Are Participles Marked Temporally?

Jon Robertson jmrober at pop6.ibm.net
Thu Mar 4 05:59:05 EST 1999


Dear list,

As we have opened this thread once again, I would like to ask a 
couple of basic questions.
1.  Do people on this list believe that there is a basic difference 
between "aspect" and "aktionsart"?  Or do you believe these terms to 
be more or less interchangeable?  It is fundamental to the 
understanding of some "new" aspectual theory to realize that these 
terms are considered by the theorists (por ejemplo, Stanley Porter) 
to represent two different things.  For them aspect has to do with 
the decision of the author or speaker concerning how to depict the 
thought of the verb, while aktionsart has to do with the actual "type 
of action".
 2.  What would people on the list think about the 
relative temporality of a participle being affected by the 
participle's position (i.e. before or after the main verb?)  
According to Porter, when the participle appears before the main 
verb, "there is a tendency for the action to be depicted as 
antecedent," while when after the main verb, "there is a tendency for 
the action to be seen as concurrent or subsequent." (Porter, Verbal 
Aspect, p. 381)  I am not necessarily arguing for this position, I 
just want to hear the opinions of those with greater experience and 
knowledge.  My small paper on the aorist participles which follow the 
head verb in the book of Acts seems to support Porter's view, but who 
knows???  (By the way, I now have a copy of that paper, if anyone is 
interested in seeing it.  The data would seem to support the view 
that there are certainly some examples of the aorist participle of 
"subsequent action".)

In Christ,
Jon Robertson

"Quis caelum posset, nisi caeli munere, nosse,
et reperire deum nisi qui pars ipse deorum?"



More information about the B-Greek mailing list