[B-Greek] Switching Imperfectives to Perfectives
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Sat Dec 17 03:07:27 EST 2005
Dear Mitch,
When we discuss something, we need to know the exact meaning of terms used
by the other part, in order to speak the same language. And we need to
consider whether the parameters we ourselves ar using have a sound basis.
This will help us to avoid chaotic results.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitch Larramore" <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>
To: "B Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 2:42 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Switching Imperfectives to Perfectives
> The recent discussions on Aspect, especially those
> defending the aspect-only (Porter) view, seems to be
> more subjective than I had originally thought. I can't
> help but wonder if someone with a lot of time on
> his/her hands could not defend the position that
> Aorist verbs are Imperfective and Present tense verbs
> are Perfective.
All approaches to the grammar of a dead language must be subjective. We have
to make several a priori assumptions, and our results can not be better than
our assumptions. However, if we have a transparent model with clear
reference points, we at least approach our subject in a balanced way. In my
opinion, what seems to make the study of aspect subjective are faulty
definitions that are never tested. Let me ask you a question: Why do you
think that the perfective aspect is complete/completed and the imperfective
one is incomplete? Is it because others say so? I agree with Carl that there
are clear patterns in present verbs that are different compared with aorist
verbs. So instead of challenging the very patterns, one should rather
start with the aspectual definitions themselves and test them.
Could he/she not argue that the
> Present tense verb is used here or there to stress a
> Perfective aspect. He/She would probably add something
> like, "We have to think like ancient Greeks, not like
> modern English people." Even on "the coming one"
> (ERCOMENOS) now being discussed, why not say, "The
> present tense actually is used to portray the coming
> as a completed event. The writer is using it for
> rhetorical effect, etc." After all, aspect is not tied
> to reality, but how the writer/speaker wants to
> portray the event.
Your last point is important. We *must* differentiate between the historic
happening and the description of it. Therefore there is no need to
reinterpret Greek present because it describes an action that is factually
completed. To argue that an author uses an aspect for rhetorical effect and
similar psychological explanations may often suggest a wrong understanding
of what aspect is.
I can't help but think that someone
> could write a Verbal Aspect book like Porter, take the
> postion that Aorists are imperfective and Presents are
> perfective, and start reinterpreting the
> Tradionalist's (mis)understanding of ancient Greek.
If you have a transparent model with clear points of refererence, you will
avoid chaotic results. But again, we should ask whether our parameters and
definitions are really good?
>
> Mitch Larramore
> Sugar Land, Texas
Best regards,
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list