[B-Greek] Is Greek Present a tense? Was Verbal Aspect theory -- misgivings
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Thu Nov 20 11:48:27 EST 2008
Dear Kimmo,
>I realize I go perhaps off-topic to linguistic methodology, but that is
>crucial to building any theory of the Greek tense.
>
>Perhaps our exchange is an illustration of Carl's frustration about
>terminology among linguists... But I would say that for the most part
>linguistic terminology is not very confusing, in my opinion. More confusing
>is some (not all) theories of the Greek verbal system and their formulation.
>But perhaps that's just me and shows how I get confused. :-)
>
>
>Kimmo Huovila
You have asked a lot of good and interesting questions. To answer
them would require several long posts with arguments that would be
beside the purpose of b-greek. But because tense and aspect have been
discussed over and over again in the more than ten years that I have
been a member of the list, I will give some comments that can be
informative for those interested. I believe that I have given a basic
description of semantics versus pragmatics, and also of the nature of
tense as an uncancelable entity. Now I will outline my approach to
aspect, but I do not intend to continue this discussion, although I
of course will answer questions.
THE DEFINITION OF ASPECT
The descriptions of aspect in grammars or textbooks for the most part
are inadequate. It is described in Aktionsart terms
(durative-punctiliar/momentaneous,), with metaphors (seen from the
inside-seen from the outside), with different more or less vague
terms ( cursive-linear; progressive-effective; linear-finitive,
bounded-unbounded; complete(d)-incomplete) etc. I have searched for
more "objective" linguistic terms that can be used
cross-linguistically, and I believe I have found the solution by the
help of the terms introduced by H. Reichenbach "The elements of
symbolic logic" in 1947. These terms are "deictic center (C); event
time (ET); reference time (RT)," and they are treated in the
linguistic literature during the past sixty years as elementary
linguistic terms. The deictic center (C) is the vantage point from
which the event is viewed, and normally it is the present moment.
However, it can be in the future or in the past as well.
(1) When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, Peter had already arrived.
(2) When Peter arrives tomorrow, Liza will already have arrived.
In (1) C is the arrival in Jerusalem in the past, and in (2) C is
Peter's arrival tomorrow.
Any action that is not instantaneous takes some time, and the time of
an action from its beginning to its end is event time (ET). While it
is very difficult for the English mind to view ET as independent of a
deictic center, this is easier in other languages. ET, therefore,
represents non-deictic time (a time that exists independently without
being seen in relation to some vantage point). It is important to
note that ET is real time that can be measured in hours, minutes,
and seconds.
Then we come to reference time (RT), which is conceptual time. This
means that when we communicate, in a way we point to a small part of
ET and makes this part visible for the reader or the listener.
Everything else is made invisible. Thus, we may say that RT
intersects ET. Please look at (3) and (4).
(3) Rita was singing in the bathroom.
(4) Rita has sung in the bathroom.
In (3) the imperfective aspect (the participle) is used, and what is
made visible is a small part of the singing event after its
beginning and before its end. This small part made visible is RT, or
better, RTs intersection. In (4) the perfective aspect (perfect) is
used, and what is made visible is the coda, the singing event has
ended, and that is what is made visible. To state this in linguistic
terms, we can say that the aspects are expressed by the relationship
between RT and ET. When the imperfective aspect is usedin English,
RT intersects ET at the nucleus, and when the perfective aspect is
used, RT intersects ET at the coda.
From these two examples we see that RT has to do with the focus; what
is made visible, what is focused upon. In English there are two
basic options: the imperfective aspect focuses upon the nucleus and
the perfective aspect focuses upon the coda; imperfective actions are
not brought to their end at RT, and perfective actions are brought to
their end at RT. Therefore, the use of the aspects in English is
restricted, and there are only two alternatives: either the action is
in progress at RT, or it is completed at RT.
In Greek, however, there are more options. Please look at (5) and (6).
(5) "we saw a man expelling demons in your name and we tried to
prevent (imperfect) him, because he is not one of us." (Luke 9:49)
(6) and, leaping up, he stood, and began to walk (imperfect) (Acts 3:8)
(7) Teacher, du you not care that we are about to perish (present)? (Mark 4:38)
Example (5) is conative, and RT intersects the action before the
beginning of ET. Example (6) is ingressive; RT intersects ET at the
beginning, and the beginning and a small part of ET is made visible.
Example (7) is egressive; RT intersects ET immediately before the
end. Example (7) can be expressed by the use of the imperfective
aspect and a telic verb also in English, e.g., "she was reaching the
peak". But examples (5) and (6) cannot be expressed in English by
aspect and verb alone. The examples from English and Greek show that
the aspects behave differently in the two languages regarding the
intersection of ET by RT.
