Present Tense Copulative Verbs

G. Ross gfross at dnai.com
Sat Sep 5 05:52:15 EDT 1998


Kyle said --

Subject: Re: Present tense copulative verbs
From: "Kyle Dillon" <spiffy at learningstar.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 23:20:22 -0700
X-Message-Number: 5

I am not quoting Mantey as an authority on the subject. Neither do I claim
that EGW EIMI, in certain contexts, cannot be translated as "I have been." I
only claim that EGW EIMI in John 8:58 does not mean "I have been."


In English, there are two types of present perfect verbal expressions:
simple and progressive. The simple present perfect is what we would use to
translate the Greek perfect tense. For example, GEGRAFA would be translated
as "I have written." Then there is the progressive present perfect, which
would only be used to translate the Greek present tense. For example, GRAFW
could be translated with the progressive present perfect "I have been
writing," but GEGRAFA could not (cf. John 19:22). The difference between a
simple perfect and progressive perfect is that, in the simple perfect, only
the results of an action continue into the present, while in the progressive
perfect, the action itself still continues into the present.


My reply (Gordon Ross) --

Actually, the meanings of the two grammatical forms in modern English traditionally called the "simple present perfect tense" and the "progressive present perfect tense" are more complex than you have stated.   Although offhand (without further reflection) I would agree that the progressive present perfect form does indicate a past-to-present (and possibly-into-the-future) durative or habitual aspect, the simple present perfect form has several meanings and aspects, primarily punctiliar but also durative or habitual.  Here are several examples:

1.  "How long have you been living here?"  "I've been living here for three years."
      "How long have you lived here?"  "I've lived here for three years."  

The meaning of these two sentences is essentially the same.  The difference is so slight that few native speakers of English, if any, would be aware of a difference in meaning in a normal conversation.  A grammarian might notice, and if pressed, would probably say that the progressive present perfect (PPP) form in this case emphasizes duration, whereas the simple present perfect (SPP) form does not.  Nevertheless, this example does show that some verbs (I don't know offhand how many and which ones) may be used interchangeably in either form (PPP or SPP) with little, if any, difference in meaning in normal conversation.  

I say "normal conversation," and that brings up another issue: rhetoric.   Is the discourse spoken or written?  Is it prose or poetry?  Who is the audience?  What is the circumstance?  The choice of grammatical form and the understanding of the meaning of that form sometimes depend on rhetorical issues, a point that I think is important in understanding the meaning of John 8:58 and of determining an appropriate translation.

2.  "He has just left."  The meaning here of the SPP is "action in the recent past," not "result (of an action) continuing into the present," don't you think?  "He has just been leaving" doesn't make sense to me.  I don't think that native English speakers (Americans, anyway) use the PPP with "just" (in the sense of "recently"), at least not usually.  Of course, Americans more and more say "he just left," using the simple past.

3.  "Where have they gone?"  Another example of an action that occurred in the recent past.  "Where did they go?"  could mean either the recent or a more distant past.  "Where have they been going?" implies habitual action beginning in the past and continuing in the present.

4.  "Have you done your homework yet?"  "Done" here is ambiguous; it means either "begun doing" or "finished doing."  Possible replies are "No, I haven't.  I was just about to get started." or "No, I haven't.  I'm still doing it." or "Yes, I have."   Here we see additional examples indicating that the SPP does not "only" mean that "the results of the action continue into the present" and also that it is the verb and the context (both internal or syntactic -- here with "yet" -- and external) which often determine the meaning and use of the SPP.

I could offer additional examples, but these are sufficient, I think, to illustrate my point about the semantic complexity associated with these two grammatical forms and about the similarity in meaning (see Example #1) between the SPP and PPP.

