[B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
Con R. Campbell
con.campbell at moore.edu.au
Tue Sep 19 03:25:17 EDT 2006
Dear Rolf,
Thanks again for your comments. Yes I follow Fanning on this, though I part
with him at exactly the same point that you do. I don't think a stative verb
is turned into an action because of combination with perfective aspect. If
anything, my example was off: 'think' was probably not a good choice. 'Know'
might have been better. And I agree with your analyses of those texts.
I think the main point at which I would disagree with you here is that
Aktionsart can't be used to speak of states. I take your technical point,
but I don't think the 'Aktion' in Aktionsart was ever intended to be taken
as precisely as the 'input of energy'. I think it simply refers to verbal
characteristics. Remember it was originally a modification of Curtius'
'Zeitart' (and a move in the right direction), but is still not an ideal
term. Fanning's 'procedural characteristics' is probably better, but the
former term is so established now that I go with it happily enough. But I
have no problem with you using the term more narrowly, as long as we both
know what we mean by it.
Oh, no, there is another point of disagreement: I don't know how you can say
'"A summary view" as a definition of the aorist simply is a useless
metaphor.' First, I still don't see why it must be a metaphor and, second, I
think it is a very useful description! But in the end, you seem to be my
closest ally on this list regarding many other points, so let's agree to
disagree!
Kind regards,
Con Campbell
Moore College
On 19/9/06 4:54 PM, "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no> wrote:
> Dear Con,
>
> I must disagree with a part of your answer below. We agree that the
> combination of "tense" and stative verbs cause a different effect than a
> conbination of "tense" and action (fientive) verbs; in all analyses we
> must
> distinguish between actions and states. Greek verbs must be analysed in
> their own right, and not through the English translations of them. But
> since
> we write English, our translations of course suggest how we view Greek
> verbs.
>
> I have three comments regarding your explanation of ingressive aorist:
>
> 1) We should not speak of "Aktionsart" in connection with states. True,
> state and Aktionsart occur in parallel slots in the grammatical hierarchy,
> but states entail no action; a state simply continues to hold without any
> input of energy (Aktion).
>
> 2) The rendering "he began to think" is semi-fientive (semi-actional) or
> even fientive (actional); it implies an input of energy.
>
> 3) Since I am not a native speaker I may miss some nuances in English
> texts.
> but I would view "he began to think" as an English expression trying to
> convey the Greek imperfective aspect just as much as "he began thinking".
> Because the English aspects are much more restricted than the Greek ones,
> as
> far as use is concerned, circumlocutions are necessary in English to try
> to
> express the force of Greek aspects.
>
> You may be following Fanning, who has the following comment on p. 137:
> "The
> aorist aspect with states denotes frequently the ENTRANCE of the subject
> into the condition denoted by the verb. Thus, it makes a shift in sense
> and
> in effect becomes a type of ACTIVE verb when the aorist is used." I agree
> with the first part regarding the entrance into a condition; we find
> exactly
> the same with perfect (QATAL) in Hebrew. But I disagree with the second
> part. Can you, apart from your gut feeling, *demonstrate* that aorist used
> with states makes them into actions?
>
> Fanning refers to Luke 9:36. I would say that the use of SIGAW in the
> aorist
> in this verse indictes two things, 1) the entrance into the state, and
> 2)that the state continued to hold. Where is the action here? This example
> also shows that an aorist needs not include the end of an action or a
> state.
> In this case the focus is on the beginning of the state (beginning
> included)
> and a part of the state (the end not included).
>
> I analyse aspect on the basis of angle of focus, breadth of focus, and
> quality of focus; all being functions of refrence time and event time.
> Applying these to the example I get the following result:
>
> 1) Angle of focus: to the left of nucleus of event time (the beginning and
> a
> part of the state is made visible).
>
> 2) Breadth of focus: the beginning and a part of the state with undefined
> duration is made visible (they kept silent).
>
> 3) Quality of focus: No details are made visible (states do not have any
> inner structure, they simply hold).
>
> My translation: "They kept quiet." or "They kept silent."
>
> Let us turn to an example of a verb of action in the imperfect, namely
> Acts
> 11:2 and the verb DIAKRINW. I analyse this verb in the following way:
>
> 1) Angle of focus: to the left of nucleus of event time (the beginning and
> a
> part of the action is made visible).
>
> 2) Breadth of focus: the beginning and a part of the progressive action is
> made visible (they began to contend with him).
>
> 3) Quality of focus: Details are seen (we see a situation of discussion
> and
> contention unfolding).
>
> My translation: "So when Peter came up (aorist) to Jerusalem, the
> circumcised ones began to contend (imperfect) with him.
>
>
> To Bert:
>
> "A summary view" as a definition of the aorist simply is a useless
> metaphor.
> Expressions such as "the unmarked tense" and "the default tense" are
> linguistically meaningful. But they need a context, a description of "the
> marked" member, and a description of "the default tense" of what. Such
> terms
> may say something regarding the function of the aorist, but they say
> nothing
> about the nature of it.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Con R. Campbell" <Con.Campbell at moore.edu.au>
> To: "Bert de Haan" <b_dehaan at sympatico.ca>; "B-Greek at Lists. Org"
> <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
>
>
>>> Bert,
>>> Aspect operates in cooperation with other elements, such as lexemes etc.
>>> When perfective aspect (aorist) is used with a stative lexeme (such as
>>> 'think'), the net effect is an ingressive Aktionsart: 'he began to
>> think'.
>>> This beginning to think is still viewed as a whole. The difference
>> between
>>> the ingressive aorist and the ingressive imperfect is that the imperfect
>>> will usually portray some kind of continuity (since it provides an
>>> interval
>>> view), while the aorist will not normally portray continuity (since it
>>> provides an external view). The imperfective version might be: 'he began
>>> thinking'.
>>>
>>> Hope that makes tense ;)
>>>
>>> Con Campbell
>>> Moore College
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/9/06 9:13 AM, "Bert de Haan" <b_dehaan at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Right now the discussion is going beyong my ability to follow.
>>>> That is fine but if I had an answer to my question of Fri Sep 15
>> 20:59:37
>>>> EDT 2006
>>>> my understanding may be a bit better.
>>>> I wrote:
>>>> " If the aorist is meant to give a summary view ( or is the unmarked
>> or
>>>> the
>>>> default tense) of a past action, how am I to understand the Ingressive
>>>> aorist.
>>>> Would the Imperfect not be the more logical tense for that?"
>>>>
>>>> This question is quite basic compared to where the discussion has gone
>>>> but
>>>> one thing I like about this group is that there is room for beginning
>>>> students as well as advanced students.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Bert de Haan.
>>
>>
> ---
> 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