Stephen Carlson wrote:What is the role of the augment under aspect-only (Porter et al.) systems?
Under aspect-tense systems, the augment is thought to mark an indicative verb as past (imperfect, aorist, pluperfect). But in an aspect-only system, there's no grammatical past-ness to mark. So what's the augment doing?
MAubrey wrote:It depends on the person:
MAubrey wrote:Porter wants to connect it to mood somehow, emphasizing the fact that the augument only appears in the indicative, though I can't give you an exact page number for that since Porter's monograph doesn't have a subject index. He also emphasizes that the augment is often occasionally optional in some historical eras (Homeric Greek) and grammatical forms (the pluperfect), which he takes to marks its unnecessary nature.
MAubrey wrote:Rod Decker, I think, has talked about the relationship between the augment and the secondary endings as having a purely formal relationship (Temporal Deixis, 39-40). He might be able to say more about his view directly.
MAubrey wrote:Con Campbell simply changes the label: the augment marks remoteness.
Stephen Carlson wrote:I know Decker states that the imperfect is a remote tense-form because it provides background information while the aorist provides the main story line. This understanding won't work if the augment on the aorist also marks remoteness as you state that Campbell holds.
Stephen Carlson wrote:I wonder what the difference between Campbell's notion of remoteness and the view that the augment marks verb forms as prototypically, but not categorically, past?
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:I wonder what the difference between Campbell's notion of remoteness and the view that the augment marks verb forms as prototypically, but not categorically, past?
This is near to upper limit of my understanding, so I may be wrong, but... Campbell tries to find a rule without exceptions and thinks that the exceptionless rule is the semantic meaning (as probably does Porter, too). A proponent of some kind of prototypicalilty view would say that a rule can have exceptions and still describe the semantic meaning. I find the latter view more down-to-earth, practical, realistic and commonsensical. I see this as one of the basic differences between the non-temporal and the aspectual+temporal views of tense.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest