[B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
Con R. Campbell
Con.Campbell at moore.edu.au
Sun Sep 17 18:55:31 EDT 2006
Sorry I meant that to be 'minus future', not just 'future' (the en dash I
used disappeared). 'Minus future' does not mean '+past tense'.
Con
On 18/9/06 8:27 AM, "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list