[B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Tue Sep 19 04:56:47 EDT 2006


Dear Con,

Perhaps I was too hasty in rejecting "a summary view". I did it on the basis 
of my understanding the expression and because I think we need scientific 
parameters to define tense and aspect rather than elusive expressions. 
Perhaps I misunderstood its meaning. Could you please give a definition of 
the concept and tell me whether you believe it applies to all aorists?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Con R. Campbell" <con.campbell at moore.edu.au>
To: "B-Greek at Lists. Org" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects


> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---
> 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