[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Verbal aspect
-
To: b-greek: ;
-
Subject: Verbal aspect
-
From: rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu
-
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 19:55:07 -0500 (CDT)
Thanks, David, for your detailed response to my summary of verbal
aspect. I won't try to touch every item you mentioned, but let me
suggest several things.
"Lexis" refers to the meaning conveyed by the word itself apart
from the grammatical form in which it appears. (Don't make that
too specific in the old sense of "root meaning"--semantic
field/range is probably closer.) There will be varying degrees of
semantic contribution to verbal aspect at this point. A good
example of a word whose lexis clearly affects the verbal idea is
hHkw ("have come").
In my original post I was distinguishing between Aktionsart and
aspect. That has not always been done in the grammars. The current
study of aspect is the culmination of the past two centuries of
work on the verb and is surveyed by both Fanning and (in
considerably greater detail) by Porter. Perhaps "culmination" is
not the best description since it may imply that we now have the
final answer--which is probably not the case.
It is quite interesting that both Fanning and Porter completed
their dissertations (Oxford and Sheffield respectively) within a
year of each other, yet both worked independently and were not
aware (so far as I know) of the other's work. Although there are
some significant differences between them, the degree of agreement
is rather amazing. Both have concluded that verbal aspect is the
primary thrust of the Greek verb and is the primary significance
of the grammatical forms. Porter would also include finiteness,
attitude, and remoteness in his systemic analysis, but rejects any
grammaticalization of time reference. Fanning's system is somewhat
different in that he allows some degree of temporal reference and
develops Aktionsart (he prefers to call it procedural
characteristic) in much greater detail, incorporating Vendler &
Kenny's taxonomies of verbs at this point.
In any event, Aktionsart is used (in my post and in these two
books) to refer to the objective character of the action to which
the verb refers. This judgment must come from lexis and context,
not tense form. (Note that Robertson frequently mentions this in
his discussion of tense usage; e.g., his disc. of the effective
aorist [an Aktionsart category] on p. 835: "this is done (if done)
by the verb itself (Aktionsart)." [i.e., it is based on lexis]
Aspect, on the other hand, refers to the subjective manner in
which the speaker chooses to portray the action: perfective,
imperfective, and stative (Porter's categories), or internal and
external (Fanning's).
I won't respond to every specific challenge to the translation of
individual verses. Any sample text might be challenged in some
way. They are Porter's examples, at any rate, and that is why I
used them. (I might suggest a number of others, but I didn't write
the book!) The overall point of the various sets of texts is this:
>> What is the significance of tense if the same tense forms
can all refer to the same range of temporality and if three
different tenses can have the same range? <<
The traditional explanations have not had a very graceful answer
to that question (IMHO). Most explain that, when used in the
indicative mood, the tenses are temporal forms, the augmented
forms being past time. But then they have to list all the
exceptions and create special categories to handle the problems.
What Porter is suggesting (that's prob. to mild a word given his
propensities!) is that we jettison the formal temporal baggage and
create our explanations of the forms on the basis of aspect,
leaving time to be determined on the basis of deixis and context.
Fanning's proposal also argues for the primacy of aspect, though
with some differences in relation to the temporal question.
One last note in re. to your comment that
> Rodney seems very convinced of the non-temporal position
Please don't take my statements as unbending dogmatism. To be very
honest, I've been testing Porter's theory and trying to poke holes
in it. My conclusion thus far is that it is a more consistent and
simpler approach than the traditional explanation. At this point I
have worked my way through the first half of Porter's "Verbal
Aspect" (all the material that deals with the indicative--which is
where the greatest questions lie) and have the oblique moods yet
to examine (the second half of the book). I have about the same
portion of Fanning in hand. So as I proceed, I may well modify
bits and pieces, but to be persuaded I think I need to do more
than find ways to get around individual examples (Porter cites
thousands from the NT [the Scripture index runs 25 triple-col.
pages @ avg. 52 refs./col = 3,900!] and from extra-biblical Greek
[only 15 pgs. in that index :) ].
I realize that accepting either Porter or Fanning's proposals
constitutes a paradigm shift in Greek grammar--perhaps comparable
to the shift that came with the work of Deissmann, Moulton, etc.
on the papyri. (Maybe I'm overestimating the significance, but I
don't think so.)
If you want to see some of the practical fruits of this approach,
check D. A. Carson's recent commentary on John (Eerdmans, 1991).
There are 14 refs. to Porter's vol. in the index (+ at least one
they missed: p. 655). Look at how Carson applies Porter's theory
in the exegesis of those passages.
Reviews, etc. of both Porter and Fanning may be found in "Biblical
Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current
Research," ed. D. A. Carson and Stanley Porter, JSNT Suppl Series,
#80 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). It contains an overview of the
issue by Carson, the presentations made by Fanning and Porter at
the Kansas City SBL meeting in 1991 (which includes a summary of
their position and their critique of the other's work), and then
the response papers presented at SBL by Moises Silva and Daryl
Schmidt. (That's a fairly substantial line up in my opinion!)
I have a 30-page (sg. sp.) critical summary of chs. 1, 2, 4, 5 of
Porter (covers about 240 of the 500 pgs. including all the
sections related to general theory and the indicative mood)
including several of his key diagrams/charts (plus a few of my
own) that illustrate several issues. If it is of interest to
anyone (who has read this far!), I'll be happy to mail them a copy
for $2.00 to cover costs. (If interested, send me a check at 302 N
8th, River Falls, WI 54022). One of my fellow doctoral students
is working on the second half. I may be able to get copies of his
material as well, but I haven't seen his work yet, so no promises.
So much for a brief reply! :)
Rod
Rodney J. Decker
Assistant Professor of Greek and Theology
Calvary Theological Seminary, Kansas City
(94-95 sabbatical explains the Univ. of Wisc. address!)