The principal property of RT is focus, what is focused upon, what is
made visible to the reader or listener. If we work with Classical
Hebrew and New Testament Greek, as I have done, we can be more
specific regarding the term "focus." There are three sides of the
focus that can be distinguished, 1) THE ANGLE OF FOCUS (related to a
vantage point in the middle of ET), 2) THE BREADTH OF FOCUS (how
large a portion of ET is made visible), and 3) THE QUALITY OF FOCUS
(are details made visible or not). Because there are two aspects and
three parameters, the aspects of two languages can be compared in six
different ways. This is a completely new approach to aspect studies.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS
You ask how I can know when a particular trait is caused by the verb
form and when it is caused by the context. I have to use Hebrew
examples where I have worked extensively, but I think these examples
also will be illustrative for Greek.
In the Hebrew Bible we find 14.536 WAYYIQTOLS , which formally are
YIQTOLs (imperfects) with a prefixed WAY- (the conjunction "and").
YIQTOLs are viewed as having present /future reference, but when the
WAY- element is prefixed, it is believed that the meaning is changed
to the very opposite, namely, that the WAYYIQTOL form represents past
tense or being perfective. When I look at the WAYYIQTOLs I find that
93.1% have past reference and that 6.9% have non-past reference. How
should we approach these numbers from the viewpoint of semantics
versus pragmatics?
Most of these WAYYIQTOLs occur in narrative contexts, and the view
of grammars and textbooks is that each WAYYIQTOL represents one
action completed in the past, and then follows the next WAYYIQTOL
representing a new completed action. So the form is viewed by almost
all scholars as either a preterit or the perfective aspect, or both.
The conclusion seems to be undisputable with 93.1% corroborating it.
But those who think along the lines of semantics versus pragmatics
see some glaring problems. Contrary to the popular saying that the
best place to find the true meaning of WAYYIQTOL is the narrative
texts, I would say (and Comrie agrees) that this is the worst place.
Why? Because narrative by definition have past reference, and one
action follows the other in consecution. Regardless of the semantic
meaning of the verbs forms used in narrative, they will always have
past reference and be consecutive.
Only under very special linguistic circumstances is it possible for
us to see the real nature of a verb form in a dead language; in most
instances we only see the surface. I would assess that of the14.536
examples, only 200 to 300 clauses have the special linguistic
circumstances that can help us to identify the true nature of
WAYYIQTOL. We see such an example in (8)
(8) In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had
come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel,
in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build (WAYYIQTOL)
the temple of YHWH.
The construction of this verse together with our knowledge of the
world (we know it took more than one year to build the temple) help
us see that RT intersects the beginning and a small part of ET,
something that is typical for an imperfective verb. If an unknown
house was mentioned instead of the temple, the WAYYIQTOL would be
just as impregnable as in most other cases. Among the evidence for
the view that WAYYIQTOL is a YIQTOL (imperfect) with prefixed "and"
(WAY), and that the form is imperfective, are:
1) Examples like (6) and (8) where the beginning and a small part of
ET is made visible.
2) Conative events like (5)
3) Examples where ET is intersected in the middle, like "When David
was eating (WAYYIQTOL), Jonathan entered the room.
4) Examples where one WAYYIQTOL is modified by another WAYYIQTOL.
5) Examples where we definitely can see that the WAY-element is the
conjunction "and" and nothing else.
The mentioned examples illustrate that to apply modern intuitions on
a dead language can lead us astray. When we look at narratives in
modern languages, the verb form that almost always is used is either
preterit (if it is a tense) or perfective (if it is an aspect). But
my conclusion is that in Classical Hebrew the narrative form is
imperfective. However, other Semitic languages give some support. In
Phoenician the narrative form is infinitive absolute, that neither
has an intrinsic past tense nor an aspectual value, and in Ugaritic
the narative form is the prefix-form just as in Hebrew, and I will
argue that this form is imperfective. In Aramaic and Ethiopic both
prefix-forms and suffix-forms are narrative forms.
I have written at length regarding Hebrew with examples from that
language. But I believe that this is just as relevant for b-greekers
as examples from Old Indo-European languages. The sketch above
presents a completely new way for the study of tense and aspects
aspects, with parameters that are fully applicable for any aspect
language, including Greek. If any one should be interested in going
deeper into the matter, please write to me off-list, and I will send
you a pdf copy of the methodology chapter of my dissertation where we
also find many examples regarding how the parameters can be applied.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list