[B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 15 07:46:43 EDT 2006


I've generally stayed out of this latest re-staging of what is a  
perennial "Auseinandersetzung" over verbal aspect for the reason that  
I have perhaps too frequently stated: the dust will not settle nor  
will there be any consensus on these matters in the foreseeable  
future. I THINK I know what most Greek texts using the aorist and  
imperfect mean -- just as others THINK they know what those texts  
mean -- and we/they are at odds with each other about many of these  
texts.

But I do think the business of the "deictic center" is our "still  
point in the turning universe" that protects us from chronic  
chronological vertigo.

One category of texts that continues to disturb is that of prophetic/ 
apocalyptic passages portraying as past events what clearly lies in  
the future from the perspective of the writer. Since the aorist  
indicative is used in the describes of such events, it is claimed  
that the aorist indicative can be used to describe future events. For  
my part I think that Randall Buth is absolutely correct when he  
insists that the "deictic center" for such portrayals lies within a  
putative or imagined future scenario, and that FROM the perspective  
of that deictic center, the events portrayed in the aorist indicative  
are really in a past. Let's say: "This is going to happen, and WHEN  
it happens, we will be able to say: 'God in Christ has won the mighty  
victory!" That final clause has a deictic center that is subsequent  
chronologically to the event to which it refers.

So also I jumped yesterday afternoon at Elizabeth's examples cited  
from Cooper's Attic Syntax of aorists of APOLLUMAI used in  
conditional constructions with protases in the future indicative. I  
jumped at them because I'd seen APWLOMHN and Latin "perii" used so  
frequently in precisely such contexts wherein the speaker's undoing  
or total ruination is so vivid that it is conceived as having already  
taken place. The deictic center here is the speaker's NOW: his/their  
ruination is CONCEIVED as a fait accompli, even if it hasn't really  
yet taken place.

For myself, at least, there really is no need to throw up one's hands  
and say: "The aorist indicative can describe future events, and  
therefore it cannot be said to have past reference." For my part,  
these apocalyptic scenes and these exclamations of despair from  
tragedy and comedy are not even exceptions to a rule that the aorist  
indicative has past reference with regard to a deictic center. Nor  
does the "historical" or "narrative" present-tense really present any  
problem: we envision an event as taking place: "Guy walks into this  
barroom, tells the waiter ... " Perspective is the governing factor  
here.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Date: September 14, 2006 1:50:46 PM EDT
> To: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
>
> On Sep 14, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2006, at 4:23 AM, Randall Buth wrote:
>>
>>> Randall (me) argues that HLQEN refers backwards in time which  
>>> results
>>> in an understanding that the author has taken a vantage point
>>> (deictic
>>> centre) in the future and is looking back in time to the 'coming'.
>>
>> After following this discussion for some time perhaps I am beginning
>> to understand the different frameworks. If the vantage point (deictic
>> centre) is portable, subject to relocation, then what would we say
>> about the so called historical present? Is this a case where the
>> present indicitive retains the semantic feature +present but the
>> vantage point of the speaker is relocated?
>>
>> For what its worth, G.L.Cooper (Attic Syntax, 1.53.6.B) gives two
>> examples of the aorist indicative with future reference from
>> Euripides. Cooper states that this is quite rare and observes  that
>> both of these examples are conditionals.
>
> Interesting that he should have hit upon these. It strikes me that
> there's a curious colloquial force to the aorist of APOLLUMAI;
> APWLOMHN = "I've had it/I'm done for/It's all over with me";
> Latin "perii" is used exactly the same in Latin comedy, esp. Plautus.
>
>>
>> E.Alc
>>
>> 386  APWLOMHN AR, EI ME DH LEIYEIS, GUNAI.
>
> "I'm done for then, if you're really going to abandon me, woman"
>
>> E.Med
>>
>> 78  APWLOMESQ' AR, EI KAKON PROSOISOMEN
>>
>> 79 NEON PALAIWI, PRIN TOD' EXHNTLHKENAI.
>
> "Well then, we're done for, if woe we are to add
> fresh to what was, ere bailing out of that!"
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad2 at mac.com
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
>
>
> ---
> 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


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/





More information about the B-Greek mailing list