I mentioned in my post in the Introductions subforum that I'm getting back into Biblical Greek after many years away from it, so my hope is to get started on the right foot by taking advantage of recent scholarship and to avoid dead-ends and rabbit trails as much as possible. Hence one of the books I recently bought is Con Campbell's "Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek" which I purchased based on its Amazon reviews, but that was before I found the B-Greek forum

Anyways, I've finished reading Campbell's book and have also spent some time browsing this forum, and as a result I have some questions I'd like to ask here. (BTW I've also just finished reading Con's other book "Advances in the Study of Greek" and have read all the posts in the subforum under Books where that book is discussed, but I'll reserve my questions about that book for a later post.)
Below are my questions concerning what's being taught in "Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek". Perhaps someone could respond inline *briefly* to each of my questions and describe the consensus (if there is one!) of the group concerning each matter. Thank you in advance!
1. Are perfective and imperfective the only two verbal aspects of importance for the study of Biblical Greek?
2. Is "viewpoint" a good paradigm for understanding verbal aspect? Or is there a better one?
3. Is it really correct to say that aspect is a sematic value while tense and Aktionsart are pragmatic values? To me it seems that Campbell fixes on this as his axiom and then attempts to build a theory upon it, but in doing so it feels to me like he sometimes has to bend some of the data pretty hard to try and make it fit his model, for example his metaphorical conception of remoteness with regard to the aorist tense in Mark 1:11 on pages 37-38.
4. Should we regard the future tense as perfective as Campbell suggests?
5. Regarding the imperfective aspect, Campbell says the imperfect tense is imperfective and remote while the present tense is imperfective and proximate (or non-remote according to Porter). Doesn't this contradict the whole idea of imperfective being an inside viewpoint? i.e. if present and imperfect are both views from the inside (imperfective) then how can either be considered remote?
6. Regarding narrative passages, Campbell says the default use of aorist is for mainline (skeletal) narrative, of imperfect is for background (supplementary) narrative, and present for all forms of discourse. Does this basically hold up when you read most narrative passages in the Greek NT?
7. When I originally learned Biblical Greek years ago I was taught that the default (semantic?) meaning of perfect tense is that of a past action that has a present effect or result. But from reading Campbell's book it sounds like our understanding of the perfect tense in Biblical Greek is currently in a state of flux. Is this true? Or does the traditional understanding of the perfect still basically ring true?
8. Campbell says his understanding of the perfect tense is that it is imperfective like the present tense but has heightened proximity compared to the present. I think he means by this that the perfect tense provides an inside view from a close-up perspective i.e. a kind of "super-present" semantic value. Unfortunately he doesn't include any Greek NT examples to illustrate his idea. What does the group here think about this idea of the perfect?
9. The second part of Campbell's book is a kind of workbook with examples showing how one can take the semantics (according to him) of a verb in a passage and combine it with the essential nature of the lexeme and the surrounding context to arrive at a pragmatic understanding of what Aktionsart the verb has in that particular passage. Does this approach make sense? Is it practicable? Does it mirror what goes on in the minds of B-Greek members when they try to understand the meaning of a verb in a sentence? Is there a better (and hopefully easier) approach to understanding what a Greek verb means in a sentence?
10. Chapter 10 More Participles seems fairly cut-and-dry. Is his categorization of the different types of participles basically correct?
Once again thanks in advance for anyone who took the time to answer my questions inline

Cheers,
Mitch Tulloch