[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