Linguistics and opposite conclusions

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Oct 27 14:41:54 EST 2002


>
> Fanning and Porter have been contrasted lately out
> here. I have been wondering about a particular issue
> for some time now after reading both Verbal Aspect
> books. One author/scholar holds that there is no
> temporal nature to the finite indicative verbal
> system, whereas the other holds just the opposite....
> that the Greek finite indicative verbs do by and large
> make temporal assertions. To make matters worse, one
> scholar holds that the aorist tense is the default
> tense, whereas the other holds that the same default
> verbs are those in the present tense. (And there has
> been even apparent disagreement between two B-Greek
> scholars, Iver and Dr. Conrad, as to the relative
> emphasis on word order.)
>
> Question then: Is the field of Linguistics,
> particularly those aspects of linguistics that can be
> applied to Greek, so subjective as to allow for
> opposite conclusions as stated above? What needs to
> take place to introduce objectivity into the issues
> that Porter and Fanning have so noticeably disagreed
> upon?

Even in physics which is a more "objective" and empirical science than the
linguistic study of dead languages, it is a question whether light is best
described as wave or particle.
Often - but not always - when we see different analyses of the same data,
there is some truth to both perspectives.

Greek indicative verbs indicate both tense and aspect. Sometimes the tense
is in focus, sometimes the aspect is in focus. Jonathan just gave a number
of examples with NUN plus an aorist tense. In such a context, I would say
that the perfective aspect of the aorist is in focus over the past time
reference. (The "perfective aspect" as used by linguists is not the same as
the perfect tense in Greek.) The perfective aspect indicates basically that
the event is seen as completed, and whether the event has been fully
unfolded is not the point. Jacta est alea. English can use the present tense
in a context where the sense is a perfective aspect, e.g. "I am dead!"

I'll have to confess that I have only skimmed through Porter's book a long
time ago, but it would surprise me if he would talk of a "default tense" in
general. I cannot imagine any language having a default tense.

And since you mention my occasional disagreement with Carl - and others - I
want to clarify that we do agree on most things. What it is fun to discuss
are those areas where there are still questions to be asked and things to
disagree about. Often I am thinking aloud as I write, and my understanding
develops as we discuss things. I am not a Greek scholar like Carl, just a
descriptive linguist and Bible translator, who wants to understand Greek
better than I do. Our occasional difference in perspectives are caused by a
difference in approach and background.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list