard to a few cases' in any given syntactical phenomenon
and the ultimate classification must not neglect the aid of
comparative philology, yet the chief basis of investigation is agreement
among scholars with regard to the great majority of such cases
viewed as purely Latin phenomena. If this agreement is lacking,
comparative philology can rarely bring reliability to the results. The
statistical table shows that this investigation is based upon a
collection of 1,223 imperfects. It has been my aim to exclude from
consideration (and from the table) all passages of dubious authorship,
corrupt text, or insufficient context. About 170 cases have thus been
excluded, a seemingly large proportion, but it must be remembered that
much of the literature of the third and second centuries before Christ is
fragmentary and very often there is not enough context to render
classification at all certain. In so large a body of text it is probable
that some cases have escaped my notice, but most of the ground has been
examined at least twice and such omissions can hardly be numerous or
alter essentially the results. I have subjected the material to a
careful revision and the table differs slightly from that published
in Am. Jour. Phil. It would seem unnecessary nowadays for any
syntactical scholar to state that he lays no stress on statistics as
such, but when a reviewer 2 attributes to me the conviction that I
have proved this and that by just so many exact figures, it seems
proper for me to disclaim any such conviction. The fact that exact
figures do not in themselves mean anything does not, however, excuse one
from being as exact as possible. iCf. Wimmerer Wien. Stud.:
"die syntaktischen Einzeltatsachen sind viel zu sehr umstritten als
dass auf sie allein eine brauchbare Klassiflkation und Erkl&rung der
Arten eines einigermassen verzweigten syntaktischen Gebrauches gesttizt
werden kdnnte." With this I agree, except possibly as to what is a
"brauch- bare Klassiflkation," but when he says (p. 61), with
reference to my inference that the progressive function is original:
"Den Begriff aber hat die vergleichende Sprach- wissenschaft langst
festgestellt," I would suggest that such a conclusion could not be
regarded as 'firmly established' except with several investigations like mine
as chief ies. 2 In Archiv.f. lat. Lex. und Gk. XIV, p.
289. 380 Abthuk Leslie Wheelee The method of
citation adopted in the collection will doubtless seem to many
inadequate. It is especially true, however, of the classification of
tense functions, that very often a large body of context must be taken
into consideration. For this reason very many of the citations even in
Blase's "Tempora und Modi" are quite useless and misleading
because of their brevity. It seemed best, therefore, to cite as fully as
possible in the body of the article, but in the collection to cite only
each form and the place of its occurrence. Those who are interested in
examining a given usage in detail will in any case revert to the complete
context, as I know by experience. I. Progressive Imperfect A.
Simple Types, including imperfects in description, reminiscence, and the
"immediate" past variety. Plautus, ed. Goetz and Schoell, ed.
minor, Lipsiae, 1892-96. Amph. prol. 22 scibat; 199 pugnabant ....
fugiebam; 251 com- plectabantur;
aiebas; 385 sci[e]bam; 429erat; 597 credebam; 603 stabam;
711 solebas; 1027 censebas; 1067 confulgebant; 1095 rebamur; 1096
confulgebant. 14 As. 300 scibam; 315 mirabar; 385 censebam; 392
volebam; 395 volebas; 452 volebam; 486 volebas; 888 suppilabat; 889
suspi- cabar .... eruciabam; 927 ingerebas .... eram; 931
dissua- debam. 13 Aul. 178 praesagibat .... exibam; 179
abibam; poterat; 376 erat;
424 aequom .... erat; 427 erat; 550 meditabar; 625 radebat ....
croccibat; 667 censebam expectabam .... abstrudebat; 754 scibas;
827 apparabas. 15 Bacch. 18 (frag, x) erat; 189 volebam; 282 erat
dabat; 297 dabant; 342 censebam; 563 erat; 675 sumebas; 676
nescibas; 683 suspicabar; 788 orabat restabant; 983
auscultabat .... loquebar. 14 Capt. 273 erat; 491
obambulabant; 504 eminebam; 561 aibat; 654 assimulabat; 407
audebas; 913 frendebat. 7 Cas. 178 ibam; 279 aiebat; 356 rebar; 432
trepidabant .... fes- tinabat; 433 subsultabat; 532 erat; 578
praestolabar; 594 ibam; 674 volebam; 702 volebam; 882 erant erat
.... erat .... erat. Cist. 153 poteram; 187 exponebat; 566
perducebam; 569 adiura- bat; 607 ai[e]bas properabas; 721 rogabat;
723 quaeritabas; 759 quaeritabam. 9 Cure. 390
quaerebam; 541 credebam. 2 Imperfect Indicative in Early
Latin 381 Epid. 48 amabat; 98 solebas; 138 desipiebam ; ....
