BRACKETT. — TEMPORAL CLAUSES IN HERODOTUS. 



173 



When a clause of subsequence defines the posterior limit of the progress 

 of an action, the action whose limit is to be stated is regularly expressed 

 by a verb of extensive action ; the defining action is regularly of the 

 aoristic aspect, less often extensive. The action to be defined may either 

 in part or wholly * precede the defining action. 



The forms of the verb which are to be expected in the various kind', 

 of temporal sentences may be indicated as follows : 



Action 



Purely antecedent 

 Antecedent overlapping 



Contemporaneous 



Inserted, extensive in 



extensive 

 Aoristic in extensive 



[Aoristic in aoristic]! 

 Subsequent overlapping 



Purely subsequent 



Subsequent expressing limit 



Main Verb 



extensive 

 aoristic 



extensive 

 aoristic 



extensive 

 aoristic 



extensive 



extensive 



aoristic 



aoristic 



extensive 



aoristic 



[extensive] § 



extensive 



Subord. Verb 



i, [extensive]! 

 \ aoristic 



extern 



extensive 

 aoristic 



extensive 

 aoristic 

 extensive 

 aoristic 



f aoristic 

 I extensive 



( extensive 

 ^ aoristic 



( aoristic 



| [extensive]§ 



* Warren (op. sup. cit, p. 7) argues that the action to be denned can never 

 wholly precede the defining action. Is this so ? The true temporal relation in 

 these clauses can best be tested in clauses of limit with eons, &xpi, etc., after affirma- 

 tive main clauses. Now the progress of an action may be limited in either of two 

 ways: (1) it maybe limited loosely by a verb which expresses an action as in 

 progress ; or, (2) it may be limited exactly by a verb of aoristic aspect. In the 

 former case the main action may overlap the subordinate action, as in Thuc., 1, 30, 

 3 : tovs rwv \\.opivdi(jiv £uu.fj.dxovs eTwrAeovres tipOeipov, fi^XP 1 °" KopivQioi . . . 

 icTTpaToireSevovTo eirl 'AktIw, k.t.a. Cf. also Thuc, 1, 118, 2 (irpiv) and Xen. Cyrop., 

 3, 3, 18 (ecos). In the latter case it may happen that the action of the main verb 

 ceases at the exact instant when that of the subordinate verb begins. In the sen- 

 tence, " The pencil moves until it touches the table," it is clear .hat the action of 

 the main verb ceases at exactly the same time that the subordinate action begins. 

 Here, therefore, there is no relation of contemporaneity whatever. 



t See below, pp. 189 ff. J See above, p. 172. 



§ See below, pp. 202 f. |] See below, pp. 205 ff. 



