[B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
Con R. Campbell
con.campbell at moore.edu.au
Sun Sep 17 09:47:58 EDT 2006
Dear Rolf,
Thanks for your comments, which have also helped me to better understand
your position. I have made some further comments below.
RF:
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?
CC:
I can understand why you would describe remoteness and even aspect as
metaphors, but I don't think I want to concede to that just yet. If they are
metaphors, then one would be justified to look for a 'more scientific
explanation', but if they are simply what they are, then grappling with the
concepts is required, not redefining them more precisely.
I agree that a purely spatial conception of aspect (and remoteness) is not
immediately easy to grasp for users of English (at least this one). However,
many scholars would agree that the verbal system of Greek evolved from
spatial categories. Ultan notes that this is a feature of various languages:
spatial categories evolve into tenses [see R. Ultan, The Nature of Future
Tenses¹, in Universals of Human Language; Vol. 3: Word Structure (ed. J. H.
Greenberg; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978)]. If that is so, we
must try to grasp what a purely spatial category such as aspect is, but I
don't think it is a metaphor for something more tangible. Abstract?perhaps.
RF:
I do not see how we can distinguish between space and time in connection
> with aspect. [...] 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.
CC:
We may differ here in that I would describe this as the net result of
pragmatics: lexemes in combination with aspect and various deictic factors.
Yes deictic factors will limit the temporal reference that is possible in
various sentences, but I do not regard this as informing us about aspect
itself. Aspect is one of the factors that feeds into the pragmatic outcome.
So I would say that aspect combines with other factors with the result that
time is limited through intersecting events, or whatever the case may be.
But that is quite different to saying that time and aspect cannot be
distinguished. It is a very similar distinction that is made between
Aktionsart and aspect, or between semantics and pragmatics. We can't really
separate them 'in the wild', but we will not ever properly understand them
in combination if we don't separate them in theory (as difficult as that may
be [and some would say impossible, but I'm not that pessimistic])
RF:
The expressions "from the inside" and "from the outside" are metaphors, and
> honestly speaking, I do not understand what they mean.
CC:
Thank you for your honesty. It may help to think of the dynamics of a
narrative. As narrative theory has demonstrated, certain parts of a
narrative will 'draw in' the reader, while other parts will keep him or her
at a distance. For example, when direct speech is related in a narrative,
the reader is pulled right in: it is as though the story is unfolding before
our eyes. However, if the narrative resumes its mainline story, outlining
events such as 'he said', 'she did', 'they went', the events are not
unfolding before our eyes but at a distance; they are merely reported, often
in summary, and so the reader is not drawn in. Similarly, this is how I
perceive aspect as portraying action 'from the inside' and 'from the
outside'. The same dynamic is occurring as with narrative, but at a micro
rather than macro level.
RF:
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.
CC:
Yes!!
RF:
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:
If that is true, then I am happy with your way of describing aspect. But as
for me, I will stick with a purely spatial description. I respect what is
being done with Dahl's system, and as expressed in Olsen's work, but I think
that Fanning is more on target (on this issue) when it comes to defining
aspect in Greek (and, of course, it is MY position so I am unwilling to give
it up too easily!)
Warm regards,
Con Campbell
Moore College
On 16/9/06 3:55 PM, "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ---
> 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