The Instantaneous Imperfect???

MAubrey
Posts: 1095
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Instantaneous Imperfect???

Post by MAubrey »

David Lim wrote:Sure, the text is segmented, but Mark does not consistently use the imperfect only at these breaks. For example, can you explain Mark 2:23-26 which I quoted?

...

If the places where direct discourse in a narrative text is segmented is only a subset of the places where the author uses the imperfect, then segmentation cannot be considered as a usage of the imperfect verb of speech. Otherwise I can claim that all conjunctions and particles are also used to segment direct discourse. The more reasonable assertion in my opinion is that the context of the discourse itself segments the discourse, not any single word or word form in it, though it is of course more likely for one to use unusual words or word forms at the junctures between sections. To prove it, my test would be to remove the verb conjugation of all instances of "λεγειν" in an extended length of direct discourse that you are not familiar with and you should be able to determine where an imperfect should be used. If you are very accurate, then I would agree with you, because you would clearly demonstrate a correlation between the imperfect verb of speech and the segmentation of direct discourse. ;)
Never has anyone ever said that the this is a usage of imperfect verbs of speech.
David Lim wrote:Ah okay. Anyway I still claim that segmentation of a long speech is not quite the author's intention when he uses the imperfect verb of speech, because all the examples fit the broader classification of the imperfect literally signalling an incomplete event. I therefore think there is not much reason to divide them into two groups, one for segmentation, the other not for segmentation. I choose the simpler, even if more vague, explanation.
You've still got it backwards. We're not classifying instances of the imperfect. Imperfects used in breaks within direct speech aren't a class of their own. The only reason it appears that way is because Wallace made the claim that imperfects use in breaks in direct speech are aoristic. And for that reason, the nature of the argument used by Runge and Levinsohn needs to start there. But they're making a broader (and different) claim.

Let's try a different starting point for this.

When humans speak, we know that there is only so much that can be said before the audience struggles to process it. At a lower level, the proposition/sentence/clause becomes a useful place to break a discourse into segments. Breaking text into segments allows for the audience to more easily process the text. And its done at a higher level, too. And when you're writing down a text in a language whose writing tradition doesn't have a system for marking larger chunks such a paragraphs, there needs to be some way to do it. So Mark breaks a longer piece of direct discourse in to smaller pieces. The discourse isn't over, so only imperfective verbform would be acceptable for starting it up again (as you say, the general category of continuous work perfectly here) and since this is narrative, it also needs to be a past tense verbform (assuming the semantic-pragmatic requirements for a historical present aren't met). And thus ἔλεγον is really the only option.

So, from the perspective of the author, the segmentation of the text comes first and the use of ἔλεγον is a natural result.

However, from the perspective of the person analyzing the text, knowing this information makes ἔλεγον a useful linguistic entity to watch for in making decisions of where the author wanted to segment the text. The segmentation there; ἔλεγον is a functional guidepost for the reader.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: The Instantaneous Imperfect???

Post by David Lim »

MAubrey wrote:Never has anyone ever said that the this is a usage of imperfect verbs of speech.
I thought you did?
MAubrey wrote:[...]

Ah! Gotcha. Well, the answer is that Steve isn't giving a reason. The segmentation of the text isn't a reason. It's a result. The imperfective nature of the verb allows for the pragmatic (usage) effect of text segmentation. It's the closest you're going to get a linguist to talk about style.
Anyway I think you might not be getting my point.
MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:Ah okay. Anyway I still claim that segmentation of a long speech is not quite the author's intention when he uses the imperfect verb of speech, because all the examples fit the broader classification of the imperfect literally signalling an incomplete event. I therefore think there is not much reason to divide them into two groups, one for segmentation, the other not for segmentation. I choose the simpler, even if more vague, explanation.
You've still got it backwards. We're not classifying instances of the imperfect. Imperfects used in breaks within direct speech aren't a class of their own. The only reason it appears that way is because Wallace made the claim that imperfects use in breaks in direct speech are aoristic. And for that reason, the nature of the argument used by Runge and Levinsohn needs to start there. But they're making a broader (and different) claim.

Let's try a different starting point for this.

When humans speak, we know that there is only so much that can be said before the audience struggles to process it. At a lower level, the proposition/sentence/clause becomes a useful place to break a discourse into segments. Breaking text into segments allows for the audience to more easily process the text. And its done at a higher level, too. And when you're writing down a text in a language whose writing tradition doesn't have a system for marking larger chunks such a paragraphs, there needs to be some way to do it. So Mark breaks a longer piece of direct discourse in to smaller pieces. The discourse isn't over, so only imperfective verbform would be acceptable for starting it up again (as you say, the general category of continuous work perfectly here) and since this is narrative, it also needs to be a past tense verbform (assuming the semantic-pragmatic requirements for a historical present aren't met). And thus ἔλεγον is really the only option.
I fully agree with you if indeed Mark intentionally used the imperfect verb in that way, but as far as I see it he did not. Instead he simply used the imperfect whenever he wanted to highlight that period of ongoing speech. Likewise there were no paragraphs because they did not think in paragraphs! Therefore there is no need to find some words or word forms to take up the role of segmenting the text into paragraphs, because the content itself is really sufficient for the audience to divide the discourse into sections.
MAubrey wrote:So, from the perspective of the author, the segmentation of the text comes first and the use of ἔλεγον is a natural result.

