334. Aorist.

II. The aorist (luṅ) is expressive of any past, either historical or actual; akārṣam may be = „I did,” and = „I have done.” Examples of the historical aorist have been given 328.

When denoting the actual past, that is such past acts as are so recent as not to have lost their actuality at the time of their being related, the aorist is used side by side with the participles in -tavant and -ta; neither imperf. nor perfect are then available. „I have seen the man” is adrākṣaṃ puruṣam or dṛṣṭavān asmi [not apaśyam nor dadarśa].

Examples of the aorist denoting the actual past. Ait. Br. 1, 6, 11 tasmād ācakṣāṇam āhur adrāgiti / sa yady adarśam ity āhāthāsya śraddadhati (for this reason, one says to an eye-witness: have you seen it? for if he says »he has,” they believe him); R. 2, 89, 5 Bharata has spent the night with Guha, the next morning his host asks him kañcitsukhaṃ nadītīre ‘vātsīḥ kākutstha śarvarīm (have you past the night well?); Mhbh. 1, 167, 23 king Drupada having lost half his kingdom to Drona, goes to some brahman, who may procure him a means for avenging himself, and says droṇaḥ parājaiṣṭa mām; Daç. 27: it has been predicted to the brahman Mâtanga that he will soon meet with a prince, now, when he really meats with a prince, he tells him this prediction and adds these words tadādeśānuguṇam eva bhavad āgamanam abhūt [neither abhavat nor babhūva are here admissible]; Çâk. VII Mâtali congratulates Dushyanta on finding back his wife with his son, the king replies abhūt saṃpāditasvāduphalo me manārathaḥ (my desire is gone into sweet fulfilment); Kathâs. 40, 108 tubhyaṃ mayā rājyamadāyi (v. a. I have made you king); Panc. 16 the jackal begs permission to appear before the lion, the doorkeeper grants it him with the words yathāvādīddhavān (*1).

Rem. In the archaic dialect of the brâhmaṇas etc. the aorist seems to serve exclusively for this actual past (*2). The contrast between the historical tenses and the aorist is so striking there that it cannot possibly be overlooked by anybody who peruses these writings. The most instructive passages are such, as mention the same fact twice, first when told by the author, afterwards when put into the mouth of one of the actors. Then we invariably find the imperfect or the perfect in the historical account, the aorist in the oratio directa. Ait. Br. 7, 14, 5 tasya ha dantā jajñire / taṃ hovācājñata vā asya dantāḥ… tasya ha dantāḥ pedire / taṃ hovācāpatsyatā vā asya dantāḥ (then he got teeth; then he said to him: »he has, indeed, got teeth”… then his teeth dropped out, then he said to him: »his teeth, have, indeed, dropped out”). Ch. Up. 5, 3 the following story is told: Çvetaketu once came (eyāya) to the meeting of the Pancâlas. To him the xattriya Pravâhaṇa said (uvāca): »has your father instructed you?” (anu tvāśiṣatpitā) (*3). The other answered: »yes, Sir.” Then Pr. put five questions to him successively, none of which he could solve, and said: »why have you said (avocathāḥ) yourself instructed, as you do not know these things?” Then Çvetaketu, being sad with grief, came (eyāya) to his father and said (uvāca): »why did you say (bhagavān abravīt) I have instructed you (anu tvāśiśam), a simple xattriya has put (aprākṣīt) five questions to me and I could not (nāśakam) answer even one.” So in the story of Uçasti Câkrâyaṇa Ch. Up. 1, 10 etc. the perfect is used while the author himself is speaking, but 1, 11, 2 when the king excuses himself to Uçasti, that he has not chosen him to be his officiating priest, the aorist appears bhagavantaṃ vā aham ebhiḥ sarvair ārtvijyaiḥ paryaiśiṣaṃ bhagavato vā ahamavittyānyānavṛṣi (I have looked for you, for all these sacrificial offices, but not finding (*4) Your Reverence, I have chosen others). Cp. ibid. 6, 13, 1 etc. Delbrück, Altindische Tempuslehre p. 117 etc. has given a great number of instances from the Çatapatha and the Aitareya.

(*1)
We may translate here the aorist by a present: »as you say.” Cp. Çâk. II, p. 38 ed. Tarkavâgîça sakhe tācad enāṃ na jānāsi yena tvamevamavādīḥ (you do not know her, since you speak thus). Cp. Greek τί ἐγέλᾰσᾰς »why do you laugh?” and the like.

(*2)
Delbrück Altind. Tempusl. p. 128 »Niemals steht der Aorist [in this kind of works] im erzählendem Sinne, wie etwa das Imperf. oder Perf.” Yet, Ait. Br. 2, 23, 3 the aor. akrata is, indeed, used in a historical sense.

(*3)
Such passages as this plainly show, methinks, that the system of the grammarians, according to which »past facts done on the same day as they are related” must be put in the aorist, but when done before that day, in the imperfect (reap. perfect), is refuted by the very facts.

(*4)
Construe bhagavato… avittyā, instr. of avitti. The reading is good, and needs no correction.