mittebam; 214 occurrebant; 215 captabant; 216 habebant; 218 ibant; 221
prae- stolabatur; 238 dissimulabam ; 239 exaudibam .... fallebar;
241 ibat; 409 apparabat; 420 adsimulabam; 421 me faciebam. 482 deperibat;
587 vocabas; 603 dicebant; 612 aderat. 20 Men. 29 erant; 59 erat;
63 ibant; 195 amabas .... oportebat; 420 advorsabar; .... metuebam; 493
eram; 564 ferebat; 605 censebas; 633 negabas; 634 negabas .... ai[e]bas;
636 cense- bas; 729 negabas; 773, 774 suspicabar; 936aiebat;
1042ai[e]bat; 1046 aiebant; 1052 ferebant; 1053 clamabas; 1072
censebam; 1116 cadebant; 1120 eramus; 1135 erat .... vocabat; 1136
censebat; 1145 vocabat. 28 Merc. 43 abibat; 45 rapiebat; 175
quaerebas; 190 abstrudebas; 191 eramus; 197 censebam; 212 credebat; 247
cruciabar; 360 habebam; 754 obsonabas; 815 censebam; 845 erat ....
quae- ritabam; 884 ibas; 981 ibat. 15 Miles 54 erant; 100
amabant; 111 amabat; 181 exibam .... erat; 320 ai[e]bas; 463
dissimulabat; 507 osculabatur; 835 cale- bat .... amburebat; 853 erat;
854 erat; 1135 exoptabam; 1323 eram .... eram; 1336 temptabam; 1140 erat;
1430 habebat. 18 Most. 210 quaerebas; 221 su<b>blandiebar;
257 erat; 787 erat; 806 aiebat; 961 faciebat. 6 Persa 59
poterat; 171 censebam; 257 somniabam .... opinabar; .... censebam; 262
erant; 301 cupiebam; 415 censebam; 477 credebam; 493 occultabam; 626
pavebam; 686 metuebas. 12 Poen. 391 dicebas; 458 sat erat; 485
accidebant; 509 scibam; 525 properabas; 748 dicebant; 899 vendebat; 1178
aderat; 1179 complebat; 1180 erat; 1231 volebam; 1391 expectabam. 12
Pseud. 286 amabas; 421 subolebat; 422 dissimulabam; 492 nole- bam;
499 scibam; 500 scibas; 501 mussitabas .... scibam; 502 aderat ....
aberat; 503 erat .... era<n>t; 677 habebam; 698 arbitrabare; 718
ferebat; 719 accersebat; 799 conducebas .... erat; 800 sedebas .... eras;
912 circumspectabam .... metuebam; 957 censebam; 1314 negabas. 24
Kud. 49 erat; 52 erant; 58 erat; 222 oblectabam; 307 exibat; 324
suspicabar; 378 scibatis; 379 amabat; 452 censebam; 519 age- bam; 542
aiebas; 543 postulabas; 600 quibat; 841 erat; 846 sedebant; 956a
faciebat; 9566 fiebat; 1080 aiebas; 1123 pete- bas; 1186 credebam; 1251
monstrabant; 1252 ibant; 1253 erat; 1308 erat. 24 Stich.
130placebat; 244praedicabas; 328 visebam; 329 miserebat; 365 superabat;
390 negabam; 540 erant; 542 erant; 543 erat; 545 erant; 559 postulabat.
11 382 Arthur Leslie Wheeler Trin. 195 volebam;
212 aiebant;.400 ibam; 657 scibam .... quibam; 901 erat .... gerebat; 910
vorsabatur; 927 latitabat; 976 eras; 1092 agebat; 1100 effodiebam.