However, from the perspective of the person analyzing the text, knowing this information makes ἔλεγον a useful linguistic entity to watch for in making decisions of where the author wanted to segment the text. The segmentation there; ἔλεγον is a functional guidepost for the reader.
For the reader, I simply think that the imperfect has about as much to do with segmentation as any other words, since you agree that the instances in Mark 2:23-26 are not instances of text segmentation, which implies that your judgement depends on the content of the speech and not on whether the verb form is imperfect, so in fact "ελεγεν" and "ελεγον" are not working indicators of discourse segmentation. If however you say that "και εγενετο", for example, is a good indicator of segmentation in narrative, it is obviously true because "εγενετο" is the unique word which has the semantic meaning for introducing a new section. The imperfect tense, on the other hand, does not have such a specialised pragmatic usage.
δαυιδ λιμ
MAubrey
Posts: 1095
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Instantaneous Imperfect???

Post by MAubrey »

David Lim wrote:
MAubrey wrote:Never has anyone ever said that the this is a usage of imperfect verbs of speech.
I thought you did?
Nope. Never did. And neither Runge or Levinsohn hold that view either.
David Lim wrote:Anyway I think you might not be getting my point.
Your point, as I've read it, is that ἔλεγον isn't used to segment the text. That's fine. The problem is that nobody has claimed that this is a usage of ἔλεγεν. Steve says that himself:
srunge wrote:This discourse-based explanation of the instantaneous imperfect provides a reasonable account of the data without needing to postulate another sense.
David Lim wrote:Instead he simply used the imperfect whenever he wanted to highlight that period of ongoing speech.
I have no idea what this means, could you rephrase it? Are you saying that Mark wants to emphasize a particular portion of an ongoing speech or that he wants to highlight the fact that the speech isn't over?
David Lim wrote:Likewise there were no paragraphs because they did not think in paragraphs!
All humans segment texts into chunks. If they didn't, communication would be impossible. Even Sign Languages segment texts. If you don't want to call it a paragraph, fine. But the chunks are there. And the psycholinguistic evidence of this is overwhelming.
David Lim wrote:Therefore there is no need to find some words or word forms to take up the role of segmenting the text into paragraphs, because the content itself is really sufficient for the audience to divide the discourse into sections.
Did you actually read my last post? ἔλεγον isn't used by mark to segment the text. Mark segments the text and ἔλεγον is a necessary result.
David Lim wrote:For the reader, I simply think that the imperfect has about as much to do with segmentation as any other words, since you agree that the instances in Mark 2:23-26 are not instances of text segmentation, which implies that your judgement depends on the content of the speech and not on whether the verb form is imperfect, so in fact "ελεγεν" and "ελεγον" are not working indicators of discourse segmentation. If however you say that "και εγενετο", for example, is a good indicator of segmentation in narrative, it is obviously true because "εγενετο" is the unique word which has the semantic meaning for introducing a new section. The imperfect tense, on the other hand, does not have such a specialised pragmatic usage.
Again, ἔλεγεν isn't used by Μark to segment the text. Mark segments the text and ἔλεγεν is a necessary result.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: The Instantaneous Imperfect???

Post by David Lim »

MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:Instead he simply used the imperfect whenever he wanted to highlight that period of ongoing speech.
I have no idea what this means, could you rephrase it? Are you saying that Mark wants to emphasize a particular portion of an ongoing speech or that he wants to highlight the fact that the speech isn't over?
Not quite emphasize, or to denote that the speech was not over, but to put the audience in a different perspective. The aorist would simply leave the audience viewing the past event from far whereas the imperfect would bring the audience into a view of the event as it was happening, which highlights that particular time period of ongoing speech in contrast to other parts of the same discourse.
MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:Likewise there were no paragraphs because they did not think in paragraphs!
All humans segment texts into chunks. If they didn't, communication would be impossible. Even Sign Languages segment texts. If you don't want to call it a paragraph, fine. But the chunks are there. And the psycholinguistic evidence of this is overwhelming.
David Lim wrote:Therefore there is no need to find some words or word forms to take up the role of segmenting the text into paragraphs, because the content itself is really sufficient for the audience to divide the discourse into sections.
Did you actually read my last post? ἔλεγον isn't used by mark to segment the text. Mark segments the text and ἔλεγον is a necessary result.
David Lim wrote:For the reader, I simply think that the imperfect has about as much to do with segmentation as any other words, since you agree that the instances in Mark 2:23-26 are not instances of text segmentation, which implies that your judgement depends on the content of the speech and not on whether the verb form is imperfect, so in fact "ελεγεν" and "ελεγον" are not working indicators of discourse segmentation. If however you say that "και εγενετο", for example, is a good indicator of segmentation in narrative, it is obviously true because "εγενετο" is the unique word which has the semantic meaning for introducing a new section. The imperfect tense, on the other hand, does not have such a specialised pragmatic usage.
Again, ἔλεγεν isn't used by Μark to segment the text. Mark segments the text and ἔλεγεν is a necessary result.
I did read your post, and I am saying that the part I do not agree with is that Mark intentionally chose words to segment the discourse. Of course mentally both the writer and his audience always segment their communication, but I was saying that they did not have to use special words or word forms to do so, as the context would be sufficient. Thus Mark segments the text, but not using specific word forms.
δαυιδ λιμ
MAubrey
Posts: 1095
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Instantaneous Imperfect???

Post by MAubrey »

David Lim wrote:I did read your post, and I am saying that the part I do not agree with is that Mark intentionally chose words to segment the discourse. Of course mentally both the writer and his audience always segment their communication, but I was saying that they did not have to use special words or word forms to do so, as the context would be sufficient. Thus Mark segments the text, but not using specific word forms.
That's what I just said.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The Instantaneous Imperfect???

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Mod note: I think this thread has run its course, with our limited understanding of the Greek now being transferred to our limited understandings of each other. I'll allow one final posting from each participant (if wanted) and then lock the thread.

Stephen Carlson
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”