Alas, I lead a dusty householder’s life, immersed in a daily struggle of pettiness. Such lofty quests are beyond me. Besides, Pali periphrasis does not come naturally to me; I might not recognise those sly ones where the auxillary is silent.
Speaking of periphrasis, it seems that the authors of the Vb 7 were aware of this phenomenon, since they explained viharati in the mindfulness refrains as if it were an auxillary verb showing the durative aspect -
I think there actually was not that much difference between the Future Passive and Future Perfect use of the periphrastic construture for the semi-native Pali speaker. You as a speaker of a Germanic language can feel the semantics of the Future Perfect in it, I as a speaker of a Slavic language can’t, we just don’t have any Future Perfect. Accordingly, if I were Geiger and were writing a Pali grammar, it would never occur to me this construction has the meaning of the Future Perfect. Never ever. So yeah, I agree to sylvester, the Future Perfect is a sense that speakers of Western European languages see in the construction rather than a fully fledged verb tense.
Besides, and I think this suggestion of mine could serve as a basis for a MA paper for people who are actually studying Pali and have spare time, I strongly suspect this contstruction was used with transitive verbs as the Future Passive. I mean, people could have been unaware of how you can actually derive a proper future passive form of a relatively obscure verb (try to form them on your own, good luck with that; is the synthetic Future Passive actually used at all in real Pali texts, especially in the Suttasm has anyone come across them?), and more importantly, this could cause serious issues with understanding the recited text.
By the way, I think no-one would be upset if I provide the pictures of the relevant paragraphs in Geiger. If Ven. @sujato needs itm I can later (like tomorrow night maybe?) post pictures of the pagraphs about the progressive periphrastic forms.
