from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
- noun A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek, that expresses action without indicating its completion or continuation.
- noun A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek or Sanskrit, that in the indicative mood expresses past action.
from The Century Dictionary.
- noun In grammar, a tense of the Greek verb expressing action (in the indicative, past action) without further limitation or implication; hence, also, a tense of like form or like signification in other languages, as the Sanskrit.
- Indefinite with respect to time.
- Pertaining or similar to the aorist.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
- noun (Gram.) A tense in the Greek language, which expresses an action as completed in past time, but leaves it, in other respects, wholly indeterminate.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
- noun grammar A
verbin the aorist past, that is, in the past tenseand the aorist aspect(the event described by the verb viewed as a completed whole). Also called the perfective past. The nearest equivalent in English is the simple past. The term aorist is used particularly often for verbs in Ancient and Modern Greek.
- adjective grammar Of or pertaining to a verb in the
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- noun a verb tense in some languages (classical Greek and Sanskrit) expressing action (especially past action) without indicating its completion or continuation
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
It's in what's called the aorist tense, which is a technical way of saying that Jesus 'anger is a temporary feeling.
While the 3sg hi-ending appears to come from the 'aorist', I am puzzled why you say this form has a *ē in the root.
IEists for example volley terms about like "aorist" (aspectual or tensal?) and "markedness" (phonetic or inflectional?) within a variety of sometimes contradictory contexts and it's important to recognize the shades of subtlety.
In aspect, verbs can be simple ( "aorist") ( "Brutus stabbed Caesar"), progressive ( "Brutus was stabbing Caesar"), or perfect ( "Brutus has stabbed Caesar").
" I should more aptly compare the non-continuous form *bʰḗr-m̥ 'I carry/carried' to the sigmatic "aorist" since they both end up being employed for past tense in later PIE dialects unlike the continuous presentive.
It suggests a world in which my being able to rattle off the aorist participles of λυω entitles me to a seat next to Brad DeLong.
Two: The traditional "present-aorist-perfect" verb model which is notorious for being an inadequate model representative only of a post-IE stage can be reworked into an earlier two-dimensional system of subjective/objective versus progressive/non-progressive to now explain why Anatolian & Tocharian verbs behave so differently.
All this being said, we then understand why the perfective action could not possibly have been originally marked by *-i as proven by non-Anatolian dialects if its function were originally to express this aspect, due to the obvious semantic contradictions that would ensue, and we also see why the sigmatic aorist couldn't have ever applied to all verbs, such as punctives, likewise to avoid simple contradiction.
Finally the sigmatic aorist is no longer treated as a formalized conjugation distinct from the non-continuous.
Jasanoff's theories, the durative-aorist-perfect model, active-stative, and subjective-objective into a single coherent model that explains everything much clearer than what I'm finding in journals and books.