In a PPA idiom, as some claim John 8:58 is, the main verb is a progressive
perfect, which means the action is still continuing into the present, rather
than simply the results of the action. This is why we find Greek present
tense verbs where a perfect verb should have been used instead. The emphasis
of the present tense shows that the action itself, rather than just its
results, continues from the past into the present. So this is how we would
translate the following verses:

Luke 13:7 - "...three years, since which I have been coming..." (not "I have
come")

Not necessarily.  "For three years I have come looking for fruit" (New American Standard) sounds fine to these ears.  "For three years I have been coming looking for fruit" sounds awkward, because of the "coming looking" repetition, although it's grammatically correct.  The syntax of the English translation emphasizes the time, "for three years," since the phrase has been placed before the subject of the clause, i.e., out of its normal order.  The use of "I have come" here sounds more formal to my ears than "I have been coming."  However, I think that "I have been coming looking" would be used in modern American conversation if the phrase "FOR THREE YEARS" were pronounced emphatically in order to emphasize the length of time.   From all this I conclude that the choice whether to translate ERCOMAI as "I have come" or "I have been coming" is stylistic (rhetorical) and perhaps dialectal (I can speak only for standard American English), not  grammatical, in this context.

Luke 15:29 - "...so many years I have been serving..." (not "I have served")

The same comment as for Luke 13:7.

John 5:6 - "...he has already been having much time..."


The translation of this phrase depends a great deal on how one translates the rest of the sentence, since the main verb is in the present tense and the present seems to be emphasized.  It also depends on how literally one wants to render POLUN HDH CRONON ECEI.   There are so many possibilities that I won't take the time to comment further here.

John 14:9 - "...have I been existing so long a time..."

"Have I been with you for so long a time" sounds far more idiomatic to my ear.  I don't think that BE means EXIST in this context.  I infer it as meaning something like "BE PRESENT."  I have a hunch that Kyle translated EIMI as "have been existing" in order to avoid "have been being," which no native speaker of English in his or her right mind would use in normal conversation.

John 15:27 - "...since the beginning you have been existing..."

Same comment as for John 14:9 above.  "You have been with me" is idiomatic English; "you have been being with me" is not.  Neither is "you have been existing with me."

Acts 15:21 - "...since ancient generations Moses has been holding..."

I certainly would not translate EXEI as "hold" in this context.  It doesn't make sense.   A translation like "Moses, for generations now, has had his preachers (those who proclaim him) in every town" is possible.  "Has been having" is far less idiomatic. 

2 Cor. 12:19 - "...have you been thinking all along..."

I definitely agree with the use of the PPP in this context.

2 Peter 3:4 - "...since our fathers fell asleep, all things have been
continuing..."


"Have continued" is perfectly acceptable here.  See Example #1 above.

John 8:58 is a different case, because we cannot make sense out of the
translation "I have been existing before Abraham was born."

I agree that this translation does not make sense.  It is also not grammatical English.

 This is because
of the temporal subordinate conjunction PRIN. As in English, a progressive
verb cannot be used with an adverbial that describes finished time periods.

Well, to be accurate, a verb in the progressive PERFECT "tense" cannot be so used.  A past progressive can, e.g., "Adam and Eve were fooling around long before Abraham was born."

This would cause me classify John 8:58 (and LXX Psalm 90:2) as examples not
of Present of Past Action idioms, but of something like "Present of
paratemporality" idioms. The main verbs of these verses would therefore be
translated as present tense verbs in English, but with a paratemporal
meaning.


I agree with you in principle, although I question whether it's really necessary to establish and label a class of idioms of this kind.  John 8:58 is an unusual use of EIMI.  The translation of it as "I am" or even "I AM" seems to fit in with the Christology, rhetoric, and poetic style of the author(s)/editor(s) of this gospel.  Whoever wrote John, many decades after the fact, is making some pretty far-out claims about this Galilean rebel.

My position is just an opinion, and may be swayed if further evidence is
given to support the other side. But the evidence seems to currently point
toward my position.


Has the evidence I've given swayed you any, that is, changed your understanding of the uses and meanings of the SPP and PPP "tenses"? in English?

All the best --

Gordon Ross
gfross at dnai.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19980905/226cc7a6/attachment.html 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list