[B-Greek] Verbal Aspect theory -- misgivings

Michael Aubrey mga318 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 15 15:51:48 EST 2008


Dr. Conrad,

I think that all of your concerns are valid ones.

My attempts to explain time reference and the verb via a spacial metaphor
was supposed simply show how little difference there is between the two views.
And it is exactly that little amount of difference that has made me wonder
about it being gobbledygook as well. Either way, if I can show how similar they
are more clearly, perhaps the extreme reaction from the traditional view might
lessen - or visa versa.

I wrote a post this morning that tries again to show the similarity simply - I used
pictures this time. It don't subscribed to either side right now. Steve has convinced
of his concern about the historical present, but I also have concerns about
the traditional description as well:

http://tinyurl.com/5cpp8x
http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/tense-and-proximity-another-attempt-at-explanation/

Mike




________________________________
From: "b-greek-request at lists.ibiblio.org" <b-greek-request at lists.ibiblio.org>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:20:11 AM
Subject: B-Greek Digest, Vol 71, Issue 15

Send B-Greek mailing list submissions to
    b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    b-greek-request at lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    b-greek-owner at lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of B-Greek digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Verbal aspect theory -- misgivings (Carl W. Conrad)
   2. Re: Verbal aspect theory -- misgivings (Steve Runge)
   3. Re: Verbal aspect theory -- misgivings (Ron Fay)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:18:59 -0500
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
Subject: [B-Greek] Verbal aspect theory -- misgivings
To: B-Greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <76D1CCEC-5FAE-4466-BB13-4588A07FCF7A at artsci.wustl.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

I am somewhat hesitant to give voice to the misgivings I have about  
the doctrine(s) of verbal aspect. Ere now I have ranted about what  
often seems gobbledygook of Linguists who haven't formed a consensus  
about how some features of language work and how they sometimes seem  
to have arrived at some very useful and helpful ways of understanding  
how Greek works but don't seem to have set forth a very clear  
exposition of what they've found out. This may well be another of  
those rants to be ignored by those who are better informed. But I have  
to confess to puzzlement and concern that continues to trouble my  
senescent brain over this issue.

Am I alone in being uncomfortable about much of what we are being told  
about Biblical Greek verbal aspect? I have tried to read carefully  
through the new Con Campbell book, _Basics of Verbal Aspect in  
Biblical Greek_ as well as through the reviews that have been spread  
all over the web (more or less) this past week, and I have not been  
able to shake the suspicion that we're being sold a bill of goods.  
I've said before that I don't really think the dust has settled on  
aspect studies sufficiently to say there is much of a scientific or  
even a more-or-less clear and intelligible doctrine of Greek Verbal  
Aspect. That is not to say that I don't think some questions regarding  
verbal aspect have found some resolution and that some pedagogical  
errors of years gone by (e.g. the "once-for-all-time aorist") have  
been shown the door. What bothers me is the notion that there is a  
doctrine of aspect that may now be set before beginning or second-year  
Biblical Greek students with such clarity and precision that a set of  
exercises with an answer key may justifiably be placed in their hands.

My own thinking is that the distinction between Perfective Aspect  
(Aorist) and Imperfective Aspect (Present, Imperfect) is valid and  
useful, and I am comfortable with the clarification that "Perfective  
aspect" means a view of the verbal action or process as a whole and  
external, while "Imperfective aspect" means a view of the verbal  
action or process as internal or within the transpiring process. I  
think that the category termed "Aktionsart" is indeed useful to  
characterize particular verbs as "iterative" or "punctiliar" or  
"progressive"; indeed, I think the category is also useful toward  
understanding the way voice works in the Greek verb.

