[B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
Con R. Campbell
con.campbell at moore.edu.au
Wed Sep 20 05:22:34 EDT 2006
Dear Rolf,
As I understand it, a summary view is one that does not take into account
the unfolding or development of the action. It normally has the beginning
and end of the action in view, but I don't like to draw that too strongly,
as some actions may be presented in summary, even though they are not
technically completed at the time of writing/speaking.
For example, Romans 5:14 'Yet death reigned [EBASILEUSEN] from Adam to
Moses'. Obviously this action spans a great period of time, but it is
PRESENTED in summary. The way this action unfolded in history is not in
viewwe are just told that it 'happened'. That is what I mean by the aorist
being a summary tense-form. This is also why the aorist is the default
tense-form in the mainline of narrative. Because of the summary view of the
aorist, mainline is capable of depicting a series of actions in quick
succession: he went...they said...she ran etc.
Having said all that, I prefer to say that the aorist presents action as a
'whole', rather than in summary, but they are pretty close ideas.
Yours,
Con Campbell
Moore College
On 19/9/06 6:59 PM, "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> ---
> 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