[B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects

cwestf5155 at aol.com cwestf5155 at aol.com
Fri Sep 15 12:58:50 EDT 2006


 Hello Randall and others who have participated in the discussion since this post by Randall,
 
 My reluctance to be a major player in the discussion continues, so forgive me if I seem rude and appear to ignore some posts. And I think I may have missed some of the disucssion before this post.
 
 Con is, of course, on track when he recognizes the generative basis of at least some of Randall's approach. His self-identification as a generative functionalist explains something to me (and amuses me), but probably not to many of the people on this list. And therein is the rub. I would suggest that people who are really interested in the disucssion/argument concerning aspect read Porter's book on aspect--but you can get your feet wet with his "Idioms". If you can't follow the book on aspect, it is probably because you need to read about the systemic-fuctional linguistic framework--been there, done that. 
 
 Porter's theory is embedded in the systemic-linguistic framework and in the context of the linguist discussion on aspect (see Comrie's book in the Cambridge series). Dismissing Con's remarks about aspect in English as "agnostic" is to simply label and dismiss. There is a wealth of linguistic discussion that backs his remarks. I have gone back and forth as to whether to respond to Eddie's comment about Porter's approach hardly being linguistic. To the contrary, it is completely embedded in an extensive linguistic discussion--in fact, the linguistic discussion was the starting point, so I'm puzzled by how it is hardly linguistic in approach.
 
 This is not the best format to convince anyone, not just because of the nature of the endeavor (as per Carl's statements).
 
 Nevertheless, I hope to make a few remarks which might be germane:
 
 I think Randall is reading the signals "inside out". He is concerned with language prediction--which is not surprising given the fact that he is trying to teach students how to speak "acceptable" ancient Greek--he is not going to feel the need to account for the unusual. Systemic-functional linguistics is concerned with the ancient writer/speaker's choice within the given system network, and it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. So, my modern linguistic theory applied to ancient Greek is set against seeing if language predicts correctly, particularly given that there is no way to test prediction of ancient Greek with native speakers. This is why I have trouble with Randall's approach to ancient Greek--among other things it tends to be circular.
 
 In the case of Jude 14...well, Randall and I probably don't agree 100%! I was using a rhetocial tongue-in-cheek approach. But the discussion of deictic center can be consistent with the aspect discussion--it is a matter of terminology. That is, in the use of tense, the writer/speaker chooses tense to portray an action in a certain way--in this case to portray an event that is actually in the future as complete by taking a future vantage point (deictic center=the author's grammaticalized conception of the process). In the case of the aorist, the writer depicts simple complete action, which accounts for its close association with past events, but also these other occurences. Notice that I say "accounts for" not predicts. 
 
 And within the ancient Greek language system, the author can choose an unlimited number of combinations and be quite creative in the way he or she plays with language. Randall asks "Why would the deictic center have to move in Cindy's theory?" The deictic center doesn't have to do anything! The author is the one who is "doing things" within the language system, making choices (in this case between tenses--for instance he clearly could have used a future) and creating meaning with the language choices. This accounts for rare occurences. The aorist is not a category that "refers to a future event". It is a category that can be used in a future context, as has amply been demonstrated on this list. Just substitute "completed action" for "past" and you'll see some of how the aspect discussion is framed.
 
  Good grief, this is long!
 Cindy Westfall 
 McMaster Divinity College
 
  
 -----Original Message-----
 From: randallbuth at gmail.com
 To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org; cwestf5155 at aol.com
 Sent: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 5:23 AM
 Subject: Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
 
  Cindy EGRAPSE PERI Jude 14 
 >It's wonderful to be in agreement and to see you support the argument 
 for aspect here-- 
 >you have given a vintage aspect explanation. However, I wouldn't say 
 HLQEN causes the 
 >change in the speaker's viewpoint, as much as expresses a change. 
 > 
 >And yes, context supplies the 'future' here...just as I have been saying. 
 > 
 >I also understand this usage is not widespread. 
 
 Yes, it is nice to be able to read the same message and get the same 
 interpretation. If we do. 
 It is also nice to see you admit that this usage is not widespread. 
 You do not explain, of course, how your theory predicts such limited 
 attestation, such "not widespread-ness". 
 
