[B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
Con R. Campbell
con.campbell at moore.edu.au
Fri Sep 15 17:23:31 EDT 2006
I agree with Cindy's responses, but I will also add one or two.
I think the major reason that thousands of future referring aorists are not
found is that the future indicative is a FUTURE AORIST. I part here with
Porter (as I do at several points, while agreeing with him at several
points), who says that the future indicative is non-aspectual (he again
follows McKay here, who calls the future semi- or quasi-aspectual, but not
really). There is good evidence that the future is perfective in aspect,
even though the future is not 'completed'. Perfective aspect views an action
as a whole, rather than complete, as I have just mentioned in my reply to
Rolf.
The evidence I refer to follows a method worked out by one of Fanning's
former students Mark O'Brien. Without boring all with the details, the
bottom line is that Fanning observed predictable patterns of aspect in
combination with Aktionsart. For example, when you combine perfective aspect
with a stative lexeme, the result is ingressive Aktionsart. O'Brien cleverly
suggests that if such combinations are predictable, one should be able to
test whether the future expresses perfective aspect by working backwards.
Take a future form with a stative lexemedoes it express an ingressive
Aktionsart? If yes, then it is fair enough to posit that the stative lexeme
has combined with perfective aspect to bring the result of ingressive
Aktionsart. And so on. This is not a knock-down argument, but is, I think, a
significant piece of the puzzle.
Another interesting observation, made by Haberland, is that Stoic
grammarians considered the future to be a future aorist. The Stoics thought
that the future was as much of an aorist as the aorist of the past¹, and
that both aorists were regarded as indefinite¹, or rather, indetermined¹;
this formula for the aorist applies both to the ³past² and the ³future²
aorist in the Stoic system¹. Again, not a knock-down argument, but I find
this very interesting indeed.
Furthermore, my belief that the future encodes perfective aspect, and
therefore accounts for the absence of thousands of future referring aorists,
depends on the future being a REAL FUTURE TENSE. This is another point at
which I part from Porter, but I think the evidence is clear: all future
indicatives refer to the future (whether it be a 'real' future or not).
That's enough for methe future is future! (contra the aorist, which does
not always refer to the past)
Tying this altogether now: the reason the aorist does not refer to the
future in the thousands is that the future provides a future perfective
opposition to the aorist. Does that prove that the aorist is a past tense?
Not at all! It only suggests that the future is a future. The aorist can
still refer to the past, present, and future, but we will not expect it to
refer to the future much, since we already have a form for that with the
same aspect.
Con Campbell
Moore College
On 16/9/06 6:20 AM, "cwestf5155 at aol.com" <cwestf5155 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwestf5155 at aol.com
> To: edmishoe at yahoo.com
> Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 2:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
>
> Eddie,
>
> A couple of brief responses.
>
> Let me further define the aorist is the default tense that views an
> action "in its entirety as a single complete whole"--I gather that you are
> used to this description, but I'm trying to be .
>
> Yes, I do think that past action is going to collocate with an aspect
> that views an action as a single complete whole. Completion correlates
> well with action completed in the past. I find contrary assertions
> unconvincing.
>
> I find your suggestions that there would be tens of thousands of writers
> portraying the future with aorists uncovincing because the future is
> existentially contingent and therefore not complete by definition. But of
> course where contingency is grammaticalized with the subjunctive, the
> aorist is common.
>
> As for the present, well the use of the omnitemporal aorist is relatively
> widespread. For action that is taking place as the author is speaking
> (present time), the imperfect apect (present tense) is
> appropriate--present action would be close, salient and ongoing not the
> default tense. The aorist grammaticalizes reference to present time with
> the aorist when the process is seen as complete, such as Luke
> 19:42--VUN...EKRUBH, or the so called epistolary aorist.
>
> Don't worry, I don't take any of this personally or take offense on
> Stan's behalf--believe me, he doesn't need me to defend him. I am just
> puzzled. Maybe I don't follow you, but I thought that the specifics you
> referred to correlated with the same kind of issues in Slovinic languages
> (for example) in the general linguistic discussion on aspect that preceded
> him.
>
> Cindy Westfall
> Assistant Professor
> McMaster Divinity College
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: edmishoe at yahoo.com
> To: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
>
> CWest wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> This is just one example of what I've mentioned in
> other posts. Linguistically, one would NOT expect an
> event to be PORTRAYED as complete (your Aorist) more
> so in the past than in any other temporal reference.
> We should fine tens of thousands of writers portraying
> events in the future as complete (something you find
> rare in Jude 14), and therefore, we should expect to
> find tens of thousands of Aorists being used in this
> fashion. On what linguistic grounds would you contend
> that a writer rarely would want to portray a present
> or future event as complete? Jude 14 should not at all
> be rare. Presenting the Lord's coming as complete is
> no more to be expected than presenting it as in
> progress.
>
> Elizabeth gave us an example of English usage based on
> a word used by Jimi!!! Are we really trying to codify
> the English language based on such usages? Rather,
> shouldn't we expect more of these anomolies (poetic
> license)?
>
> My comment that Porter hardly has taken a linguistic
> approach, was not in reference to his system as a
> whole, but the specific instance I mentioned. I have
> learned much from Porter; he's clearly brilliant. I
> just don't buy into his system. I will say this: I
> looked at all his examples of 'future referring'
> Aorists and am now more so convinced of the
> grammatical tense of Greek than before I read his
> Verbal Aspect. I simply don't see his argument as
> being remotely valid.
>
> Please do not take offense at my statement about
> Porter. I did not want to imply he was not a linguist.
> It is just that his linguistic approach to the Greek
> verbal network to me is thoroughly unconvincing.
>
> Eddie Mishoe
> Pastor
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> 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.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list