[B-Greek] Aorist and Imperfect: points of consensus
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 21 19:43:53 EDT 2006
On Sep 21, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Brian Abasciano wrote:
> Carl,
>
> Would you mind stating what you think the matters of consensus are
> that have emerged from the discussion. I think that would be very
> valuable for all who have followed the discussion, but may be
> confused by the varying views.
I think it would be valuable too -- the more valuable under an
authentic subject-header rather than an empty one.
I have been gratified to read, on several occasions in the course of
these exchanges, something like, "I agree that ... but." It's pretty
clear that there's also a considerable range of perspectives that
perhaps cannot be resolved. Nevertheless, I have had a different gut
feeling about this discussion than about many previous ones in this
forum on the matter of verbal aspect in the ancient Greek verb: I've
always felt in the past that the conversation is to a considerable
extent a Babel-tower of conversants addressing each other in
different dialects and barely making themselves understood to others;
it has seemed to me that there's been more real communication taking
place this time around -- unless I'm deceiving myself.
I think it would be perilous (let alone beyond my ability) to attempt
any formulation of all that has agreed upon by the participants in
this thread that opened on Sept 5 with a message from Paul Evans. I
do wish that we might perhaps have a short list of focal points upon
which those who wish may endeavor BRIEF(?) notes about what they
think they agree on and where they differ from others. Some such
points (there would be several others, I think) should certainly be
included (I hope we can keep the focus on ancient Greek and not go
off on a tangent about broader issues in Linguistics):
1. What is meant by the term "verbal aspect" with reference to the
ancient Greek verb?
2. What is meant by the term "Aktionsart" with reference to the
ancient Greek verb?
3. Is there consensus on the meaning of terms such as "perfective,"
"imperfective," "stative," etc. (what other terms belong here?)
3. How do the ancient Greek Indicative-mood forms differ in meaning
from the Non-indicative-mood forms?
4. What does the augment signify in ancient Greek imperfect, aorist,
and pluperfect Indicative-mood forms?
5. How does the ancient Greek Indicative Imperfect differ in meaning
from the Indicative Aorist?
6. Is temporal reference grammaticalized in any of the ancient Greek
Indicative "tenses"? If not, how does a speaker/hearer/reader
recognize temporal reference?
I don't think that's an exhaustive listing of questions that have
been dealt with. At least a couple others that have been at least
tangentially discussed are:
7. Does the ancient Greek Indicative future "tense" have aspect?
8. Can the ancient Greek Indicative present "tense" be adequately
characterized in terms of its aspect?
I'm not sure whether this is a helpful way of going about this effort
or not; if anyone has a better idea, please come forward and propose
a more useful interrogatory.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list