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

Con R. Campbell con.campbell at moore.edu.au
Sun Sep 17 17:00:34 EDT 2006


Dear Randall, some more comments.

RB:
I would support Con on the ASPECTUAL semantic overlap.

CC:
I'm glad we agree on something!

RB:
I am also glad that Con accepted '+future' as part of the so-called
> Greek future. (I believe that that will lead him to recognize the
> wider implications for the system, in the future.)

CC:
I'm sure you don't mean to be patronizing when you suggest that I haven't
thought about what this means for the system, or that I will one day 'grow
up' into a right understanding. Of course I have considered the implications
of this, and this is where diachronic analysis become essential. Many
scholars acknowledge that the Greek verbal system began as a set of spatial
oppositions, which over time turned into tenses. This is a common path for a
a variety of languages, as you are no doubt aware. A second well established
factor is that the future indicative was a late development in the verbal
system. Now you can see where I am going. Yes, I believe that the verbal
system became tense-based, as we see with modern Greek. The difference for
me is that I think it becomes tense-based later in the language's
development than you and most others would assert. The language is becoming
a tense language, and the future (as a real tense) is the first sign of
where the language is going. It is, if you like, the first-fruits of the
development of Greek into a tense language. Therefore, I see no
contradiction that I regard the future as a real tense, and yet other
tense-forms as not there yet. Koine Greek is simply a synchronic snapshot of
the diachronic development of the language.

RB:
And that sets up a categorial
> opposition Aorist Ind vs. Future. (You can already see where I'm going
> here.) The meaning of a piece of a closed system is not just itself,
> but it also entails "not the other(s)". For the aoristic system, that
> means that part of the meaning of the aorist indicative is "not the
> Future". if the Future has time as part of its meaning, then the
> aorist indicative picks up time within its systemic meaning, too, as
> "minus-Fut". 

CC:
Yes, but ­future does not mean +past tense.

Con Campbell
Moore College


On 16/9/06 7:46 PM, "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com> wrote:

> We need to deal with a couple of separate details so that the
> discussion stays on track.
> 
> Con Egrapse
>>> and the overlap of usage between the future and the aorist indicative
> is, I suggest, stronger than has been recognized. ...the connections
> are strong. >
> I would support Con on the ASPECTUAL semantic overlap. when someone
> says, "he will come" the default interpretation is that 'he will
> arrive' not that 'he will be in the midst of his coming'. The 'coming'
> defaults to 'whole' 'complete'.
> I am also glad that Con accepted '+future' as part of the so-called
> Greek future. (I believe that that will lead him to recognize the
> wider implications for the system, in the future.) Aorist indicative
> and Future indicative are close to a complementary distribution. As
> Con argued, Greeks had an Aorist Future in the "Future" so they had no
> need to use an Aorist Indicative. Correct. (though I would also allow
> a non-default incompleteness.) And that sets up a categorial
> opposition Aorist Ind vs. Future. (You can already see where I'm going
> here.) The meaning of a piece of a closed system is not just itself,
> but it also entails "not the other(s)". For the aoristic system, that
> means that part of the meaning of the aorist indicative is "not the
> Future". if the Future has time as part of its meaning, then the
> aorist indicative picks up time within its systemic meaning, too, as
> "minus-Fut". this could be rebutted, of course, by claiming that the
> aorist indicative and future do not form a generic subsystem.
> (marginal cases are excepted, in any case.) But in both cases, whether
> the Aorist Indicative is in an opposition to Future or whether it is
> totally independent, the fact remains that Greeks felt free to use the
> Future with AURION 'tomorrow' and they did NOT feel free to use the
> aorist indicative with AURION. However, they did feel free to use the
> aorist indicative for EXQES 'yesterday', even 'today'. 'Proximity' can
> only explain this when it becomes a metaphor with a time element
> included.
> 
> Rolf egrapse
>>> 2) In each case make an analysis of whether the action/state comes
>> before 
> or
> after the deictic center  or is contemporaneous with it. (Remember that the
> default position of the deictic center is speech time, and that evidence is
> necessary to account for another position).>
> 
> Rolf is aware of the circularity here, though he is willing to live
> with it as a minimal necessity. He would not consider an aorist
> indicative to be 'evidence' of a deictic shift. He would say that some
> inconsistencies in aorist indicative usage make it inadmissable as a
> device for marking a deictic centre change. I would say that the
> overall system, and lack of occurrence of aorist indicative with an
> explicitly marked clause with AURION shows that +past is part of the
> aorist indicative and allows for it to signal a change in deictic
> centre. His Point 3's "reasonable amount" of irregualrities ends up in
> the eye of the beholder. I find them reasonable, Rolf finds them
> unreasonable. I find no aorist indicatives with AURION, Rolf (silently
> agrees) but points out that his methodology is 'tight'. I would say
> that his point 2 filters the evidence in a way that is similar to
> constructing a math proof that "2+2=3". These proofs are doable and
> look 'tight' on the surface, until it is realized that one of the
> surface forms actually requires 'dividing by zero', invalidating the
> proof. So is Rolf dividing by zero or am I (and the whole field of
> classical studies and history of Greek studies) dividing by zero?
> Rolf's theory predicts AURION + aorist indicative. That does not seem
> to occur. I therefore claim that there is enough 'time' in the aorist
> indicative to serve as a deictic centre shifter, and Rolf has divided
> by zero by claiming that Jude 14 is a clean, unambiguous aorist
> indicative REFERRING to the future. (Refer is a technical term. We
> both agree that the event is future. I claim that Jude 14 refers to
> the future event AS A PAST. Hence the change in deictic centre. And
> hence my happiness with its rarity and special circumstances, which my
> theory predicts. ('My' is only used for argumentation. I would claim
> that this is the way Greek children have read and understood Greek
> throughout historical times.)
> 
> ERRWSQE
> Randall Buth
> 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list