[B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Aspects

Matthew Winzer mwinzer at pap.com.au
Thu Sep 7 20:24:33 EDT 2006


May I ask, did a move away from tense theory emerge because of the constant 
need to invent new sub-categories for tenses, e.g. epistolary aorist? Or was 
it simply a case of linguistics evolving from its philological roots? Or 
other factors?

Yours sincerely,
Rev. Matthew Winzer


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com>
To: "b-greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:11 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Aspects


> Con egrapsen:
>>I think it is worth noting in this discussion, that it should not be about
> whether or not aspect exists. The existence of aspect in Greek has been
> acknowledged by most grammars for the last 100 years at least. Though the
> terminology was confused and conflated with Aktionsart, Zeitart etc.,
> especially up until 1925. The real question is: how important aspect is in
> relation to 'tense', and whether or not tense exists.
>
>>I have just completed a PhD thesis on verbal aspect in Greek (it is being
> examined at the moment), and my opinion is (since Brian is taking a poll 
> on
> the issue) that the existence of aspect is undeniable. Personally I agree
> with McKay, Porter and Decker that tense does not exist. ...>
>
> I think that you've overstated the case for McKay. If I remember
> correctly he believed that aspect was the primal distinction in Greek
> but that it included tense.
>
> As an aside,
> sometimes I find Greek people getting comfort from a supposed sister
> Biblical language "that does not have tense", as though Hebrew was
> such. (Porter, for one,  explicitly used such a supporting argument.)
>
> I like to ask Hebraists how to say approximately  "tomorrow I will
> come" in Biblical Hebrew.
>
> I would accept MAHAR AVO, UVATI MAHAR, ANI BA MAHAR,
> but I would not accept *MAHAR BATI (* asterix marks unacceptable form).
> they didn't say that in biblical Hebrew. Ever.
> Kind of curious: if adverbs marked time relationship and verbs only
> marked aspect,
> why no *MAHAR BATI? Partial Ans: Ancient biblical Hebrew writers
> hadn't read 19th century non-Hebrew Hebrew grammars. Bottom line:
> Hebrew had both aspectual and temporal features within its binary
> TENSE-ASPECT-MOOD system. (PS: *MAHAR BATI would correspond in greek
> to *AYRION HLQON. I'm afraid I don't accept that either for 'tomorrow
> I will come'.)
>
> ERRWSO
> Randall Buth
>
> -- 
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη
> שלום לכם וברכות
> ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
> randallbuth at gmail.com
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 - Release Date: 7/09/2006
> 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list