[B-Greek] simple test *AURION HLQON, conclusion
Randall Buth
randallbuth at gmail.com
Wed Dec 28 21:21:01 EST 2005
PASI
XAIREIN
I've only been online with difficulty for a few weeks. (Today I am in
a Panera Bread. They deserve this free ad, the internet and food are
excellent.)
Allow me to summarize and conclude what might be significant for some
who are trying to analyze and hopefully use the Greek verbs.
Almost everyone seemed to agree that *AURION HLQON was not correct
Ancient Greek. In fact, no one was prepared to actually say that
*AURION HLQON was correct, although it appears that Rolf Furuli was
implying that *AURION HLQON ought to be possible. He seemed to
recognize that the blocking of an occurrence of an aorist indicative
with AURION would contradict an aspect-only model of the Greek
indicative verb. That is, an aspect-only approach would predict that
*AURION HLQON should be acceptable. He mentioned Jude 14 as though it
might authenticate *AURION HLQON. We can discuss this verse before
returning to the bigger question.
Very simply, Jude 14 IDOU HLQEN KURIOS moves the speaker's starting
reference point to the future so that HLQEN is past, relative to that
point. I would claim that the verb tense in HLQEN provides the "past"
signal and that the prophetic context shows that the starting
reference point (the deictic center) has shifted.
But how could anyone, ancient or modern, know if that is a proper or
possible explanation. How do we get around subjectivity in such an
explanation? This is not as difficult a question as might appear on
first thought. That is why I used *AURION HLQON as the test example.
AURION is a helpful word in that it keeps the speaker's starting
reference point 'now', or at least before the future of "tomorrow".
Thus, the example *AURION HLQON provided an objective context within
the clause, where the starting reference point wouldn't wiggle. Or at
least it shouldn't wiggle any more easily than English "*tomorrow I
came" could find a legitimate context.
In a clause where the reference time is objectively FUTURE to the
speaker's deictic center (as shown by the author's lexical
designation), one does not find verbs with PAST tense reference. One
does not find *AURION HLQON. That consistency would be truly
remarkable, even fantastic, if the Greek indicative aorist were
uniquely a pure-aspect and without any time component. Aspects are not
blocked from any time period [[Just as Carl mentioned with modern
Greek aspect examples QA GRAPSW Í will write' (perfective), QA GRAFW
(imperfective).]] But it is the collocation of AURION with a past
tense verb that is blocked. Thus, if AURION does not occur with Greek
indicative aorist (which is a past and a perfective in
linguistics-speak), such a blockage is best explained as evidence that
the indicative aorist carries a "+past" feature. And it is objective
evidence because the Greek writers are providing the deictic center
and then moving foward with 'tomorrow'.
Descriptions of the Greek verb need to include time in the system. It
doesn't matter if the restrictions and/or maskings are different from
English or from a particular a-priori approach. The description of the
Greek verb must include a time component in the indicative system.
The above can be simplified for listers learning Greek (and I'm
learning Greek):
EGRAPSA is a simple past, approximately 'I wrote.'
HLQON is a simple past, approximately 'I came.'
Greeks don't say *AURION HLQON,
for similar reasons that English don't say *I came tomorrow.
Greeks called HLQON both the "aoriest" tense and placed it generally
EN TW PARELQONTI XRONW 'in past time'.
TAUTA PANTA MAQONTES
EU POIHSOMEN
ERRWSQE
Randall Buth
--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
randallbuth at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
Simple test *AURION HLQON, conclusion
PASI
XAIREIN
I've been only been online with difficulty for a few weeks. (Today I am in a Panera Bread. They deserve this free plug, internet and food are excellent.)
Allow me to summarize and conclude what might be significant for some who are trying to analyze and hopefully use the Greek verbs.
Almost everyone seemed to agree that *AURION HLQON was not correct Ancient Greek. In fact, no one was prepared to actually say that *AURION HLQON was correct, but it appears that Rolf Furuli would have liked to. He seemed to recognize that the lack of occurrence of an aorist indicative with AURION would not be predicted by an aspect-only model of the Greek indicative verb. He mentioned Jude 14 as though it might authenticate *AURION HLQON. He also mentioned the problem of subjective versus objective interpretations. I think we can answer and illustrate both of these points.
Very simply Jude 14 IDOU HLQEN KURIOS moves the speaker's reference point to the future so that HLQEN is past relative to that point. I would claim that the verb tense HLQEN provides the "past" signal and that the context shows that the starting reference point (the deictic center) has shifted.
But how could anyone, ancient or modern, know if that is a proper explanation? This is not as difficult a question as might appear on first thought. That is why I used *AURION HLQON as the test example.
AURION is a helpful word in that it keeps the the speaker's starting reference point 'now', or at least before the future of "tomorrow". Thus, the example *AURION HLQON provided an objective context within the clause, where the starting reference point wouldn't wiggle. Or at least it shouldn't wiggle any easier than English *"tomorrow I came" could find a legitimate context.
In a clause where the reference time is objectively FUTURE to the speaker's deictic center, one does not find verbs with PAST tense reference. One does not find *AURION HLQON. That consistency would be truly remarkable, even fantastic, if the Greek indicative aorist were uniquely an aspect and without any time component. Aspects are not blocked from any time period [[Just as Carl mentioned with modern Greek aspect examples QA GRAPSW 'I will write' (perfective//aorist), QA GRAFW 'I will be writing' (imperfective //'present').]] But it is the collocation of AURION with a past tense verb that is blocked. Thus, if AURION does not occur with Greek INDICATIVE aorist (a past and a perfective in linguistics-speak), such a blockage is best explained as evidence that the indicative aorist carries a "+past" feature.
Descriptions of the Greek verb need to include time in the system. It doesn't matter if the restrictions and/or maskings are different from English or from a particular a-priori approach. The description of the Greek verb must include a time component in the indicative system.
The above can be simplified for listers learning Greek (and I'm learning Greek):
EGRAPSA is a simple past, approximately 'I wrote.'
HLQON is a simple past, approximately 'I came.'
Greeks don't say *AURION HLQON,
for similar reasons that English don't say *I came tomorrow.
Greeks called HLQON both the "aorist" tense and placed it generally EN TW PARELQONTI XRONW 'in past time'.
TAUTA PANTA MAQONTES
EU POIHSOMEN
ERRWSQE
Randall Buth, PhD
Biblical Language Center
www.biblicalulpan.org
c/o margbuth at gmail.com
also, Director, Biblical Studies in Israel under Rothberg International School, Hebrew University ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list