[B-Greek] Present & Aorist of general & abstract verbs
Ken Penner
pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Mon Dec 12 16:11:31 EST 2005
> Past: R=E < S
> Present: R=S=E
Agreed.
> Future: R=S < E
This is one kind of future ("Now I am going to do"), which I would
(following Reichenbach) call the posterior present. The other (which I would
call the real future) is S < R=E ("Tomorrow I will do").
> Past Perfect: E < R < S
> Present Perfect: E < R=S
Agreed.
> Future Perfect: S < E < R
I'd rather formulate this as S < R > E. "When I accept this position, I will
have completed my PhD" does not exclude the possibility that I have already
at the time of speaking completed my PhD.
> Past, Past Perfect: R < S
> Present, Present Perfect: R = S
Agreed.
> Future, Future Perfect: R = S (Future), S < R (Future Perfect)
Because I see two kinds of "future"s, I would say S < R for the real future
and the Future Perfect.
> Past, Past Perfect: E < S
Agreed.
> Present, Present Perfect: E = S (Present), Present Perfect (E > S)
I think this is a typo (Present Perfect should be E < S).
> Future, Future Perfect: E > S
Agreed for future, but not for Future Perfect. The E:S relationship is
ambiguous.
> 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.
I hold that English grammaticalizes the E:R relationship using forms of
"have" and "be going to", and the S:R relationship using past tense
inflection and forms of "will/shall".
> 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.
Of course they are not acceptable, because in these examples, R does not
precede S. The time expressions locate the R-point in time. When we say
"this very moment", we are saying R=S. When we say "tomorrow", we are saying
R>S. Yet the inflection "saw" grammaticalizes R<S. It is the conflicting
information about the R:S relationship that makes your examples
unacceptable.
If I want to express R<S and E=S (or E>S), I have to make E>R, and therefore
I have to use "was going to": "I was going to see John" (now or tomorrow).
> 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.
I don't think Buth and Binnick necessarily disagree on this.
I consider both aspect and relative tense to be related to the E:R
relationship. Relative tense is the relationship of sequence (precedence),
and aspect is the relationship of overlap (inclusion).
Ken Penner
Acadia/Greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list