THE VERB 297 The absence of distinction of meaning in all these types of formation between the present and aorist stem, in contradis- tinction to the clear distinction between the two types of pre- terite, points to the conclusion that it was specifically in these preterite forms that the aorist developed as a special gram- matical category. It appears that originally Indo-European distinguished in the indicative simply between present and pre- terite, the forms of which could be made from a wide variety of stems. This state of affairs is continued in Hittite, which shows no sign of ever having had a terS2 corresponding to the aorist of other languages. The next stage of development is the evolu- tion of a double set of preterite forms, one with a correspond- ing present (imperfect) and one detached from the present tense (aorist) and having a special sense. This stage is represented in Indo-Iranian. In Greek the distinction between the present and aorist systems is carried further, and applied to moods, participles and infinitives derived from the two stems. The two stems in all formations express different modes of action, namely punctual (aorist) and durative (present). Consequently the preterite of the present acquires an ' imperfect ’ sense which is absent from it in Hittite and in the corresponding formations in Sanskrit. The perfect is independent in formation from the present/ aorist system, and is also characterised by the possession of a special series of personal endings. It appears to be one of the more ancient IE verbal formations, and to bear some relation to the conjugation of the Hittite verbs in -hi. In that language there are two conjugations of verbs, one making the 1st person singular in -mi (like Skt. asmi, etc.) and the other in -hi. The relation between the two is not at all that which exists between the present and perfect in other IE languages, but the endings of the -hi conjugation are comparable in some ways to the per- fect endings of Sanskrit, Greek, etc., so that while the detailed relation of the two formations remains obscure, there is general agreement that some definite connection exists between them. The fundamental meaning of the perfect, as it emerges from a comparison of Sanskrit and Greek, and is confirmed by the evidence of the other IE languages, is that of state as opposed to process which is expressed by the present : e.g. bibhdya * he is afraid ’ as opposed to bhayate * he becomes afraid ' ; ciketa 4 he is aware of, knows ’ : ceiati * he becomes aware of, notices ' ;
