[B-Greek] Aorist and Imperfect: points of consensus

Con R. Campbell con.campbell at moore.edu.au
Sat Sep 23 09:04:29 EDT 2006


Here are my two bobs' worth. For what it's worth.



On 22/9/06 9:46 AM, "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:

> 
> 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?

Aspect means viewpoint, as I think we agree. The main contention between
Rolf and I was how to describe viewpoint. I don't think we should describe
viewpoint with temporal terminology (i.e., aspect = internal tense). A
viewpoint is by its nature spatial, not temporal. You can't view time, but
you can view space, if you catch my drift.

There are two aspects: perfective (external viewpoint) and imperfective
(internal viewpoint).

> 2. What is meant by the term "Aktionsart" with reference to the
> ancient Greek verb?

I have a slightly different understanding of Aktionsart to Rolf. He takes it
to be the nature of the verb expressed by its lexical meaning, while I have
a slightly broader approach. I understand Aktionsart as what a verb does 'in
the wild'. What I mean is, when you combine aspect, lexeme, deixis, and
other factors in the context, the verb will behave a certain way. Rolf calls
this procedural characteristics.

> 3. Is there consensus on the meaning of terms such as "perfective,"
> "imperfective," "stative," etc. (what other terms belong here?)

The tension with these terms goes back to how we define aspect. If aspect is
simply viewpoint (spatially conceived), then perfective is the external
view; imperfective the internal view. If aspect is defined with more
concrete (and often temporal) characteristics, then perfective may mean
'completed'; imperfective 'incomplete'. I go for the former description.

> 3. How do the ancient Greek Indicative-mood forms differ in meaning
> from the Non-indicative-mood forms?

We didn't talk about it.

> 4. What does the augment signify in ancient Greek imperfect, aorist,
> and pluperfect Indicative-mood forms?

Randall says the augment signifies tense, as do traditional interpretations.
I argue that the augment signifies remoteness.

> 5. How does the ancient Greek Indicative Imperfect differ in meaning
> from the Indicative Aorist?

The former expresses imperfective aspect; the latter perfective aspect. In
additional to aspect, Randall would say both express past tense. Rolf says
the former expresses past tense, but the latter does not. I say they both
express remoteness (alongside their respective aspects).

> 6. Is temporal reference grammaticalized in any of the ancient Greek
> Indicative "tenses"? If not, how does a speaker/hearer/reader
> recognize temporal reference?

Clearly Randall answers 'yes'. Rolf says 'no' with regard to the aorist. I
say 'no' with regard to all tense-forms, except the future.

Taking the aorist for example, remoteness will often (and usually) is
expressed pragmatically through past temporal reference. So, yes, past
temporal reference is the default for the aorist. But past tense as a
semantic (= grammaticalized) value? I don't think so. The semantic value
(alongside perfective aspect) is remoteness, which will implicate past
temporal reference, or other types of pragmatic implicatures (such as
logical remoteness, obliqueness, unreality etc) when it does not implicate
past temporal reference.

If the default temporal reference for the aorist is past, then obviously a
speaker/hearer/reader will recognize its temporal reference to be past,
except when the context does not allow it. In such cases, deictic markers in
the text will indicate the temporal reference and the remoteness will be
interpreted in some other way (i.e. not as past 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?

Randall and I seem to agree here: yes (perfective aspect, though Randall
says it can be imperfective too). Not sure what Rolf thinks.

> 8. Can the ancient Greek Indicative present "tense" be adequately
> characterized in terms of its aspect?

We didn't talk about it.
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> ---
> 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

Thanks for your interest all. And let me say thanks to the other
contributors to this discussion. I have thoroughly enjoyed it, and learned
much.

Con Campbell
Moore College




More information about the B-Greek mailing list