Perfects "with a present sense"

Ken M. Penner
Posts: 881
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Comparing desired output with recorded output

Post by Ken M. Penner »

RandallButh wrote:I've learned that one of the ways to discover these weak spots in a language network is to start using a language and cross-compare desired output with recorded output.
Is this like an exercise in which one translates from the Hebrew Bible into Greek, then compares one's results with the Septuagint?
I did this with the book of Ruth after 2.5 years of Greek and 1 of Hebrew. Is this the kind of exercise you would recommend?
Ken M. Penner
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Co-Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Comparing desired output with recorded output

Post by RandallButh »

Ken M. Penner wrote:
RandallButh wrote:I've learned that one of the ways to discover these weak spots in a language network is to start using a language and cross-compare desired output with recorded output.
Is this like an exercise in which one translates from the Hebrew Bible into Greek, then compares one's results with the Septuagint?
I did this with the book of Ruth after 2.5 years of Greek and 1 of Hebrew. Is this the kind of exercise you would recommend?
I was actually thinking more generically about talking to oneself or with friends about anything going on around. A person ends up searching for the right words and discovers things about the language. I often describe the process as a spiraling effect.
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Perfects "with a present sense"

Post by RandallButh »

Another phenomenon with these "restricted perfects" may be special morphology.

E.g. Although "I am standing" is normally communicated as ἕστηκα with the kappa-form,

when the same verb is an infinitive a 'second-Perfect' is used ἑστάναι.

Likewise the participle is ἑστῶτες (33 xx) more often than ἑστηκότες (10 xx) in GNT.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Perfects "with a present sense"

Post by Stephen Carlson »

RandallButh wrote:Another phenomenon with these "restricted perfects" may be special morphology.
Interesting. What's the difference between a restricted perfect with special morpology and a present with perfect-like endings?

In other words, should οἶδα, ἔοικα, πέποιθα, ἕστηκα, or for that matter κέκραγα even be considered perfects, instead of, say, members of a special present conjugation with endings that resemble perfects?

For example, the Swedish cognate to οἶδα is (jag) vet, but, unlike virtually all non-auxiliary finite verbs, it does not end in -r in the present. We know that, though vet diachronically comes from an ancient PIE perfect/stative, synchronically it's just an irregular present. Could these "restricted perfects" be similarly analyzed?

It's just a thought.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Perfects "with a present sense"

Post by RandallButh »

Well, yes, they are generally learned in contexts of other presents, and I do in fact present them in surveys that list the various "present" morphologies.
My label "restricted perfects" is meant for grammatical discussions, not learning situations.

Sometimes people don't like the mention of "pedagogy" in grammatical discussions, but I find that it is always a useful perspective to remind us that real people had to use the language in real communication. And those people are/were often sensitive to the grammatical signal, even if they cannot explain why it is the way it is. I must assume that μέμνημαι would be called a perfect by a Greek, not a present. Just like πορεύομαι would be a "middle", not a *deponent.

Moreover, οιδα and εστηκα are fully perfect in morphology and not like ἥκεις. οἴχῃ, where etymological perfects have adopted present morphology even though they function closer to perfects. Reminds me of a Spanish joke "fuimonos" "let's went".
Louis L Sorenson
Posts: 711
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Perfects "with a present sense"

Post by Louis L Sorenson »

This may play into the discussion, although it compares the perfect to the aorist, not present.

Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek, §7990:
7990. The aoristic perfect. It is sometimes alleged that the perfect had so transgressed on the domain of the aorist, especially in narrative, by the hellenistic period that its special force was spent. In the Byzantine period, the perfect and aorist are indiscriminantly mixed. The perfect eventually disappeared and was replaced wholly by periphrases (modern Greek). There is doubtless point to these allegations. It is difficult, for example, to see the perfective force in:
(49) ἄλλoι ἔλεγον, ἄγγελος αὐτῷ λελάληκεν Jn 12:29 Others said, ‘An angel spoke to him’ One early manuscript (P66), in fact, reads the aorist here. At all events, the perfect is certainly occasionally used in the hellenistic period without its special nuance, i.e. as an aorist. But pending a full study of the Greek tenses of the
period, the student will do well to continue to inquire what, if any, special force a given perfect has.
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”