[B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Tue Sep 12 02:26:58 EDT 2006
Dear Con,
I agree with you that we should try to explain the linguistic phenomena that
we find instead of arguing about what we do not find. But in doing so, the
question is our parameters, are they adequate?
Generally linguists analyse languages from the point of view of TMA
(tense-mood-aspect). (See Ö. Dahl (1985) "Tense and Aspect Systems"). Not
all languages have aspects, and in some languages subcategories are found.
For example, in one language the form of the verb tells whether the reporter
has actually seen what s/he reports or whether someone else saw it.
Therefore, we cannot a priori exclude a proposed subcategory or even a
pricipal category, such as your suggestion regarding "remoteness". However,
such categories need to be clearly defined or explained. So I ask: What is
the technical term "remoteness" that you use? How is it defined, and what is
the difference between "temporal remoteness" and "logical remoteness"? And
most important, how can we know that this category was meaningful for the
ancient Greeks? Is there anything in ancient Greek manuscripts that suggest
that "remoteness" was a part of the people´s mindset?
As I already have mentioned I use the concepts "event time" (ET), "reference
time " (RT), and "deictic center" (C) as my basic parameters. These concepts
are understandable and are in a way universal; all languages can be tested
by the help of them. As for aspect, the important point is the intersection
of event time by reference time (the focus, what is made visible to the
reader). This intersection is different in different languages in three
respects, 1) the angle focus (whether it occurs before the beginning,
including the beginning, occurring in the middle, including the end, or is
resultative), 2) the breadth of focus (how great part of ET that is made
visible), and 3) the quality of focus (are details made visible or not).
Since there are two aspects and three parameters, the aspectual systems in
languages can be compared in six different areas.
In English there are only two choices, namely, RT intersects ET either at
the nucleus or at the coda. Thus, the aspectual opposition in English
expressed by perfect and the present participle is "incomplete" versus
"completed". The participle signals that the event at RT was not completed
and perfect signals that the event at RT was completed (I analyse simple
past as a tense and not an aspect). A basic error in aspectual studies is to
project the English system of incomplete/completed into dead languages as
Greek and Hebrew. If we instead analyse these langauges in the six areas
mentioned above, we may realize that incomplete/completed should be
abandoned as definitions in these languages and that other definitions
should be used. NT Greek is more complicated than Hebrew since the
morphology of the verbs is more varied and since tense is a part of the
system. Any analysis of a dead language is subjective and will contain a
measure of circularity. The advantage of the system mentioned above, in my
view, is that it reduces the subjective element by using parameters that can
be clearly defined and are easy to use in any language.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Con R. Campbell" <con.campbell at moore.edu.au>
To: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com>; "B-Greek at Lists. Org"
<b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
I still don't understand why appealing to silence is a good argument
Randall.
Also, I think you misunderstand the non-tense position (at least mine). I do
not believe in "aspect only" either, but in aspect + remoteness (in the case
of the aorist and imperfect). Remoteness simply replaces past tense in this
analysis. Of course the aorist has a default past time reference. But this
is due to its perfective aspect AND remoteness. Past time is remote time.
Remoteness will often be expressed as remote time. The point is that it can
be expressed in other ways too: i.e. logical remoteness, unreality,
potential, etc.
Rather than trying to explain the absence of a feature, how about trying to
explain what IS there? The tense-based theories are still incapable of
explaining why only aorists, imperfects, and pluperfects are found in the
protases of second class conditions, even when PRESENT time reference is
intended. Why use an imperfect when present time is intended in such
contexts? Can tense-based analyses EXPLAIN that? Not so far as I can see.
But a proper understanding of remoteness is capable of explanation. In such
cases, remoteness is not being expressed as temporal remoteness but as
logical remoteness. Hence the use of the imperfect, aorist, and pluperfect
in second class conditions. They express remoteness, which will usually
translate into temporal remoteness, but when it does not it expresses other
kinds of remoteness.
I would rather go with an analysis that is capable of EXPLAINING what is
there, rather than one than cannot. And I would rather base the discussion
on what is THERE rather than what is not.
Con Campbell
Lecturer
Moore College
---
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list