12 True. 164 vivebas; 186 cupiebat; 198 lavabat; 201 celebat
metue- batque; 332 dicebam; 333 revocabas; 648 debebat; 719 eras;
733 dabas; 748 volebas; 757 aibas; 813 erat .... valebat .... petebat; 921
ibat. 16 Vid. 71 miserebat; 98 piscabar. 2 Fragmenta
fabb. cert. 86 sororiabant; 87 fraterculabant. 2 Plautus, IA, Total
291 Terence, ed. Dziatzko, 1884. Ad. 78 agebam; 91 amabat;
151 taedebat; 152 sperabam; 153 gaudebam; 234 eras; 274 pudebat; 307
instabat; 332 iurabat; 333 dicebat; 461 quaerebam; 561 aibas; 567
audebam; 642 mirabar; 693 credebas; 809 tollebas; 810 putabas; 821
ibam; 901 eras. 19 And. 54 prohibebant; 59 studebat; 60
gaudebam; 62 erat; 63 erat; 74 agebat; 80 amabant; 86 erat; 88 amabant;
90 gaude- bam; 92 putabam; 96 placebat; 107 amabant .... aderat;
108 curabat; 110 cogitabam; 113 putabam; 118 aderant; 122 erat; 175
mirabar; 176 verebar; 435 expectabam; 490 imperabat; 533 quaerebam; 534
aibant; 545 dabam; 580 ibam; 656 adpar- abantur; 657 postulabat; 792
poterat; exit, suppositic. I expec- tabam. 31 Eun. 86 eras;
87 stabas .... ibas; 97 erat; 112 dicebat; 113 scibat .... erat; 114
addebat; 118 credebant; 119 habebam; 122 eras; 155 nescibam; 310
congerebam; 323 stomachabar; 338 volebam; 345 erat; 372 dicebas; 378
iocabar; 423 erat; 432 ade- rant; 433'metuebant; 514 erat; 533 orabant;
569 erat; 574 cupi- ebam; 584 inerat; 587 gaudebat; 606 simulabar; 620
faciebat .... cupiebat; 621 erat; 681 erat; 727 adcubabam; 736 erat
.... nescibam; 743 expectabam; 841 erant; 928 amabant; 1000 quaerebat;
1004 scibam; 1013paenitebat; 1065 quaerebam; 1089 ignorabat. 43
Heaut. 127 faciebant; 200 erat; 201 erat; 256 volebam; 260 can ta-
bat; 293 nebat; 294 erat .... texebat; 308 scibam; 366 tracta- bat; 445
erat .... erant; 536 oportebat; 629 erat; 758 opta- bam; 781 dicebam;
785credebam; 844 quaerebam; 907 videbat; 924 aiebas; 960 aiebas; 966
erat. 22 Hec. pro. II. 16 scibam; 91 eram; 94 licebat; 115 amabat;
162 erat; 172 redibat; 178 conveniebat; 230 erant; 283 eram; 322
poteram; 340 eras; 374 dabat; 375 monebat .... poterat; 422 expectabam;
455 agebam; 498 orabam; 538 negabas; 561 aderam; 581 rebar; 651
optabamus; 713 credebam; 806 pudebat. 23 Imperfect
Indicative in Eaely Latin 383 Phorm. 36 erat; 51 conabar; 69 erat
.... supererat; 83 servi- ebat; 85 restabat; 88 discebat; 89 erat;
97 erat? 99aderat; 105 aderat; 109 amabat; 118 cupiebat ....
metuebat; 298 duce bat; 299 deerat; 355 agebam; 365 habebat; 468
erant; 472 quae- rebam; 480 aibat; 490 mirabar; 529 scibat; 570
manebat; 573 commorabare; 582 scibam; 595gaudebat .... laudabat
.... quaerebat; 596 gratias agebat; 614 agebam; 642 insanibat;
652 ven<i>bat; 654 opus erat; 759 volebam .... volebam;
760daba- mus operam; 797 sat erat; 858 aderas .... aderam; 900 iba-
mus; 902 ibatis; 929 dabat; 945 eras; 1012 erant; 1013 erat;
1023 erat. 47 Terence, I A, Total 185 Cato ed. Jordan,
Lipsiae, 1860. p. 36. 2 sedebant .... lacessebamur. Total 2
Dramatic and epic fragments. Naevius. Bell, pun., ed. Mueller,
1884. 5 immolabat; 7 exibant; 12 exibant; 65 inerant.
tabular, fragmenta, ed. Ribbeck 3 , 1897-98. I p. 16 IV
habebat .... erat; p. 322 II proveniebant. II p. 30 VII faciebant
.... tintinnabant. 9 Ennius, ed. Vahlen 2 , 1903. Annal. 28
premebat; 41 videbar; 43 stabilibat; 82 certabant; 87 expectabat; 87
tenebat; 138 mandebat; 139 condebat; 147 volabat; 190 sonabat; 202
solebat; 216 erat; 307 vivebant; 307 agitabant; 309 explebant ....
replebant; 343 aspectabat; 408 sollicitabant; 459 parabant; 497 fremebat;
555 cernebant. 21 Scenica. 15 eiciebantur; 123 erat; 127 inibat; 251
petebant; 324 scibas. Saturar. 65 adstabat.
