[B-Greek] Present & Aorist of general & abstract verbs

Chet A. Creider creider at uwo.ca
Tue Dec 13 08:49:49 EST 2005


Ken--

Thank you very much for taking the time in this and your following
post to explain your ideas so clearly.  I will study them carefully.
For now, just three quick comments:

1.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Ken Penner wrote:
CAC:
>> Present, Present Perfect: E = S (Present), Present Perfect (E > S)
>
> I think this is a typo (Present Perfect should be E < S).
CAC:
Sorry.  It survived 2 proof-readings.

2.
CAC:
>> 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.
KP:
> 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).
CAC:
Your comment misses the point of the first part of the protasis of my
conditional.  I wrote (above), "if the simple past is to be defined in
terms of R < S...".  Therefore, in the context of my examples, R is not
free to vary.  "This very moment" in (1) is defining S, not R (which has 
already been set, by assumption).  Similarly, in (2), "tomorrow" is
defining E, not R, which has been set already.  Perhaps I should have
added an "only" ("if the simple past is to be defined only in terms of
R < S"), but I thought that was obvious from the context.  Absurd as
these examples are, they seem to show that E must be included in any
definition of the simple tenses (along with S of course).

KP:
> Relative tense is the relationship of sequence (precedence),
> and aspect is the relationship of overlap (inclusion).
This statement, and your following post are very interesting.  I
think it is an excellent idea, in any overall theory of aspect, and
in any accounting of the aspectual system of English (Spanish, 
Icelandic, etc.) to consider intervals of time, their endpoints, etc.
as you do so interestingly in your 2nd post.  It then becomes an
equally interesting task to see how this conceptually enriched
system plays out in languages with simpler aspectual systems such
as Greek, Norwegian, etc.  I think also that the terms R, E, and
probably S, too, are now used in multiple senses (e.g. "reference time", 
"reference frame"), and that new terms should be introduced.  This
would avoid confusion with the older uses of these terms.  (I know
that Reichenbach also deals with intervals to a certain extent -- and
I think that he probably should have used more complex terms.  Perhaps
ones as simple as RP (reference point), RI (reference interval), etc.
would do the job.

Thanks again,

Chet Creider




More information about the B-Greek mailing list