There seems to be a lot of dicussion and confusion regarding the value of the Latin perfect (or perfective? -- perhaps we'd better not open that can of worms). Since this ends up extending somewhat to other languages, in particular the Romance languages, I've grown curious about the matter. Let me see if I got it straight: Both Latin and Greek had tenses which have traditionally been called "perfect". (I'm thinking of the perfect indicative mostly, here.) But modern linguists object to this terminology, arguing that the Latin tense actually had a very different value from the Greek one. They say that only one of the two tenses should be called "perfect", and the other should be called "perfective". Trouble is, they can't seem to agree on which should be the perfect and which should be the perfective. The Latin "perfect/perfective" was actually closer in meaning to another Greek tense (or mood -- another can of worms I don't wish to open!) called the aorist. Is this right?