"

I'm fine with the term ""aorist tense"" being used in the article. Smyth uses it, and he explains the aorist in a way consistent with the way modern linguists do.

But the crux of our disagreement is whether the aorist always or only most of the time expresses aspect. You cited past-within-past as an example, with no explanation of why it has no aspect. Please do explain. — ·tuon "