[B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
Con R. Campbell
con.campbell at moore.edu.au
Fri Sep 15 09:00:02 EDT 2006
Dear Randall,
Apologies for the late replyI've been away, and I have probably missed the
boat now in the discussion. Nevertheless...
Thanks for the your comments. I take your point about a theory being able to
predict acceptable language use and not being 'too powerful'. I hadn't
considered the issue from a generative approach, being a functionalist
myself.
However, I do find your counter about conditional sentences unconvincing.
The example from English only confirms my opinion. When I say 'If I WERE
you', I do not imply past temporal reference at all. What I mean is 'If I
were you (but I am not)'. The verb in that protasis expresses unreality, not
past temporal reference. Observing such usages in English pushes me (as it
has others) to re-evaluate my understanding of English, rather than use
English as a test for Ancient Greek. And I'm sure you are aware that how
English works is also a matter of scholarly debate, and being a user of that
language is no certain proof that I understand what is actually happening as
I use it. I think of Naomi Wolfson's research on the English historical
present (CHP: The Conversational Historical Present in American English
Narrative. Topics in Sociolinguistics 1. Dordrecht: Foris, 1982). We all
think we know what it means and how it works because we use it, but I think
her conclusions suggest otherwise.
In other words, in answer to your question, 'Does the fact that the English
uses past-oriented forms in some conditional structures prevent those forms
from carrying tense within themselves?', I say 'maybe: there is more to the
English tense-aspect system than meets the eye, whether I understand it or
not.'
Also I disagree that my 'remoteness' must include a time restraint within
itself. No, if AURION HLQEN cannot exist, I say it is because it is not an
appropriate use of a remote form. Remoteness therefore means/includes 'not
PROXIMATE', rather than 'not FUTURE'. Besides, we all know non-past aorists
exist, such as the present temporal reference of Mark 1:11. Yes, it is rare,
as remoteness predicts, but not impossible, as remoteness allows. Again, I
consider this a more powerful explanation ('powerful' used in a positive
sense).
Con Campbell
Lecturer
Moore College
On 12/9/06 9:49 AM, "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com> wrote:
> KONW XAIREIN
>
> thank you for the questions and chance to clarify. I'll intersperse below.
>
> EGRAPSAS
>
> I still don't understand why appealing to silence is a good argument
> Randall.
>
>
> It is not really silence but a standard approach to modern linguistics.
> One of the classic ways that modern linguistics shows that their
> explanation is useful and correct is that it correctly predicts what does
> not happen.
>
> Back in the beginning days of generative theory one of the criticisms of
> inadequate linguistic theory was that someone could write rules or theory
> that over-predicted. That is, proposed rules would not just produce what
> occurs in a language, "what is there" as you say below, they would also
> produce output that was unacceptable to speakers of the language. Rules
> that covered attested output but also generated unacceptable output were
> called "too powerful" and were considered wrong. NB: powerful here is a
> negative term. To say that a theory was too powerful meant that some kinds
> of constraints were necessary on the rules, or that different rules needed
> to be developed.
>
> Such argumentation about what was acceptable and not acceptable appealed
> to mothertongue speaker intuition. With modern languages that was a
> theoretical pill that was normally swallowed, though it has its problems.
> For example, there is no one today who can talk about "intuition" of
> 1850's English, or 1350's or 1550's. But the proper predicatibility of
> rules is still a desired goal. Not too much potential output, not too
> little. And while we do not have the easy access to a simple "acceptable"
> versus "non-acceptable" user response, we can still ask the same
> questions. Even for modern languages, those responses are essentially
> subjective and need verification. If a speaker says that something is
> "unacceptable", one can always check published sources of the language and
> thereby correct the first subjective responses.
>
> Well, that is something that we can do with ancient languages, too. We can
> hypothesize an "acceptable", "non-acceptable" judgement and then check to
> see if that is in accord with data. That is what I have done with *AURION
> HLQEN. In modern linguistic argumention that would be a very provocative
> challenge to someone who claimed that there was no TIME constraint within
> the aorist. I dare say it would carry the day.
>
> An aside on ancient languages and modern linguistic argumention. I would
> agree that such argumention depends on the amount of attested language
> that remains. I am very happy with ancient Greek because of the millions
> and millions of words in the database. Biblical Hebrew is more problematic
> because of its relatively limited corpus. The corpus is large enough to
> produce solid results, but a tenfold increase would produce more surety on
> many peripheral issues. Ancient Syriac/Aramaic is in a good position, at
> least with 'classical Syriac'. When people look at individual dialects
> like 'biblical aramaic', Qumranian, Onkelos, Jewish Palestinian, etc.,
> there are often annoying gaps and holes that are left in some parts of the
> system. With many ancient languages we simply have too little data to
> attain a satisfying, complete picture: e.g., Phoenician (at least in its
> distinctive, not-Judean characteristics), Ugaritic, etc.
>
>
>
> 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 poin t is that it
> can
> be expressed in other ways too: i.e. logical remoteness, unreality,
> potential, etc.
>
>
> You are actually quite close to a multivalent analysis here, almost
> arguing my position but with different words. "The aorist has a default
> past time reference." I am very happy with that statement. The imperfect
> is also a past time, but different aspect. Apparently, the difference
> between your 'remoteness' and my viewpoint is that I would include "time"
> as one of the features of what you call 'remoteness'. That is,
> "remoteness" includes a +past reference. In that way I can explain why
> Greeks do not say *AURION HLQEN. (Or, additionally, if they ever did say
> it, it was in a very rare, restricted environment. NB: I mean exactly
> AURION 'tomorrow' being used within the same clause as the co-occurring
> verb. Jude 14 is not such a case since AURION is not used and thus a
> change-in-speaker's-starting-point-of-reference can happen.)