 I submit that one of us is reading the signals 'inside-out'. 
 Let us look at Jude 14. 
 We agree that 'context' (in this case encyclopedic background 
 knowledge) provides the future setting for the verb HLQEN. 
 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'. 
 Cindy (you) argues above that HLQEN expresses a change in the 
 speaker's viewpoint. to be honest, I cannot see how that lines up with 
 your theoretical position or differs from my own. Why would the 
 deictic centre have to move in Cindy's theory? The aorist indicative 
 would simply refer to an event that happens to be future. the only 
 reason for moving the deictic centre would be if it were necessary to 
 include a semantic feature of 'non-future' time. 
 
 the limited attestation of such structures and contexts also needs explaining. 
 Randall claims that the change in deictic centre is a complication, 
 and takes extra processing energy. Within a Relevance Theory framework 
 that will naturally be less common. My approach explains the 
 infrequent attestation, the rarity. 
 Cindy's "vintage aspect explanation" might imply that Jude 14 is 'not 
 complicated', that it would be expected that an aorist indicative 
 would be a category for referring to a future event. This does not 
 explain the rarity. 
 
 As mentioned in another email, modern linguistics likes to test 
 theories to see if they predict correctly. Let us look at *AURION 
 HLQEN. 
 Randall predicts that AURION, when occurring WITHIN a clause (i.e., is 
 part of a predication), AURION tomorrow' keeps the predication ahead 
 of the deictic centre. For example, if today is Thursday, the deictic 
 centre cannot jump forward to Shabbat and then call Friday AURION 
 'tomorrow'. AURION requires that the deictic centre (speaker's 
 viewpoint) is a day before AURION. One cannot take up a future 
 viewpoint and call the previous day AURION 'tomorrow'. Thus, the 
 flexibility in change of speaker's viewpoint that allowed Randall to 
 correctly read Jude 14 is blocked from a clause like *AURION HLQEN and 
 *HLQEN AURION. 
 Randall therefore predicts that *AURION HLQEN will be very very very 
 ... rare, or impossible and unattested in natural ancient Greek. That 
 is exactly what we find. I do not know of one example of a clause with 
 an aorist indicative main verb and AURION as a co-occurring adverb to 
 that verb. I am even willing to grant that an example may be found. 
 For example, in writing this email I have said "*HLQEN AURION". So in 
 a perverse way it is attested in 2006 CE by a non-mothertongue 
 speaker, but only as an example of denial. 
 Cindy does not predict that *AURION HLQEN will not occur. Her "vintage 
 aspect" viewpoint on the aorist indicative would actually expect to 
 find examples. There is nothing in her theory to block such 
 occurrence. But the data does not come to her rescue. A mispredicting 
 theory needs to be re-written or constrained. 
 
 Bottom line: 
 Randall's theory explains the extreme rarity (0 attestations) of *HLQEN AURION. 
 Cindy's theory does not explain the extreme rarity (0 attestations) of 
 *HLQEN AURION. 
 Randall's theory is to be preferred. 
 Greek aorist indicatives include '+past' as a semantic feature. (PS: 
 substituting another name like '+remoteness' does not change the fact 
 that 'remoteness' would need a time feature within its definition in 
 order to correctly explain and predict attested patterns. Which brings 
 one back to the truth claim of the statement "Greek aorist indicatives 
 include '+past' as a semantic feature.") 
 
 The modern universe is non-Euclidian and the Greek verb is more 
 complex than "aspect-only indicatives". Both time and aspect are 
 components of aorist indicatives and imperfect indicatives. 
 
 PS: Did we reach the same interpretation of Jude 14? Maybe yes, maybe 
 no. Randall's interpretation detects that the speaker has signalled a 
 'jump', a change of viewpoint. If Cindy's interpretation also detects 
 that the speaker has signalled a 'jump', then we have the same 
 interpretation on this verse. If not, then there is at least a subtle 
 difference. We can both account for Jude14, but which one is correct? 
 The one that correctly predicts patterns of aorist indicatives within 
 the Greek verb universe. The tense-aspect approach. 
 
 ERRWSO 
 Randall Buth 
 
 -- Randall Buth, PhD 
 www.biblicalulpan.org 
 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη 
 שלום לכם וברכות 
 ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il 
 randallbuth at gmail.com 
   
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.



More information about the B-Greek mailing list