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

Ken Penner pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Tue Dec 13 10:32:13 EST 2005


Thanks, Chet, for your kind response.
I think I failed at my attempt to be clear. Let me try again.

I did recognize your protasis, "if the simple past is to be defined in terms
of R < S..."
I think our disagreement has to do with what it is that time expressions
specify.
Do they specify the R time, or the E time?
It seems to me that expressions of time such as "this very moment",
"tomorrow", and "now" normally specify the R time, not the E time. "Now" and
"this very moment" specify that R=S, and "tomorrow" specifies that R is the
day after S. 
I can say "Now (at 10:30) I have eaten breakfast," if breakfast was at 8:00.
In this case, S=10:30; R=10:30; E=8:00.
Or I can say (at 10:30), "I ate breakfast (at 8:00)." In this case, S=10:30;
R=8:00; E=8:00.

But it sounds strange to say "I have eaten breakfast at 8:00." 
In fact, my first interpretation of this statement would be that on some
indefinite other day in the past, breakfast was at 8:00. 
This is because the present tense form (in this case, "have") specifies that
the time about which the predication is relevant is speech time. (I
currently am experienced at eating breakfast at 8:00. I know what it's
like.)
The point in time about which a statement is concerned is the R time.
In a past-tense clause, we can move R around somewhat using time expressions
("I saw John yesterday", "I saw John last year"), but we cannot move R to
Speech time or later (*I saw John tomorrow). In a past-tense clause, R must
precede S.

Binnick and I are not claiming that the SIMPLE past tense is to be defined
ONLY in terms of R<S.
The English past tenses grammaticalize R<S. 
The English simple tenses grammaticalize E=R. 
Therefore the simple past tense grammaticalizes E=R and R<S. 
Logically, then simple past tense expressions will always have E<S, but this
relation is not grammaticalized directly; it is the logical necessity of E=R
and R<S.
So yes, E must be included in any definition of the simple tenses. But E
comes into play in the "simple" part (not in the "tenses" part) of the
phrase "simple tenses".

I don't think it is a huge change to refer to R and E as
spans/intervals/frames of time rather than points in time. We don't need to
throw Reichenbach out the window just because he thought of R as a point
(IIRC, he did think of E as a span). What is true about the "reference
point" is true about the "reference frame." But this simple development does
allow for better nuancing of aspect. The development I WOULD like to see has
to do with events that are repeated but not continuous (i.e., subinterval
events). Is this aspect? Mood? Relative tense? I have seen some literature
on this, but I need to think about it more. (I find it interesting that
modality also involves the R:E relationship.)

In my next message, I may have to show the relevance for B-Greek.

Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Biblical Languages, Greek Focus), M.A. (Hebrew Poetry)
Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University
pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Flash! Pro vocabulary software: http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/flash or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join
Purchase: http://tinyurl.com/6tg2d


> >> 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