[B-Greek] Present & Aorist of general & abstract verbs
Chet A. Creider
creider at uwo.ca
Mon Dec 12 15:18:01 EST 2005
Ken was kind enough to send a scan of pp.114-115 of Binnick's work, and in
a section dealing with "Modern Theories of the Subordinate Tenses", Binnick
states that "Tense is a matter of how R relates to S" on p. 115.
Here is Reichenbach's original formulation (1947: 290):
definitions:
R: point of reference
S: point of speech
E: point of event
Simple tenses:
Past: R=E < S
Present: R=S=E
Future: R=S < E
Perfect tenses:
Past Perfect: E < R < S
Present Perfect: E < R=S
Future Perfect: S < E < R
We see that the following relationships hold:
Past, Past Perfect: R < S
Present, Present Perfect: R = S
Future, Future Perfect: R = S (Future), S < R (Future Perfect)
Past, Past Perfect: E < S
Present, Present Perfect: E = S (Present), Present Perfect (E > S)
Future, Future Perfect: E > S
Thus for all six tenses, neither R,S nor E,S alone suffices. However,
the reader can easily determine that for the simple tenses, E and S alone
suffice, and for the Perfect tenses, R and S will suffice.
Binnick follows suggestions made by others to replace Reichenbach's
3 term, 1 time line system with "two pairwise orderings of E and R, and
R and S". He then states that in this system, "all the past tenses show the
pattern R___S (R precedes S [I will write R < S, etc. henceforth -- CC]),
all the present tenses, the pattern R = S ..., and all the future tenses,
the pattern S < R [I don't know how the result that S < R for the simple
future is obtained, but presumably a correction to Reichenbach is involved].
Tense is a matter of how R relates to S."
To this, I would reply that even if true, it is hardly possible also to
neglect the relationship of E and S in defining tense. For example, if
the simple past is to be defined in terms of R < S and E is free to vary,
then it should be possible for S = E and S < E, as in (1) and (2) below.
(1) ?I saw John this very moment.
(2) ?I saw John tomorrow.
Neither of these is acceptable to me.
A final point:
Binnick's characterization of _aspect_ seems to be confined to relative
tense or to deal with aspect as defined in terms other than one we are
familiar with ("Such a proposal is much more revealing in that it
separates tense from aspect (or relative tense)", "What the
relationship of E and R has to do with is, roughly, aspect (and/or
relative tense)." (both p.115). I don't know whether this strange definition
is useful or not for NT Greek, but for the time being, I think Randall's
characterizations of perfective and imperfective aspects are to be preferred
for NT Greek over Binnick's.
Chet Creider
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list