[B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 15 19:38:54 EDT 2006


On Sep 15, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Con R. Campbell wrote:

> 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.

I may be mis-reading this; the argument appears to be based upon  
judgments
regarding the semantic force of the ancient Greek future. I wonder,  
however,
whether it is historically very likely that the future indicative is  
a future aorist
-- even if it can be argued that it has that character. While some  
first aorists
seem to derive from the same root-element as the future-tense stems,  
there
are other futures that don't seem to derive from an aorist stem at  
all, and I think
the older primitive verbs with second-aorists may fall severally into  
such a
group:

	MANQANW, MAQHSOMAI, EMAQON
	PEIQOMAI, PEISOMAI, EPAQON
	TUGCANW, TEUXOMAI, ETUCON
	hEPOMAI, hEYOMAI, ESPOMHN
	EGEIROMAI, EGEROUMAI, (original) HGROMHN

I don't know whether this works out at all clearly or consistently,  
but my i
mpression is that the current view of the -S- of the future stem is  
that it is
not related to the -S- or the aorist stem but is a 'desiderative'  
infix. So
Andrew Sihler, _New Comparative Greek and Latin Grammar_ §500,
p. 556. Sihler refers to a "once more widely endorsed than nowadays"
theory tracing the Greek future to a sort-vowel subjunctive of the  
sigma-
aorist, and says the "similarities are accidental."

> 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 lexeme—does 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  
> past’, and
> that both aorists were regarded as ‘indefinite’, or rather,  
> ‘indetermined’;
> this formula for the aorist ‘applies both to the “past” and the  
> “future”
> aorist in the Stoic system’. 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 me—the 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
>>
>>
>
> ---
> 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


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/





More information about the B-Greek mailing list