Perfect and Pluperfect "tenses" seem to be problematic for a doctrine  
of verbal aspect: I can see that calling them "Stative" makes sense to  
some extent, and I can see why some would like to assert that they are  
really Imperfective. I think, however, that the problem is complicated  
(1) by the number of instances of OIDA and hESTHKA and the pluperfects  
HiDEIN and hEISTHKEIN and their compounds, since they do in fact  
indicate "knowing" and "standing" as would present and imperfect forms  
and (2) by the fact that Biblical Greek is a language in flux and that  
the older perfect and aorist tenses are on their way to merging in the  
same fashion as they have merged in Latin: the Koine aorist often  
enough functions like a perfect or a pluperfect tense and there are  
instances where it would appear that a perfect tense form functions  
pretty much as does an aorist to indicate completed action. I don't  
think anything useful is accomplished by attempting to force the  
perfect-tense forms into the "Imperfective" pigeonhole.

As for the assertion that time is a metaphor and that the best way to  
understand temporal reference in Greek verbs is in terms of a  
metaphorical spatial proximity and remoteness, it seems to me an  
interesting theory, an interesting way of looking at it, but I am not  
convinced that ancient Greeks in the Biblical era as well as before  
and afterwards were thinking pretty much in terms of what we mean by  
time present, past, and future. What I would like to see explored,  
however, is some rationale for the fact that present and past  
counterfactual conditions are conveyed in ancient Greek by the  
INDICATIVE imperfect and aorist tense-forms respectively.

I am still inclined to think that the student learning important Greek  
verbs would do well to read carefully through the lexical entries for  
important verbs and note the range of forms in which they most  
commonly appear as well as the contexts in which their important  
senses occur. Reading voluminously helps too. The old Latin proverb is  
DISCIMUS AGERE AGENDO ("we learn to do by doing") which has  
corollaries for language-learning: DISCIMUS LOQUI LOQUENDO ("we learn  
to speak by speaking") and DISCIMUS LEGERE LEGENDO ("we learn to read  
by reading." I think that lots of (Greek) conversation in the  
classroom and lots of reading Greek in the library will do more for  
one learning the usage of Greek verbs than doctrines of Greek verbal  
aspect.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Ret)



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:33:23 -0800
From: "Steve Runge" <srunge at logos.com>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Verbal aspect theory -- misgivings
To: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>,    "B-Greek B-Greek"
    <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
    <56EEF8D770DCD545A5B0A528226ABBEA07AC97E5 at JEREMIAH.lrscorp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"

Carl,

Thanks for the comments. I think I share some of your concerns, but have
yet to read Campbell's book. My immediate concern is the apparent
attempt to treat the historical present as normative usage of the verb
form.

Based on your study, how to the ancient grammarians treat the historical
present? Is there discussion to indicate that the Greeks themselves
considered this usage as distinct from the more normative usage, as
Robertson and others conceived of it? I would appreciate any help you or
others could offer.

Steve Runge 

-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl W. Conrad
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 7:19 AM
To: B-Greek B-Greek
Subject: [B-Greek] Verbal aspect theory -- misgivings

I am somewhat hesitant to give voice to the misgivings I have about the
doctrine(s) of verbal aspect. Ere now I have ranted about what often
seems gobbledygook of Linguists who haven't formed a consensus about how
some features of language work and how they sometimes seem to have
arrived at some very useful and helpful ways of understanding how Greek
works but don't seem to have set forth a very clear exposition of what
they've found out. This may well be another of those rants to be ignored
by those who are better informed. But I have to confess to puzzlement
and concern that continues to trouble my senescent brain over this
issue.

Am I alone in being uncomfortable about much of what we are being told
about Biblical Greek verbal aspect? I have tried to read carefully
through the new Con Campbell book, _Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical
Greek_ as well as through the reviews that have been spread all over the
web (more or less) this past week, and I have not been able to shake the
suspicion that we're being sold a bill of goods.  
I've said before that I don't really think the dust has settled on
aspect studies sufficiently to say there is much of a scientific or even
a more-or-less clear and intelligible doctrine of Greek Verbal Aspect.
That is not to say that I don't think some questions regarding verbal
aspect have found some resolution and that some pedagogical errors of
years gone by (e.g. the "once-for-all-time aorist") have been shown the
door. What bothers me is the notion that there is a doctrine of aspect
that may now be set before beginning or second-year Biblical Greek
students with such clarity and precision that a set of exercises with an
answer key may justifiably be placed in their hands.

