[B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
cwestf5155 at aol.com
cwestf5155 at aol.com
Fri Sep 15 17:00:03 EDT 2006
Hi Randall,
I'm going to reply briefly in the body of your post as you did, but my system doesn't mark quotations well. After this I'll hopefully disappear from the list for awhile.
-----Original Message-----
From: randallbuth at gmail.com
To: cwestf5155 at aol.com
Cc: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
<Snip>
<<
> 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. >>
That's why I said "my" linguistic theory--meaning Hallidayan linguistics applied to ancient Greek. I didn't mean all linguistic theory. But this is the "great divide" between us, I think. I doubt that I will ever look with favor on generative theory--and your synthesis with systemics...
<snip>
<<>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. >>
Well, that and my reading in linguistics as well as my reading in Hellenistic Greek. They tend to hang together and reinforce each other in the same way that you claim. I do love coherence and cohesion.
My point about circularity is that when you start with language generation and you have no test group, you are going to be circular in your approach and reinforce your presuppositions with your usage--I talked with you about this in Boston years ago.
<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. >>
"Amply" means an adequate number of examples of a rare occurrence. Quibble, quibble.
<<>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.") >>
I just discovered a bunch of e-greek posts in my "Spam" folder (which is where I found this post, incidentally--some kind of computerized freudian slip?)--and someone such as Con said that this kind of statement and search isn't productive, and I agree. Again, it's the generative thing.
It isn't about whether the network system generates particular and specific instances of language (combinations that you can think up) but rather whether it explains the choices that authors have made.
Cindy Westfall
Assistant Professor
McMaster Divinity College
________________________________________________________________________
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