[B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
Randall Buth
ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
Fri Sep 8 16:29:01 EDT 2006
Cyndy EGRAPSE
>Hmmm, yes, with a few deft strokes, you associated the position
with a lexical fallacy. >
glad you appreciate that
> It doesn't follow that aspect means "a unique always true single
meaning". That's a very poor representation of the theory. >
see last point.
> The question is, what does an aorist signal to a reader processing
the text in a linear manner.>
I'm glad you mention this linear processing. I don't trust language
exegesis that is too complicated for a language user to process.
> And if we answer "'Past' >
I assume you mean aorist indicative? Yea, I like past. good place to
start so you don't have to move too far or too fast.
>except when when it means
'always',>
I wouldn't say that it means/signals 'always' but a past can be used
in such contexts.
> 'present'>
Nor does the aorist indicative signal 'real present', what is taking
place.
>or 'future'" >
and I don't think that aorist refers to the future either. As a
literary convention I can write a story about 2050 and use the past
tense. but such past tenses do not neutralize the time component.
the celebrated case of Jude 14 is a quotation anyway. Just another
past tense. (sort of a cavalier approach, right? I don't even care
how some might want to translate it into another language.)
>then it I question it's explanatory power, and I look elsewhere for
the non-cancellable semantic value--which can be quite complex.>
there, you see, I was simply clarifying and translating "non-
cancellable semantic value"
as "unique, always true single meaning".
And you admit that that is a lexical fallacy?! (You left yourself
open for that.)
[and I would claim it to be a fallacy, setting up an either-or as a
presupposition, even if the presupposition is admirable.]
More seriously, I do not assume 'non-cancellable semantic value' for
morphosyntactic categories in a language. I map contexts to forms and
slowly distill, mimic and use. the mapping includes comparison/
opposition with other possible options/morphosyntactic categories.
Outside of language use I play with metalanguage, but that is a
different skill. My metalanguage even allows 'masking of components',
because that is what I find happening in languages. Most languages
and categories have use-idioms and usages that bleed, that bend the
parameters. Common English would call it exceptions that prove the
rule, even if commonplace.
In Arabic there is a jussive verb form yaf`ul 'let him do it'.
However, with a particular negative it is a past tense lam yaf`ul 'he
did not do it'. I accept that. I have heard non-linguist Arabs say
they have no explanation. They still use the forms correctly, even
when their explanations are impossible/adhoc. Some associate yaf`ul
with an imperfective (I wouldn't know about that), but lam yaf`ul
functions very perfectively. The etymological "semantic value" is
irrelevant because development and history have created a complexity.
One usage is jussive/optative, the other is indicative and negative.
Maybe someday I will learn why and how those developed, but in the
meantime I can go on using it just like an english speaker can say
"went" and "go" without trying to answer how those became one word.
C'est la langue.
ERRWSO
Randall Buth
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list