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

Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Sun Sep 17 18:28:31 EDT 2006


>RB:
>I would support Con on the ASPECTUAL semantic overlap.
>
>CC:
>I'm glad we agree on something!

fortunately. After all languages are used for communication. If no
shared code, difficult communication.
A useful thought experiment: Picture us as ancient learners of Greek
as a second language, would we be able to communicate? Hopefully. (One
caveat--I see the perfective aspect as the defalt for the Future
tense, but not as unique within the Future. Future can be used for
imperfective perspectives, too, on occasion.) And the need to
communicate might have very interesting efects on pattern of output.

snip
> 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.

Your last statement doesn't follow the analogy. Not "but", but "and".
And "future does not mean +past" is correct, because it opposes it.
The Future would include "minus-Past" according to this oppostion.
And then your last comment becomes:
"Yes, (aorist indicative includes a temporal opposition in its
meaning, hopefully you still agree)
AND future means (includes) minus-Past."

That is why I see you as on the road to recognizing a temporal
component in the ancient Greek indicative system.
And it means that the patterning of Future and Present with AURION
'tomorrow', but no aorist indicative +*AURION is a neat litmus test.

Does this make a difference? Yes. Jude 14 communicates a complication.
That is, the complication is part of the intended literary effect. It
refers back in time to an event that is recognized outside of the
grammar system as future. You need "tense" (verified in the litmus
test as part of the code) in order to see the complication.

ERRWSO KAI PLHQUNQEIH SOI EIRHNH
Randall Buth

>
>
> 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
> >
>
>


-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη
שלום לכם וברכות
ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
randallbuth at gmail.com


More information about the B-Greek mailing list