[B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
Randall Buth
randallbuth at gmail.com
Fri Sep 15 14:41:23 EDT 2006
Cindy egrapse
snip
> 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
good. For a rubric, I am Dik-ian FG
snip
> Dismissing Con's remarks about aspect in English as
> "agnostic" is to simply label and dismiss.
The point was to show that the definitions and methodology that he was
espousing for Greek, if applied to English, could lead to a tenseless
view of English. That does not 'dismiss' the viewpoint. Except that I
think that most readers might dismiss such an approach if they heard
that the promoter of a methodology didn't even know if English had a
past tense. Many people's common sense might tell them that this is
not helpful. Of course, Con didn't reject the English Past tense, yet.
He simply said he was wavering: "Maybe."
snip
> This is not the best format to convince anyone,
Agreed. Yet, there are points made here and there that are not in the
published debates. and this does allow rather immediate feedback as
opposed to 2-year publication cycles.
snip
>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.
Hopefully, you won't be surprised to find that I heartily agree with
descriptive rather than prescriptive. The rules are to be descriptive.
the output of those rules simply allows for testing but are not
prescriptive.
> So, my modern linguistic theory applied to ancient Greek is set against seeing
> if language predicts correctly,
Oh dear, this is a bit strong! One of the best parts of linguistics
(at least the fun part) 1960-2000 versus 1920-1960 is the prediction
testing side. Reading linguistic articles describing one thing and
setting alongside *unacceptable utterances has been very enlightening,
even if *unacceptability can be argued in individual cases, even in
modern languages.
>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.
Hello! I think you missed my point and argumentation. A person can
work with a finite amount of ancient text and formulate a theoretical
framework. The framework includes what the theory generates, and what
the theory does not generate. They can then test that framework by
seeing how additional text patterns. That is not circular, though it
is cyclical. Exactly what we do with modern languages. And we do have
native speakers of ancient Greek. Listen carefully. I can take a
theory built on Paul's letters and examine Pllutarch or Epictetos for
confirmation. (OK, Paul had Hebrew and Aramaic as 2nd and third
languages, while Epictetos and Plutarch had Latin as a second
language, but they all had near-mother-tongue control of Greek, as a
minimum.)
I secretly believe that you have trouble with this approach because it
exposes a problem in aspect-only-ancient-Greek-verb-theory.
> In the case of Jude 14...well, Randall and I probably don't agree 100%! I
> was using a rhetocial tongue-in-cheek approach.
I hope that people are enjoying this. When in doubt, smile!
snip
> 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.
So far we are in agreement on this paragraph, with perhaps a
difference on the scope of the word "amply". "Amply" and "rare" refer
to the same subset.
>Just substitute "completed action" for "past" and you'll see some of
how the aspect discussion is framed.
And finally, a point of testable disagreement. That is where *HLQEN
AURION separates "over-generating artificial rules" from the real
language. A 'complete action' can occur in the future, it can even
occur 'tomorrow'. Cindy's theory generates, that is, it does not block
the co-occurrence of an aorist indicative with AURION. (I am sure that
it will, maybe someday soon.) BUT it appears that [aorist ind]{e.g.
HLQEN} *AURION is not used in the GNT, LXX, Josephus, or anywhere that
I have looked. And we still have millions and millions of words for
further confirmation. Native speakers, for the most part, as far as we
can tell. (For example, Lucian is just too nimble to not be at least
bi-mother-tongue. Besides his satire, his old Ionic rendition of Dea
Syria was stunningly masterful.) Anyway, in modern linguistic theory
one cannot ignore the question of predictability, and a theory that
mispredicts is considered "not-preferred". furthermore, if a theory is
amended in an "ad hoc" manner in order to account for the data and
constraints, the theory is also "not preferred". (Ad hoc means not
according to its system. Thus, someone could take Cindy's theory, and
add a rule that says "this doesn't apply with AURION 'tomorrow', where
aorist indicatives are hereby blocked". The theory would once again
cover the data but in an adhoc manner. Most reviewers would sound the
gong. "Next contestant, please.")
> Good grief, this is long!
It's OK, Charlie Brown.
ERRWSO,
Randall Buth
> -----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.
>
--
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