[B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Sat Sep 16 01:57:11 EDT 2006
Dear Con,
Thank you for your explanations which helped me to better understand your
approach. I have a few comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Con R. Campbell" <con.campbell at moore.edu.au>
To: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no>; "B-Greek at Lists. Org"
<b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
Dear Rolf,
Thanks for the questions, and apologies for the late reply.
CC:
I am familiar with Dahl's TMA system, and I think Olsen's work on Biblical
Greek is an obvious example of its implementation. While I think Olsen's
book is excellent, I have a number of problems with it, and in turn with the
ET, RT, et al, conception of aspect. The major problem I have with it is
that it is a temporal description of aspect, as a kind of 'internal temporal
constituency'. I am not here addressing the issue of tense and the verb, but
simply our definition of aspect. I strongly oppose the idea that aspect can
be defined temporally.
RF:
When you use the term "temporally," do you in it include both deictic and
non-deictic time? Often when aspect is explained metaphors are used, such as
"complete," "seen as a whole," "viewpoint" etc; even "remoteness" must be
classified as a metaphor. I have no objection to the use of metaphors, but
they should be based on a more scientific definition. I agree that aspect
represents "viewpoints". But what is the meaning of this metaphor? I often
use the words "make visible" in stead of "viewpoint". In my view,
communication between sender and receiver means that the sender makes
something visible of a meaning potential and keeps everything else
invisible. As for lexicon, a word has a meaning potential (semantic range),
and the context, which is created by the sender, makes visible a part of
each word´s meaning potential. As for verbs, the aspects, which are chosen
by the sender, make visible a part of the action and keep the rest
invisible. Please consider the examples below: In example 1) it is signaled
by the adverb and "was" that the action was completed before the deictic
center. The receiver knows this, and s/he also knows that the running action
had a beginning and an end. However, what is made visible by the
imperfective aspect is a small part of the action in the middle, and the
beginning and end are invisible. Example 2) portrays the same situation as
1), a running event with a beginning and end, and with a middle portion when
the running was done. What is made visible by the perfective aspect is only
the end point, and possibly a part of the resultant state.
1) Yesterday Rita was running.
2) Rita has run.
If we define "event time" as the time from the beginning of the running
event to its end, what is made visible by the imperfective aspect is a small
sequence of running after the beginning and before the end. This sequence
represents a portion of the event time, and this portion that is made
visible is what I define as
"reference time". Event time is real time (the small sequence of the running
event made visible); reference time is conceptual time, it represents what
is made visible of event time to the receiver. Why should not the
relationship between
event time and reference time be defined as "time," non-deictic time, when
both the whole event time and the portion of it made visible *is time* ?
When I say that aspect represents non-deictic
time, I mean that both event time and reference time can be defined without
any reference to a deictic center. Connection with a deictic center requires
more information than the aspects give.
CC:
Aspect is 'viewpoint', and is therefore by definition
spatial rather than temporal. Fanning acknowledges this, and with regard to
perfective aspect says: Othis relationship between the action and the
reference-point from which it is viewed is not primarily a chronological
one¹; Oa spatial one fits better, since the distinction is one of proximity
vs. distance¹ [Fanning, 27].
RF:
I do not see how we can distinguish between space and time in connection
with aspect. Webster´s defines time as "the period between two events or
during which something exists, happens, or acts; measured by a measurable
interval". Please consider 3) and 4) below. In both examples an event
intersects the reading of the paper: In 3) the intersecting event is rather
short, but it takes some time, and in 4) the event is longer. The
imperfective aspect makes visible a part of the reading event, and during
this part each intersecting event occurs. Since each intersecting event
takes time and it occurs in the sequence of the reading event made visible
by the imperfective aspect, the aspect itself also must be defined on the
basis of time; it cannot be defined only on the basis of space.
3) While Rita was reding the paper, John entered the room.
4) While Rita was reading the paper, John ate his breakfast.
CC:
The problems that a temporal description of aspect create are manifold. A
common one is to say that imperfective aspect means that an action is
progressive. This will often be the case of course, but sometimes is not: 'I
know' is stative rather than progressive. So I totally agree with you that
it is a mistake to think that Ancient Greek expresses incomplete/completed
aspect. Rather, it expresses internal and external aspects. This is what
viewpoint refers to: the view from the inside and the view from the outside.
RF;
The expressions "from the inside" and "from the outside" are metaphors, and
honestly speaking, I do not understand what they mean. They need a
scientific explanation, but which one? I insist that we must make a
scrupulous distinction
between Aktionsart and aspect (I think you have the same opinion). The
concept "progressive" is an Aktionsart term; a running event is always
progressive regardless of whether it is expressed by the English participle
or perfect, or by Greek aorist or present. The concepts "durative" and
"punctiliar" are Aktionsart terms as well. A verb marked for durativity can
never cease to be durative, so how can it be meaningful to say that the
imperfective aspect expresses durativity and the perfective one expresses
punctiliarity? My use of non-deictic time as a description of aspect avoids
the problem you mention, and I am aware of no other problem that it creates.
CC:
This leads me to your questions regarding remoteness. As I understand it, it
is a spatial category that fits neatly with a spatial understanding of
aspect. To use the well worn illustration of the street parade and the
reporter, the internal aspect is the view that the reporter has from the
street as he views the parade. If he views the part of the parade
immediately before him, his view is internal and 'proximate'. If he views
the part of the parade a block down the street, his view is internal and
'remote'.
Temporal and logical remoteness are simply two of the pragmatic implicatures
of the semantic value of remoteness. Temporal remoteness = past temporal
reference. It is remote time, like saying 'those days are behind us'.
Logical remoteness may be unreality, untruth, uncertainty etc. Yes, this
applies to the different moods (as Carl pointed out), but has a place in the
indicative mood as well.
I totally agree with you that the subjective element in analysing dead
languages needs to be minimized, which is a question relating to method. The
worst attempt at this is to analyse such languages in relation to modern
languages. Paul Kiparsky pointed out this (now) obvious error in relation to
traditional analyses of the Greek historical present way back in 1968
(Kiparsky, Paul. OTense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax¹. Foundations of
Language 4 (1968), 30-57). It simply doesn't do the same thing in Greek as
it does in modern European languages.
RF:
Thank you for your explanation of "remoteness".
CC:
But method is an issue for another post...
Yours,
Con Campbell
Moore College
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list