[B-Greek] Second attempt - On Aspect
John Sanders
jfs at jfsanders.com
Sun Apr 29 06:44:56 EDT 2007
I have a slightly different take than either Iver or Dr. Buth has expressed
on ¡°tenseness¡±. But first let me digress just slightly.
In historical narratives, Latin and Greek use the sequence of verbs in the
narrative to define the sequence of events narrated; or in other words, the
verb in the narrative pops up just as it is required. Latin and Greek can
do this because word order is not a restraint on positioning words in a
narrative. This has a significant effect on the verbs in Latin and Greek in
that the inflected endings are not required to indicate temporal sequence of
events, only the aspect of the verb as usually understood. In other words,
the inflection of the verbs usually indicates some form of aspect only.
English, on the other hand, because of the restraint of word order, cannot
assume that sequence of verbs will indicate any temporal sequencing of
events in the narrative and consequently, we English speakers rely on the
inflected endings (and auxiliary words) to sequence events so narrated. In
other words, English verbs are inflected for tense (time sequencing).
When we come to non-historical narratives, we have a different issue. There
is no natural sequencing of events by the narrative form itself. But, not
all statements require a sequencing of events (a temporal setting), in which
case the Latin or Greek can be used just as in the historical narratives,
that is the verbal endings indicate aspect. Where a timing sequence is
required, then context will be developed so that the reader (or listener)
can then use auxiliary terms or verbal suffixes as tense endings.
English, on the other hand, cannot differentiate between the need for tense
and no need for tense. All narrative, in English, is identified with a
tense marker irrespective of any logical requirement.
Why do we think that a present tense is required in Mk. 1.11 (SU EI hO hUIOS
MOU hO AGAPHTOS, EN SOI EUDOKHSA). Are we attempting to say that the Father
is saying now (as distinct from yesterday or tomorrow) that I am well
pleased with you or I am delighted with you. Even the first verb, EI, does
not carry a tenseness about it, just the aspectual elements-You are my son
the beloved, in you I delight (or as Ivan puts it, You are my beloved son,
(in you I delight.))
I do not agree with Porter on his definition of verbal aspect, but that is a
different issue. if context does not require a ¡°tense¡± definition in the
verb endings, then do not add one; leave it with aspect only.
John Sanders
Suzhou, China
_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian.
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list