At first I thought of starting two different threads, but then I realised I might group both sentences I’ve had problems with under the same topic: the aorist, the situations I thought it was fitting, and the forms I thought it had. First, what I’ve learnt so far. In a way, I equate much of the Bulgarian aorist to the Portuguese preterite indicative. I’m still a bit stuck with the idea of imperfective aorist forms, but, otherwise, no big problems. Then, I know that the aorist endings are the same as those of the imperfect, except for the 2nd and 3rd person singular (which happen to be identical). Okay, that said, I was once writing a paragraph on particular events of the Brazilian history, and wanted to say that, when Brazil became independent of Portugal, there was no war or bloodshed. I rendered this particular sentence as: „Няма обаче война или кръвопролитие.“ (This was when I first learnt that I should use the renarrative mood for historical descriptions, so that I later rephrased it as Нямало обаче война или кръвопролитие. Bear with me in the indicative mood though.) In Portuguese, the verb would’ve been in the preterite indicative (não houve), and I saw that the Bulgarian 3rd person singular aorist was the same as the 3rd person singular present: Present: нямам, нямаш, няма, нямаме, нямате, нямат Aorist: нямах, няма, няма, нямахме, нямахте, нямаха The friend who corrected my text, however, told me that, if I wasn’t changing it to the renarrative mood, I should’ve used няма ‘in the past’. I told him I was confused, because I thought that the aorist was that, but he told me it should be нямаше, which I thought was the imperfect. I thought it might be just a matter of confusion over tense names, but, even then, should that sentence take the imperfect instead of the aorist? Any particular reasons for that? Then, a similar situation. I once again wrote another short text which started with the following sentence: „Боли ме глава цeлия ден, но сега съм добре.“ I intended to say that I’d had a headache all day, but that by the time I was writing I was fine (so aorist for the first clause, present for the second). When I looked up how to say that a part of the body hurts, dictionaries pointed me to the verb боля in an impersonal (?) construction. The conjugation I had for it was: Present: боля, болиш, боли, болим, болите, болят Aorist: болих, боли, боли, болихме, болихте, болиха So I took боли to be the proper aorist form here. This time, another friend who corrected my text said she wouldn’t be able to explain why in grammatical terms, but that I should actually say Боля ме глава целия ден if I wanted to say my head had ached, but it no longer did, otherwise it’d sound my head still ached, which would clash with the meaning I intended (and the second clause). But isn’t this боля the 1st person singular present? What am I missing here? TIA!