Varia. 45 videbar; 64 ibant. 8 Pacuvius, ed. Ribbeck 3 1, p.
65 XVI conabar. 1 Accius, ed. Ribbeck 3 , p. 162 V ostentabat; p.
162 VII scibam; p. 165 VI expectabat; p. 205 X erat; p. 210 XII
commiserebam .... miserebar; p. 213 XX educabant; p. 251 XIII
mollibat. 8 Incert. p. 273 V ecsacrificabat; p. 282 XXXII hortabar;
p. 285 XLV scibam; p. 304 CI expetebant. 4 Turpilius,
ed. Ribbeck 3 II, p. 101 II nescibam; p. 107 V sperebam; p. 120 X
videbar. 3 Titinius, ed. Ribbeck 3 II, p. 168 II aibat. 1
Afranius, ed. Ribbeck 3 II, p. 215 VI hortabatur; p. 217 XII sup-
ponebas. 2 Pomponius, ed. Ribbeck 3 II, p. 303 II cubabat.
1 Incert., ed. Ribbeck 3 II, p. 137 XXIV ferebat simulabat. 2
Dramatic and Epic Fragments, IA, Total 60 384 Arthur
Leslie Wheeler Historicorum fragm., ed. Peter, 1883. p.
70. 9 nesciebant; 72. 23 erant; 72. 27 cymbalissabat; 72. 27 can- tabat;
73. 37 mirabantur .... reddebat; 83. 27 apparebat .... habebat ....
sedebant; 94. 13 erat; 110. 7 habebat; 136. 5 erant; 137. 8 concedebat;
137. 8 praecellebat; 137. 10 b antista- bat; 138. 10 audebat; 138. 11
licebat; 141. 29 erant; 142. 37 erant; 143. 46 captabat; 145. 57 erat
.... erat .... sciebant .... apparebat; 149. 81 mirabantur; 150. 85
sauciabantur .... opus erat .... defendebant; 178. 8 erat .... tegebat;
178. 9 pot- erat; 179. 23 indigebat; 184. 79 sciebat; 184. 86 erat.
I A, Total 34 Orator, fragm., ed Meyer, Turici, 1842. p. 192
narrabat .... poteram; p. 231 existimabam .... arbitra- bar .... stabant
.... erant; 236 ferebantur .... lavabantur. I A, Total 8
Lucilius, ed. Marx, 1904. 393 stabat; 394 obiciebat; 479 erat; 531
serebat; 534 ibat; 1108 gemebat; 1142 ibat (not in Mueller's ed.); 1174
volebat; 1175 ducebant; 1187 haerebat; 1207 premebat. I A,
Total 11 Auctor ad Herennium, ed. C. L. Kayser, 1854. G. Friederich's
text in C. F. W. Mueller's Cicero, Vol. I, has been compared
throughout. 1. 1. 1 intelligebamus .... attinebant .... videbantur; 1.
10. 16 postulabat; 1.12. 21 erat; 1. 13. 23 defendebant .... erant;
2. 1. 2 existimabamus .... ostendebatur; 2. 2. 2 videbatur; 2. 5. 8
faciebat; 2. 19. 28 volebat .... metuebat .... videbat .... sperabat ....
verebatur .... hortabatur .... remove- bat; 2. 21. 33 erant .... habebat;
3. 1. 1 pertinebant .... erant .... videbantur; 3. 15. 26 demonstrabatur;
4. 9. 13 pote- rant .... videbant; 4. 12. 18 inpendebant; 4. 13. 19
ingenio- sus erat, doctus erat, .... amicus erat; 4. 14. 20 erat; 4. 15.
