[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