Temporal nature of Participles
Mark Wilson
emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 12 09:57:46 EST 2002
Read any grammar. You will find something close to this:
-----
The participle, being outside the Indicative, does not
grammaticalize time. The temporal nature of a participle
is relative to that of the controlling verb. What is most
dominant with participles is Aspect. Time, if present at all,
is to be of secondary consideration.
-----
How can we be so sure of this?
Has someone systematically analyzed participles and demonstrated
that their temporal nature is not primary, but aspect is? What is
the objective data that supports this? (Bear in mind I am not saying
that such a claim is not true; it's just that I've never seen any
scholarly demonstration for saying time is secondary
with participles.)
What would prevent me from arguing Aspect is secondary, and time
is primary?
I have seen Aorist Participles that are both prior to and concurrent
with a controlling Aorist Indicative verb, but that does not seem to
negate their temporal significance, does it? Could there be other
grammatical factors affecting its temporal nature?
Has anyone argued that participles DO primarily grammaticalize time?
I'd like to see a Porter-like effort to that end.
Mark Wilson
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list