[B-Greek] Rewrite of Mounce 2nd ed ch. 20 by Decker
furuli at online.no
furuli at online.no
Thu Jan 22 11:25:05 EST 2004
Dear Rod and Waldo,
I agree with you Rod that it is extremely important to differentiate
between semantics and pragmatics. But such a distinction leads me to
differentiate between *temporal reference* and *tense*; the first
being pragmatic and the second semantic. Comrie's definition of tense
is "grammaticalized location in time," which means that past tense is
when reference time (RT) intersects event time (ET) before the
deictic center (C), and future tense is when RT intersects ET after C
(I fully agree with Mari Broman Olsen here). I do not see how it is
meaningful to speak about "tense" in a pragmatic sense.
In my view we do not need a redefinition of tense, but we strongly
need an elucidation of aspect, in order to get rid of misleading
terms such as punctiliar, durative, complete, completed, incomplete
and others. Just as important as it is to distinguish between
pragmatics and semantics, it is to distinguish between aspects in
different languages, because their nature are different (here I
disagree with Mari). I use three different parameters when I compare
aspects between languages, and because there are two aspects, the
aspects can be compared in six different areas. Mari has described an
excellent model for the English aspectual system, and when I apply my
parameters in a comparison of English and Hebrew aspects (I work
primarily with Hebrew and secondarily with Greek), I find that the
aspects are similar in three areas and different in three. But
because the aspects are different in both areas which are the most
important ones, the two aspectual systems are completely different.
As to English and Greek, I find the same differences as between
English and Hebrew: three are similar and three are different, and
the two most important ones are different. So the aspectual systems
of English and Greek are completely different.
I have now completed an analysis of all the 70.000 finite and
infinite verbs of the Hebrew Bible, the DSS and the inscriptions as
to temporal reference, modality and certain syntactical traits and
aspectual characteristics. My conclusion is that tense is not found
in the Hebrew verbal system; no particular verb form codes for a
particular location in time. Thus past reference and future reference
must be construed on the basis the context. As to aspect, I conclude
that all prefix forms (WAYYIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, YIQTOL) represent the
imperfective aspect (though defined differently compared with its
English counterpart) and all suffix forms (QATAL and WEQATAL)
represent the perfective aspect. In order to get solid results when I
apply my model to "Koine"-Greek, I would have to analyze *all*, or at
least most of the verbs, which I have not done yet. However, my
tentative results are that future and imperfect represent tenses
"grammaticalized location in time" (imperfect being a combination of
past tense and the imperfective aspect), while aorist and present do
not code for tense, but represent the perfective and imperfective
aspect respectively.
A weakness of many Greek grammars, in my view, is that aspect is only
superficially defined, and no attempt is made to find the "deep
structures" of the aspects (to use a concept from Chomsky as a
metaphor). If there is the realization that aspect is different in
different languages, one simply is forced to penetrate deeper into
the subject aspect. So that is a good starting point. And to the
student who started this discussion: It is good to start with
learning the fundamental definitions of verbs in grammars that
express traditional views. Having done that, you should develop
skepticism and think that some of these are probably inaccurate, and
then read other works which present radical viewpoints. You can learn
much from this, but of course, the most important thing is to work
thoroughly with the Greek text yourself and make your own analyses of
great portions of text.
Best regards
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
Waldo Slusher's comments on Rod Decker's post:
>snip
> > Yes and no. The first statement is a *semantic*
> > statement regarding what
>> information is grammaticalized by the verb. Tense
>> *is* part of the complex
>> of contextual factors at the level of *pragmatics*
>> that is involved with
>> temporal reference. (Note the ref. to
>> deictic/pragmatic in the statement you
>> quoted above.) Confusing or ignoring the difference
>> between semantics and
>> pragmatics is one of the biggest problems in
>> discussing this issue. Those
>> who get "perturbed" when some of us challenge the
>> "prevailing wisdom" on the
>> subject rarely seem to make this distinction and
>> some who mention it don't
>> seem to understand the significance of it.
>
>On this part:
>
>Tense *is* part of the complex of contextual factors
>at the level of *pragmatics* that is involved with
>temporal reference. (Note the ref. to
>deictic/pragmatic in the statement you
>quoted above.)
>
>This is Deckerís comment. Iíll ignore his final
>statement in the interests of making this an academic
>discussion.
>
>Putting Tense at the pragmatics level creates problems
>if you ask me. Under the assumption that Tense is not
>grammaticalized, we should expect to see a far more
>even distribution of the various morphological endings
>in all the various time segments, since events can be
>conceptualized as perfective or imperfective (or
>intention) regardless of the Time they ACTUALLY occur.
>
>
>I think Porterís attempt to address this is one of his
>shortcomings. To argue for example that Past Events
>are generally portrayed as completed is to equate
>Aktionsart with Aspect. And to make a hard connection
>between how events occur and how they are portrayed is
>to argue for SOME temporal element in morphological
>forms.
>
>Would anyone argue that the Greeks do not have adverbs
>because they can be used as nouns sometimes?
>
>
>=====
>Waldo Slusher
>Calgary, AB
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list