334. アオリスト

II. アオリスト（luṅ）は、史的（historical）・現存（actual）いずれの過去をも表す。よってakārṣamは「私は…した」（I did）、「私は…し終わった」（I have done）となる。史的aor.の例は328で提示する。

現存過去、すなわち話されている時にその現存性を失っていない程度に最近の過去の行為を表す場合、aor.は分詞-tavant・-taと並んで用いられる；このとき、Impf.とPf.は用いることができない。「私はその男を見た」（I have seen the man）は“adrākṣaṃ (/ dṛṣṭavān asmi) puruṣam”（apaśyamでもdadarśaでもない）となる。

例文：現存過去を表すaor.
Ait. Br. 1, 6, 11 tasmād ācakṣāṇam āhur adrāgiti / sa yady adarśam ity āhāthāsya śraddadhati (for this reason, one says to an eye-witness: have you seen it? for if he says »he has,” they believe him)
R. 2, 89, 5 Bharata has spent the night with Guha, the next morning his host asks him kañcitsukhaṃ nadītīre ‘vātsīḥ kākutstha śarvarīm (have you past the night well?)
Mhbh. 1, 167, 23 king Drupada having lost half his kingdom to Drona, goes to some brahman, who may procure him a means for avenging himself, and says droṇaḥ parājaiṣṭa mām
Daç. 27: it has been predicted to the brahman Mâtanga that he will soon meet with a prince, now, when he really meats with a prince, he tells him this prediction and adds these words tadādeśānuguṇam eva bhavad āgamanam abhūt [neither abhavat nor babhūva are here admissible]
Çâk. VII Mâtali congratulates Dushyanta on finding back his wife with his son, the king replies abhūt saṃpāditasvāduphalo me manārathaḥ (my desire is gone into sweet fulfilment)
Kathâs. 40, 108 tubhyaṃ mayā rājyamadāyi (v. a. I have made you king)
Panc. 16 the jackal begs permission to appear before the lion, the doorkeeper grants it him with the words yathāvādīddhavān (*1)

【補足】
ブラーフマナ文献などの古い方言においては、aor.はこの現存過去だけを表すようである（*2）。史的なものを表す時制（historical tense）とaor.の間の濃淡は非常に重要であり、文章を精読する人にとって看過し得ないものである。これに関して、最も有益な構文は、ある1つの事実がまず著者によって話され、その後にその行為者によって話される、というように、同じ事実が2度言及されるものである。また、歴史の記述におけるImpf.・Pf.は必ず、直接話法（oratio directa）のaor.であることが見て取られる。
Ait. Br. 7, 14, 5 tasya ha dantā jajñire / taṃ hovācājñata vā asya dantāḥ… tasya ha dantāḥ pedire / taṃ hovācāpatsyatā vā asya dantāḥ (then he got teeth; then he said to him: »he has, indeed, got teeth”… then his teeth dropped out, then he said to him: »his teeth, have, indeed, dropped out”)

Ch. Up. 5, 3以下の話に曰く：
Śvetaketuがある時Pañcāla国の会議に来た（eyāya）。kṣatriyaのPravāhaṇaは彼に言った（uvāca）：「あなたの父はあなたに教育を施したのか？」（anu tvāśiṣat pitā）（*3）
Śvetaketuが「はい」と答えた。そのとき、Pravāhaṇaは彼に次々と5つの問題を問うたが、彼は1つとして答えられなかったので、こう言った：「これらのことを知らないというのに、どうしてあなたは自身が教育を受けていると言った（avocathāḥ）のか？」
悲しんだŚvetaketuは、そこで、父親のところへ行って（eyāya）言った（uvāca）：「どうしてあなたは、私はお前に教えた（anu tvāśiśam）とおっしゃったのですか（bhagavān abravīt）。ただのkṣatriyaが5つの問題を私に問いました（aprākṣīt）が、私は1つとして答えられませんでした（nāśakam）」

また、Ch. Up. 1, 10以下のUśasti Cākrāyaṇaの話では、Pf.が著者自身が語るときにも用いられる。けれども1, 11, 2、王がUśastiを司祭に選ばなかったことを弁明する段では、aor.が用いられる：
bhagavantaṃ vā aham ebhiḥ sarvair ārtvijyaiḥ paryaiśiṣaṃ bhagavato vā aham avittyānyānavṛṣi (I have looked for you, for all these sacrificial offices, but not finding (*4) Your Reverence, I have chosen others)

ibid. 6, 13, 1 etc.、および、Śatapatha-とAitareya-の用例の多くあるDelbrück Altindische Tempuslehre p. 117等をみよ。

（*1）
ここでのaor.は現在形で翻訳しうる：「あなたの仰る通りに」（as you say）と。以下の例文、および古代ギリシャ語でのτί ἐγέλᾰσᾰς（どうしてあなたは笑うのか？）などとも比較せよ。
Çâk. II, p. 38 ed. Tarkavâgîça sakhe tācad enāṃ na jānāsi yena tvamevamavādīḥ (you do not know her, since you speak thus)

（*2）
Delbrück Altind. Tempusl. p. 128：
「〔この種の文献では〕アオリストが、Impf.やPf.のような物語る意味〔訳者補：出来事を語るときに、話者からしてどの程度過去のことかを表している状態〕としてあることは決してない」
“Niemals steht der Aorist [in this kind of works] im erzählendem Sinne, wie etwa das Imperf. oder Perf.”
けれども、実際には、Ait. Br. 2, 23, 3ではaor.のakrataが史的な意味で用いられている。

（*3）
このような一節が明白に示すのは、「発話と〈同じ日に〉行われた過去の事実」はaor.に置かれねばならない、という文法家の〔構築した〕システムが、その日より前に行為がなされた場合にはImpf.（あるいはPf.）となる、という全き事実に反証されるということである。

（*4）
“bhagavato… avittyā”をavittiのinst.として解釈する。この読みは正しく、訂正の必要はない。