22 removebas .... abalienabas; 4. 16. 23 damnabant .... ini- quom
erat; 4. 18. 25 erant .... poterant; 4. 19. 26 proderas .... laedebas
.... proderas .... laedebas .... consule- bas; 4. 20. 27 oppetebat ....
comparabat; 4. 24. 33 putabas; 4. 24. 34 habebamus .... habebam .... erat
.... obside- bamur .... videbar; 4. 33. 44 adsequebatur ....
profluebat .... erat; 4. 33. 45 pulsabat .... ducebat; 4. 34. 46
videban- tur; 4. 37. 49 erat .... oppugnabat; 4. 41. 53 veniebat
.... occidebatur; 4. 49. 62 inibat; 4. 55. 68 faciebat. I A,
Total 62 Corpus Inscr. Lat., Vol. I. 201. 6 animum ....
indoucebamus .... scibamus .... arbi- trabamur. I A, Total
3 Imperfect Indicative in Early Latin 385 Varro,
De lingua Lat., ed. Spengel, 1885. 5. 9 videbatur; 5. lOOerat; 5.
128erat; 5. 147 pertinebat; 7. 39erat; 7. 73 erant; 8. 20 erant; 8. 59
erant. 8 De re rust., ed Keil, 1889, 1. 2. 25 ignorabat
.... despiciebat; 1. 13. 6 habebat; 2. 11. 12 ibam; 3.2. lstudebamus; 3.
2. 2sedebat; 3. 13. 2erat .... dice- bat .... erat .... cenabamus; 3. 5.
18 dicebatur; 3. 16. 3 erat; 3. 17. 1 sciebamus; 3. 17. 9 ardebat.
14 Sat. Menipp., ed. Kiese, 1865, p. 198, 1. 1 regnabat; p. 223, 1.
9 findebat. 2 I A, Total 24 Grand Total, I A,
680 B. Imperfect of Customary Action. Plautus
As. 142 habebas; 143 oblectabas; 207 arridebant .... veniebam;
208 ai[e]bas; 210 eratis .... erant; 211 adhaerebatis; 212 faci-
ebatis .... nolebam; 213 fugiebatis .... audebatis; 341 sub-
vectabant. 13 Aul. 114 salutabant; 499 erant. 2
Bacch. 421 erat .... eras; 424 accersebatur; 425perhibebantur;
429 exercebant ; 430 extendebant ; 438 capiebat ; 439 desinebat. 8
Capt. 244 imperitabam; 474 erat; 482 solebam. 3 Cist. 19
dabat .... infuscabat; 162 habitabat. 3 Epid. 135 amabam. 1
Men. 20 dabat; 484 dicebam; 715praedicabant; 716 faciebat; 717
ingerebat; 1118 eratis; 1119 eratis; 1122 eratis .... erat; 1123
vocabant; 1131 erat. 11 Merc. 217 credebat. 1
Miles 15 erat; 61 rogitabant; 99 erat; 848 erat; 849 imperabat
.... promebam; 850 sisteba<h>t; 852cassaba<n>t; 855 a com -
plebatur; 856 bacc<h>abatur .... cassabant. 11 Most.
150 erat; 153 victitabam; 154 eram; 155 expetebant; 731 erat.
5 Persa 649 amabant; 824 faciebat; 826 faciebat. 3
Poen. 478 praesternebant; 481 indebant; 486 necabam. 3 Pseud.
eram; 1180 ibat .... ibat; 1181 conveniebatur. 4 Rud. 389 habebat
.... habebat; 745 erant; 1226 memorabam. Stich. 185 utebantur. 1
Triu. 503 erat; 504 dicebat. 2 True. 81 memorabat; 162
habebam; 217 habebat; 381 sordeba- mus; 393 habebat; 596 erat.
6 Pragmenta fabb. cert. 24 erat; 26 monebat .... erat. 3
I B, Total 84 386 Arthur Leslie Wheeler
Terence Adel. 345 erat. 1 And. 38 servibas; 83
observabam; 84 rogitabam; 87 dicebant; 90 quaerebam ....
comperiebam; 107 habitabat; 109 conla- crumabat. 8 Eun.
398 agebat sc. gratias; 405 volebat; 407 abducebat. 3 Heaut. 102
accusabam; 110 operam dabam; 988 indulgebant .... dabant. 4
Hec. 60 iurabat; 157 ibat; 294 habebam; 426 impellebant; 804
accedebam; 805 negabant. 6 Phorm. operam dabamus; 90 solebamus; 363 erat; 364
con tinebat; 366 narrabat; 790 capiebant. 6 I B, Total
28 Cato, De agr., ed. Keil, 1895, and fragmenta, ed. Jordan,
1860. 1. 2 laudabant .... laudabant; 1. 3 existimabatur ....
laudabatur. Jordan, p. 37. 20 capiebam; p. 39. 8veniebant ....
deverte- bantur; 64. 2 dabant; 82. 10putabant(?); 82. habebatur
.... laudabatur; 83.1 mos erat .... erat; 83. 2emebant; 83. 3 erat
.... studebat .... adplicabat; 83. 4 vocabatur. I B, Total 18
Dramatic and epic. Ennius, Ann. 214 canebant; 371 ponebat.
