Meaning of the perfect tense

CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Wed Jan 17 13:40:06 EST 2001


In a message dated 01/16/2001 12:37:40 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
a_b_thomas at yahoo.com writes:

> Part of Cindy's response include...
>   
>  > While some communication is written or recorded with
>  > a deictic center related 
>  > to recipients that are receiving it at a later time,
>  > in Jn. 5:24, the 
>  > intended recipients are present, so I don't think
>  > that the deictic center can 
>  > be located in the way you are describing. It is not
>  > really what is meant by 
>  > 'the context of the utterance', which is what deixis
>  > is about.
>  
>  
>  Cindy:
>  
>  Would you expand on this a bit. After reading Mark's
>  suggested translation, I did feel that it was
>  addressed to those present at the time of utterance.
>  

It is very probable that I didn't understand all of what he was saying. But 
my issue was with what I perceived to be his definition of the 'contextually 
developed deictic center' as NOT being related to the time of speaking to 
those present. This is what I'm addressing, and it rather redefines deictic 
center, which I think should be avoided.

I think that he might be saying that the 'contextually developed deictic 
center' could be relative to the time of hearing (reception perhaps) and 
believing. But I'm not entirely confident that I understand.

>  I think your suggestion that this is true in an
>  omnitemporal sense is correct, but what are the
>  grammatical clues to suggest this?
>  
Right. There are no grammatical clues to suggest this.  The issue 
grammatically besides whether the perfect includes the past in its meaning 
is: who is the referrent of the formal construction hO TON LOGON MOU AKOUWN 
KAI PISTEUWN... If only there were a little PAS then we'd have closure. So 
this becomes much like the studies on the contextual meaning of EKKLHSIA or 
FILEW, etc.

We use pragmatics all the time to attempt to arrive at the "true" meaning of 
words and statements.  This is why Relevance Theory types say that grammar 
only provides a blueprint for meaning. They say, "Hearers use contextual 
information in their search for relevance", and while I don't want to defend 
their theories here, I can buy this statement, and apply it to Jn 5:24.

In this case the 'context' used would be the Gospel of John and could be 
other basic Christian doctrine that I assume is shared by the author and 
recipients.

I 'assume' that I share at least part of the same information that the writer 
and the recipients shared as far as the general relationship for all 
believers of hearing and believing to salvation--they have all the gospel of 
John, and I assume (rightly or wrongly) that they have had teaching that 
associates hearing and believing with all believers' salvation. So, without 
any noticeable struggle, I assume that this is meant to apply to all 
believers, past present and future.

We use pragmatics all the time in interpreting that Bible and everyday 
language.

1.  Blue is a color.
2.  Betty's face is blue.
3.  The sky is blue.

English grammar tells you nothing about which is 'omnitemporal' versus 
anchored in time. I'll bet you have an opinion that (1) is 'omnitemporal', 
(2) is anchored in time, and you aren't too sure about (3) and need more 
context.

I'll bet that you are also aware that (1) could be false (the referent of 
"Blue" could be my dog or the dog in the song) and Betty could have a chronic 
heart condition.

Cindy Westfall
PhD student, University of Surrey at Roehampton



More information about the B-Greek mailing list