[B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects

Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Fri Sep 15 09:30:15 EDT 2006


Con EGRAPSEN

On 9/15/06, Con R. Campbell <con.campbell at moore.edu.au> wrote:
> Dear Randall,
>
> Apologies for the late reply‹I'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.

Actually, I'm more at home in functionalism myself. Being a
generative-functionalist.

> 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.'

AT least you are honest with your English agnosticism. Like someone
who want want to claim that the English future is really a volitional.
Whatever.
I think it is good for a student to see how the methodology might
pplay out in a language that they know and use.

> 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).

Again, I caution people not to be trapped or to hide behind
'metalanguage'. 'Not proximate' does not really answer anything.
'Yesterday' is proximate. But we can say HLQEN EXQES, but we cannot
say *HLQEN AURION. Whatever label you put on this, it will have a
temporal component when it id defined. It is only the temporal
component that I care about, not the label. Call it a 'purple' verb
tense, but then you are being opaque.

ERRWSO
Randall Buth

> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη
שלום לכם וברכות
ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
randallbuth at gmail.com


More information about the B-Greek mailing list