Scenica 355 suppetebat. 3 Incert. Ribbeck 3 1, p. 287 I
aspectabant .... obvertebant. 2 Turpilius, Ribbeck 3 II, p. 101 V
flabat .... erat. 2 I B, Total 7 Historicor.
fragg. p. 64, 114 unguitabant' .... unctitabant; 1 66. 128
temptabam .... spectabam .... donabam .... laudabam; 83. 27 faci-
ebat; 109. 1 demonstrabant; 110. 6 proficiscebatur .... seque- bantur;
123. 13 utebatur; 141. 31 vocabantur; 202. 9 claudebant .... educebant
.... continebant .... cogebant .... insuebant. I B, Total
16 I B, Total 2 I B, Total 1
Orators, ed. Meyer, p. 222 vocabant; 355 solebas. Lucilius, ed.
Marx 1236 solebat. 1 Perhaps different versions of the same
passage ; cf . Peter. I count them as one case.
Imperfect Indicative in Early Latin 387 Auctor ad Herenn.,
ed. Kayser. 4. 6. 9 videbat .... poterat; 4. 7. lOerant ....
poterant; 4. 16. 23 putabant .... existimabatur .... putabant ....
opserva- bant; 4. 22. 31 concedebant; 4. 53. 66 erat; 4. 54. 67
solebat. I B, Total 11 CIL. I. 1011. 17 florebat. I
B, Total 1 Varro, De ling. Lat., ed. Spengel. 5. 3 dicebant
.... dicebant .... significabant; 5. 24 dicebant; 5. 25 obruebantur ....
putescebant; 5. 33 progrediebantur; 5. 34 agebant .... agebat ....
poterat; 5. 35 agebant .... vehebant .... ibant; 5. 36 coalescebant ....
capiebant .... colebant .... possidebant; 5. 37 videbatur; 5. 43 erat
.... advehebantur .... escendebant; 5. 55 dicebat; 5. 66 dicebat
.... putabat; 5. 68 dicebant; 5. 79 dicebant; 5. 81 mittebantur; 5. 82
dicebatur; 5. 83 dicebat; 5. 84 erant .... habebant; 5. 86 praeerant ....
fiebat .... mittebantur; 5. 89 fiebat .... mittebant .... pugnabant ....
deponebantur .... subside- bant; 5. 90 praesidebant; 5. 91 fiebant ....
adoptabant; 5. 95 perpascebant .... consistebat; 5. 96 dicebant ....
parabantur; 5. 98 dicebant; 5. 101 dicebat; 5. 105 faciebant ....
servabant condebant; 5. 106 coquebatur .... fundebant; 5. 107
faciebant .... vocabant; 5. 108 edebant .... ferebat .... decoque-
bant; 5. 116 faciebant .... habebant .... opponebatur; 5. 117 fiebant; 5.
118 appellabant .... erat .... ponebant; 5. 119 infundebant ....