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> I will answer by example here.
> If I WERE you, I would think about your comments some more. Or, for
> example, to shift to a substandard, but very much real English: "if I WAS
> you I would be worried about relying on the above 'problem'." Do you not
> see something very similar happening in so-called tense-based English?
> Does the fact that the English uses past-oriented forms in some
> conditional structures prevent those forms from carrying tense within
> themselves? No . (Also, be very careful with "present" and with the word
> "reference". I see lots of loose talk about "present examples" in biblical
> studies. As though "the sun rises in the east" were present. [I'm not
> claiming that you would say that.] anyway it was dark out while I wrote
> that line. The sun was not rising.)
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> As I mentioned above, you have just argued a time-inclusive multivalent
> position. But you may be allergic to using a time word. Let me help you
> out. If you use remoteness to explain the lack of *AURION HLQEN, then
> your remoteness means/includes "not FUTURE". Your remoteness includes a
> time feature and a concommitant time constraint inside itself.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Like I said, modern linguistics likes to check things out in both
> directions in order to see if a theory is potentially pulling the wool
> over people's eyes. I would actually turn your words around and say that
> your theory does NOT explain what is "there", if it overpredicts. That is
> one of the reasons that generative linguistics created such a revolution
> in the 50;s and 60's. It exposed some theories and being inadequate.
>
>
>
> EGEGRAFEIN
>> Hmm. It seems something irregular is going on with the list server. A
>> couple of hours later I don't see this response so i am double posting
>> via a different email. Please ignore the question on double posting
>> should the original post below appear.
>>
>> [delete]
>> From your double posting I am assuming that you would like a comment on
>> Jude 14.
>> [continue]
>>
>> Rolf EGRAPSE
>>>> I accept exceptions. But each of them
>> must be shown to a special case. Jude 14 is hardly a special case. We do
>> not
>> know whether the verse is a quote, and even if it were a quote (from
>> another
>> language than Greek), Jude was the one who chose the aorist. Therefore,
> in
>> Jude´s mind an aorist with future reference would be perfectly
> acceptable.>>
>>
>> We radically differ here. I see the HLQEN as causing a change of
>> speaker viewpoint. It is looking back to the past, but since it is
>> talking about something that has not happened in our world
>> view/encyclopedic knowledge, the reader and speaker are taking a view
>> from the future. The context supplies the 'future' here, the aorist
>> indicative supplies a past viewpoint. And I would argue that this is
>> highly marked and very rare. (If one seriously wanted to argue with
>> that, then just show me some *AURION HLQEN examples. See below.) Greek
>> marks default future reference with the FUTURE verb system. Jude was
>> happy with both default futures and rare pragmatics. But I
>> differentiate an aorist being used in a future context from an aorist
>> having future reference, and the former does not rule out its carrying
>> a '+past feature'. It does not have future reference/marking. Just
>> like a French future can be used in a past narrative. the French
>> future does not mark the past, but it is used in the past even though
>> it marks future. (Thus, absolute non-cancelability is often an
>> unattainable ideal for human languages. Sometimes one needs to go
>> beyond Euclidean geometry and build non-Euclidean geometries in order
>> to deal with the real world.)
>>
>> In the meantime, I am waiting for ***AURION HLQEN. That is what I
>> claim is non-Greek, because the AURION sets the speakers viewpoint
>> before "tomorrow" and thus the HLQEN is blocked, not being able to
>> refer 'back' (aorist ind.) and 'forward' (AURION) simultaneously .
>> I've never seen one of these.
>>
>> The fact that I've never seen one of these tells me that if I ever do,
>> it will definitely be a very special context. Since you "accept
>> exceptions", you will probably even grant me such exceptionality with
>> a smile, SHOULD ONE EXAMPLE EVER BE FOUND. (folks, the difficulty of
>> finding such, should signal that something is wrong with absolute
>> tense-less analyses. I would argue that only some kind of mixed valent
>> analysis will ever work in the real world). In the meantime, as I've
>> said, I can only say that aorist indicatives have something in them
>> that block their co-occurence in a clause with an explicit future word
>> like AURION. I call that a feature of TENSE.
>>
>> I would link '+past' with AUKSHSIS "augment" [E-] and recommend that
>> any learner do the same. Otherwise, you will enter a neat, but
>> non-real world, and difficult to leave. ("aspect-only" is subjective
>> by definition and potentially unfalsifiable if one only looks at
>> aspect and then demands "unique, always valid" meanings for any
>> features that are measurable. That's called a stacked deck. Hotel
>> California.) The lack of *AURION HLQEN is not a stacked deck, just a
>> waving, flashing red flag.
>>
>> ERRWSO
>> Rand all Buth
>>
>> Randall Buth, PhD
>> [ http://www.biblicalulpan.org ]www.biblicalulpan.org
>> ?
>>
>> [ mailto:ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il ]ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
>> [ mailto:randallbuth at gmail.com ]randallbuth at gmail.com
>> ---
>> B-Greek home page: [ http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> ]http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> [ mailto:B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org ]B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> [ http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> ]http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list