My own thinking is that the distinction between Perfective Aspect
(Aorist) and Imperfective Aspect (Present, Imperfect) is valid and
useful, and I am comfortable with the clarification that "Perfective
aspect" means a view of the verbal action or process as a whole and
external, while "Imperfective aspect" means a view of the verbal action
or process as internal or within the transpiring process. I think that
the category termed "Aktionsart" is indeed useful to characterize
particular verbs as "iterative" or "punctiliar" or "progressive";
indeed, I think the category is also useful toward understanding the way
voice works in the Greek verb.

Perfect and Pluperfect "tenses" seem to be problematic for a doctrine of
verbal aspect: I can see that calling them "Stative" makes sense to some
extent, and I can see why some would like to assert that they are really
Imperfective. I think, however, that the problem is complicated
(1) by the number of instances of OIDA and hESTHKA and the pluperfects
HiDEIN and hEISTHKEIN and their compounds, since they do in fact
indicate "knowing" and "standing" as would present and imperfect forms
and (2) by the fact that Biblical Greek is a language in flux and that
the older perfect and aorist tenses are on their way to merging in the
same fashion as they have merged in Latin: the Koine aorist often enough
functions like a perfect or a pluperfect tense and there are instances
where it would appear that a perfect tense form functions pretty much as
does an aorist to indicate completed action. I don't think anything
useful is accomplished by attempting to force the perfect-tense forms
into the "Imperfective" pigeonhole.

As for the assertion that time is a metaphor and that the best way to
understand temporal reference in Greek verbs is in terms of a
metaphorical spatial proximity and remoteness, it seems to me an
interesting theory, an interesting way of looking at it, but I am not
convinced that ancient Greeks in the Biblical era as well as before and
afterwards were thinking pretty much in terms of what we mean by time
present, past, and future. What I would like to see explored, however,
is some rationale for the fact that present and past counterfactual
conditions are conveyed in ancient Greek by the INDICATIVE imperfect and
aorist tense-forms respectively.

I am still inclined to think that the student learning important Greek
verbs would do well to read carefully through the lexical entries for
important verbs and note the range of forms in which they most commonly
appear as well as the contexts in which their important senses occur.
Reading voluminously helps too. The old Latin proverb is DISCIMUS AGERE
AGENDO ("we learn to do by doing") which has corollaries for
language-learning: DISCIMUS LOQUI LOQUENDO ("we learn to speak by
speaking") and DISCIMUS LEGERE LEGENDO ("we learn to read by reading." I
think that lots of (Greek) conversation in the classroom and lots of
reading Greek in the library will do more for one learning the usage of
Greek verbs than doctrines of Greek verbal aspect.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Ret)

---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:37:20 -0600
From: Ron Fay <roncfay at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Verbal aspect theory -- misgivings
To: B-Greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <BAY113-W13C7C641E22E4908468854A1110 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Carl,

I must admit that while I am a "convert" to the "religion" of VAT, I do have some moderately heretical practices.

1) I will say that while time plays no part in aspect, generally the aorist is past, present is present, etc.

2) There is no such thing (in any system) of classifying the perfect and pluperfect correctly, though VAT comes the closest. While the stative understanding makes the most sense, it still does not fit all occurrences. I had not acknowledged that the aorist and perfect had begun to blend in Koine, but now that you have said that it fits with some of my reading.

In all, I think your misgivings and cautions make sense, and certainly you should not feel alone. As I tell my students, VAT is useful, but reading Greek is still about 30% art. The only way to master the text is to be in the text. Oh, and everyone should have at least two years of Classical also, hehe.

- Ron

________________________________________________

Ron C. Fay, PhD

Associate Pastor of Administration and Teaching
Cornerstone Community Church

Wadsworth, IL

roncfay at hotmail.com




_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows? connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek

End of B-Greek Digest, Vol 71, Issue 15
***************************************



      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list