The Old Indo-Aryan tense system.

• Author: Cardona, George

1. THE EARLY INDO-ARYAN TENSE SYSTEM as described by Panini includes three major past tense forms. According to Panini (see Cardona 1997: 149-50), the L-affixes lun, lan, and lit--respectively replaced by endings in what western grammarians call aorist, imperfect, and perfect forms--are introduced when time references are involved as follows: lun: past (bhute: A (stadhyayi) 3.2.110: lun [bhute 84]); lan: past excluding the day on which the speaker uses the utterance in question (anadyatane [bhute] "...excluding today": A 3.2.111: anadyatane lan); lit: past excluding the day on which the speaker uses the utterance in question, provided also that the speaker has not witnessed the action spoken of (parokse "beyond direct perception": A 3.2.115: parokse lit). That is, the aorist is a general past tense, possibly including the day on which a speaker utters the utterance in question, the imperfect refers to a past act carried out at a time excluding this day, and the perfect is a re-portative tense which has the same time reference but excludes a speaker's directly witnessing the act he or she is reporting. A first person perfect form then has the sense of "I allegedly ..., it is reported that I ..." Thus, Patanjali suggests (1) that A 3.2.115 should allow for first person endings for lit on condition that a person who speaks of having done something was asleep or out of his senses at the time he is supposed to have done this.

2. This tense system is reflected in some literary Vedic texts.

   2.1. In the telling of the tale of Hariscandra, Rohita, and Sunahsepa in the Rajasuya ceremony section of the Sankhayanasrautasutra, the tense forms are used in absolute conformity with the system Panini describes, and the same tale told in the Aitareyabrahmana shows near perfect conformity. The usages in the prose sections of these texts are shown in table A.

   The perfect is consistently used--regularly with the particle ha--to relate what occurred. Moreover, perfect and aorist forms alternate in certain places. Thus, in SSS 15.18, Ai.Br. 7.14 the perfect jajne is used to relate that Rohita was born to Hariscandra and the aorist ajani--with the affirming particle vai--is used by Varuna when he tells Hasiscandra that a son has now been born to him. In the immediately following part of the story, where Hariscandra keeps finding reasons for delaying the sacrifice of Sunahsepa to Varuna, perfect and aorist forms alternate in the same manner. For example, Hariscandra invokes the ten days of pollution following a child's birth, asking that the sacrifice be put off until Rohita has gotten past these days. The text uses the perfect asa (sa ha nirdasa asa) to relate Rohita's getting past this time, but Varuna uses the aorist abhut in telling Hariscandra that Rohita has now gotten to this stage. Finally, Hariscandra can delay no more. The perfect amantrayan cakre (Ai.Br. amantrayam asa, n. 21) is used to relate Hariscandra's summoning of Rohita, but Hariscandra uses an imperfect form (adadat) when he tells Rohita that Varuna had given Rohita to him: he is relating something that occurred in a distant past but which he himself experienced.

   The same alternation of perfect and aorist forms is seen once more in the subsequent telling (SSS 15.19, Ai.Br. 7.15) of how Indra in disguise came up to Rohita repeatedly to convince him to go back to the forest and not return home: the perfect uvaca is regularly used to introduce what Indra said, but Rohita uses the aorist avocat when he notes that the Brahmana has just told him to go on wandering. Similarly, later in the story (SSS 15.24, Ai.Br. 7.17), Sunahsepa tells Ajigarta that in agreeing to slaughter his own son he committed an act that is beyond repair (asandheyam tvaya krtam). The perfect uvaca is used to introduce the gatha in which Sunahsepa says this, but then Visvamitra uses the aorist avocat when he cites what Sunahsepa has just said. Subsequently, the text reverts to the perfect (upa papada) in relating how Visvamitra understood the justification for what Sunahsepa declared. Earlier in the same passage, Visvamitra uses the aorist arasata when he asserts that he will not give Sunahsepa to Ajig arta because the gods have now given Sunahsepa to him, and the perfect asa is subsequently used to relate that Sunahsepa was known as Devarata ('god-given') son of Visvamitra.

   2.2. Traces of a contrast between the perfect as a reportative tense and the aorist as a general past tense appear also in other texts. Thus, in the story involving king Videgha son of Mathu and his Purohita, Gotama son of Rahugana, the Satapathabrdhmana has the following (SBr. 1.4.1.18): atha hovaca gotamo rahuganah kathan nu na amantryamano na praty asrausir iti \ sa hovacagnir me vaisvanaro mukhe 'bhut sa nen me mu khan nis padyatai tasmat te na praty asrausam iti "Then Gotama son of Rahugana said, 'Now how is it that you didn't answer me when called?' He said, 'Agni Vaigvanara was in my mouth. I didn't answer you lest he should fall out of my mouth.'" (2) Elsewhere in the same text, moreover, the perfect is again used as a reportative tense, together with the imperfect (see section 4.3). For example, in the Vrtra legend, SBr 5.5.5.1-3 has: vrtre ha va idam agre sarvam asa yad rco yad yajumsi yat samani \ tasma indro vajram prajihirsat \\ sa ha visnum uvaca vrtraya vajram pra harisyamy anu ma tisthasveti \ ta theti ha visnur uvacanu tva sthdsye pra hareti \ tasma indro vajram ud yayama \ sa udyatad vajrad vrtro bibhayan cakara \\ sa hovaca asti va idavm viryan tan nu te pra yacchani \ ma nu me pra harsir iti \ tasmai yajumsi prayacchat \ tasmai dvitiyam ud yayama "In the beginning, all this was (3rd sg. pf. asa) in Vrtra: rcs, yajuses, samans. Indra wished to strike (3rd sg. impf. desid. prajihirsat) him with the vajra. He said (uvaca) to Visnu, 'I am going to strike Vrtra with the vajra, assist me.' Visnu said, 'Agreed, I will assist you, strike.' Indra raised up (3rd sg. pf. ud yayama) the vajra against him. Vrtra feared (3rd sg. pf. bibhayan cakara) the upraised vajra. He said (uvaca), 'There is this might (in me); I will give it to you, only do not strike me.' (Vrtra) gave (3rd sg. impf. prayacchat) him the yajus. (Indra) raised (ud yayama) (the vajra) against him a second time." The text continues in similar fashion, with uvaca, prayacchat, and ud yayama used.

3. There can be no reasonable doubt, then, that the tense system which Panini describes for the speech of his time and area is actually attested in Vedic literature. This is contrary to what some scholars have maintained. For example, Whitney (1889: 295-96) says, "According to the Hindu grammarians, the perfect is used in the narration of facts not witnessed by the narrator, but there is no evidence of its being either exclusively or distinctively so employed at any period." More recently, Sihler (1995: 568 n. 1) has repeated this claim: "According to native grammarians, the perfect was used to narrate events not witnessed by the speaker, the imperfect was for events in which the speaker had participated personally. Such a distinction is known in natural language; but no Indic text of any period exhibits the contrast claimed by the grammarians."

   Such assertions must now be...