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

Con R. Campbell con.campbell at moore.edu.au
Fri Sep 15 19:56:43 EDT 2006


Yes, I'm aware of Sihler's comments on this, but it seems strange to me that
such similarities are accidental, since the overlap of usage between the
future indicative and aorist subjunctive are well noted, and the overlap of
usage between the future and the aorist indicative is, I suggest, stronger
than has been recognized.

Even if the diachronic development of the -S-type similarities are
accidental, synchronic usage must over-rule, and, I suggest, the connections
are strong. I don't want to undervalue the contribution of diachronic
observations, but not at the expense of synchronic observations.

Con Campbell
Moore College


On 16/9/06 9:37 AM, "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:

> 
> 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 Œthe future was as much of an aorist as the aorist of the
>>> past¹, and
>>> that both aorists were regarded as Œindefinite¹, or rather,
>>> Œindetermined¹;
>>> this formula for the aorist Œapplies 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 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