[B-Greek] Constantine Campbell / Basics of Verbal Aspect

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Apr 2 05:29:28 EDT 2009


On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Stephen Baldwin wrote:

> Hello Carl:
>
> Thanks for your comments.
> Who are the main "published" detractors of aspect? (i.e. where can I  
> read their criticisms? [apart from b-greek!!]).
>
> And what are the alternatives to aspect? And are they any better? In  
> my [limited] experience, aspect is always presented in comparison  
> with aktionsart. Is e.g. the "once and for all" aorist a product of  
> aktionsart? Campbell mentions it, quotes Carson "Fallacies" who is  
> also skeptical and also skeptical of the temporal properties of  
> indicative verbs...
>
> What do you think of Campbell's placement of aspect wrt aktionsart?  
> [aspect being semantic, aktionsart being pragmatic?]. It was such  
> utterances from various pulpits about "the greek aorist tense shows  
> that a,b,c" that was one of the reasons that got me into this in the  
> first place!
>
> As for consensus, is there a consensus on anything in this area? He  
> does mention some consensus on non-indicatives being aspectual and  
> non-temporal at the semantic level [p68]. But I thought that the  
> controversy surrounding the subject was admitted -- esp. chapter 2  
> "History..."?
>
> I must confess, in reading the book, it was of course presented as a  
> theory that held water. After all, one would not put pen to paper in  
> the form "this is a flaky theory and I'm not very sure about it but  
> I'm going to try and convince you [and me] anyway". I never got the  
> impression that the book was trying to be the final word but rather,  
> a framework.
>
> In reading it, I did wonder whether there are any GNT passages that  
> detract from aspect as thus presented by CC. None have been metioned  
> so far in my reading.
>
> In closing, I can't help but notice a pattern in eminent greek  
> scholarship is to have initials CC with Con somewhere. ;-).

You've had solid responses from Mike Aubrey and Randall Buth. The only  
thing I would say is that you seem to have misunderstood my criticism  
of Campbell's book if you thought I was speaking as a "detractor of  
aspect." On the contrary, I think it is vitally important that users/ 
readers of ancient Greek be aware of the distinction between  
Perfective and Imperfective and I think that the notion of Aktionsart  
is important and very useful -- useful, in fact, beyond discussions of  
aspect and applicable also to discussions of voice. My complaint  
against the Campbell book is that it sets forth a "doctrine" of aspect  
for promulgation to students AS IF there were a consensus view on at  
least the major questions with regard to aspect.. That's just simply  
not the case.

I might add that the fact that my initials include two "c"s and the  
syllable "con", while it is a fact, would never in the world occur to  
me as having any significance.

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






More information about the B-Greek mailing list