figebantur; 5. 120 ponebant .... ponebant; 5. 121 nominabatur; 5. 122
erant; 5. habebat dabant sumebant erat
vocabatur ponebatur erat vocabatur habebant solebat apponebatur .bibebant coquebant
arcebantur ministrabat vellebant utebantur iaciebant corruebant muniebant exaggerabant
portabatur sepiebant relinquebant condebant circumagebant faciebant vocabant fiebat
erat erat aiebat coibant vehebantur adibant relinquebatur dicebatur
impluebat compluebat volebant cubabant cenabant vocitabant cenabant exigebant legebant
ponebant dicebant involvebant erant dicebant calcabant insternebant appellabant
operibantur Scandebant dicebatur erat valebant volebant erat dicebant petebat inficiabatur Wheeler deponebant
auferebat redibat exigebatur; dicebant erant ponebant stipabant componebant
pendebant accedebat dicebant inspiciebantur dicebant dicebat videbatur dicebantur
putabant persolvebantur erat fiebant dicebat circumibant conveniebant dicebant consumebatur
vitabant ponebant legebantur spondebatur appellabatur dicebant promittebat consuetude
erat dicebant dicebant acciebat videbatur intererat fiebant dicebant appellabant
putabant relucebant legebantur poterant dicebantur fiebat erant habebant conducebantur
ascribebantur habebant committebant dicebat animadvertebantur arabant dicebant dicebant
erat vocabatur erat erant erat dicebantur erat notabant erant utebantur dicebatur
pendebat dicebant valebat dicebatur constabat dicebatur dicebant. De re rust.,
ed. Keil, Lipsiae solebant dicebat poterat .... effodiebat appellabant faciebant
vocabant pendebat dicebantur faciebant erant laudabatur providebant dabant dicebant
inserebantur vocabant praeponebant putabant appellabant reiciebant hibernabant
.... aestivabant vocabat solebat dicebant dicebant habitabant sciebant alebantur
redigebant; credebant habebant serebant pascebant habebat ostendebas accipiebat
.... dicebat dicebat dicebant erat pascebantur erat erat habebant erat
laudabant aiebat dicebant vocabant dicebantur iubebat putabat appellabant
appellabant dabat consumebat habebat adgerebant coiciebat erat laborabat
aiebat .... despiciebat Sat. Menipp., ed. Eiese P. erat radebat vehebantur sol
vebat loquebantur solebat; suscitabat habebant habitabant. Total Imperfect
Indicative in Early Latin Imperfect of Frequentative Action.
Plautus, Asin. dicebam; Capt. percontabatur; Epid. mittebat; missiculabas;
Merc. promittebas; Miles dicebat; Persa visitabam negabas; Kud. promittebas; True. poscebat Ennius, Ann.
tendebam vocabam. Historicor. fragg. expoliabantur Total Aoristio
Imperfect Plautus, Amph. aibas erat; As. aibat Bacch. aibat;
Capt. aiebatis(?); Cist. ai[e]bat ai[e]bat; Cure. Aiebat aiebat; Epid. Aiebat agnoscebas;
Men. aiebas aiebat; Merc. poterat ai[e]bant aiebat 8aiebant aiebat aiebat aiebant;
Miles ai[e]bant aiebat erat erat; Most. aiebant aiebat aiebat; Poen. aibat
aibat erat; Ps. Aiebat aibat aibat; Eud. Aibat erat aiebas(?); Stich. aibat;
Tri. aibas aibat aibant aibat aiebas aibat. Terence, Adel. erat erat aibat;
Andr. aiebat aibat; Eun. Scibas dicebat; Heaut. erat; Hec. aibant; Phorm. Aibant
sat erat. Historicor. fragg. poterat Varro, Der. dicebat dicebas Auctor ad
Herenn.poterat erat 2 Total Shifted Imperfect Plautus, Merc. 6decebat;
Miles sat era[n]t; 911poteras; Rud. aequius erat; True.poterat Terence,
Heaut. poterat Lucilius (Marx) sat erat. Varro, De 1. L. oportebat debebant
oportebat sequebatur oportebat. Auctor ad Herenn satis erat infimae erant.
Arthur Leslie Wheeler I.PEOOBESSIVE (TeUB) ImPEKFECT Total II. Aobistic III. Shifted A.
Simple B, Cast. G. Fre- Prog. Past quent. Plautus Terence Cato
Dramatic and Epic Orators Lucilius Auctor ad Herenn. Varro Except
historical works the citations from which are included among the
historians. Laberius and later writers not included. 3 Nepos and
later historians not included. 4 Hortensius and later fragments not
included. Grice: “Ceccato developed a theory very similar to mine – Like
myself, he is an unusual philosopher!” -- Silvio Ceccato. Ceccato. Keywords: il
perfetto filosofo, logonia – logonico, tabella di Ceccatieff, Adamo II, lingua
adamica, operativismo, Teocono, ingegneria della felicita, il genitore come
ingegnero, tutee di Dingler, tutee di Bridgman, influenza di Gentile, modelo
cibernetico della communicazione, adattazione, soprevivenza, organo ipotetico –
organo e funzione – codice conversazionale, modello mentale, psicologia
filosofica, adamo II, lingua adamica, -- -- l’aspetto perfettivo,
non-perfettivo, imperfettivo della conjugazione Latina -- Refs.: Luigi
Speranza, “Grice e Ceccato” – The Swimming-Pool Library. Ceccato.
No comments:
Post a Comment