[B-Greek] An Accessible Brief Introduction to Greek Verbal Aspect
Steve Runge
srunge at logos.com
Fri May 13 13:00:47 EDT 2011
Dear Randall et al.,
I realize I am a bit late coming into this discussion, but I have two papers that deal with some of these issues. They are not primers, but provide a sketch of the aspectual system for the indicative, and how it interacts with time.
The first paper reconsiders Porter's claims about the historical present (HP) as evidence for a timeless verbal system. I essentially argue Randall's point about the HP being a mismatch of both time and aspect within the context of narrative proper. I illustrate my point by using Decker's temporal statistics from Mark. I demonstrate that one finds more than 90% consistency in temporal reference for each of the tense-forms once one makes a proper distinction between semantic meaning and pragmatic effect. I agree with Randall that Porter and those using his system fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent this important distinction. This would be a good paper to begin with if you have a good understanding of traditional grammatical explanations of the verb, and some awareness of Porter's theory. Here's the link: http://www.ntdiscourse.org/docs/ReconsideringHP.pdf
The other paper is a critique of Porter's claims about backgrounding, foregrounding and frontgrounding function of the tense-forms. It compares his claims with those of the linguistic literature on which it is based. This paper essentially traces the root of the problem he has with semantics vs. pragmatics. There is a longer version I am preparing for publication. I regret that this paper only highlights the problems rather than offering the positive alternative, but there's only so much that can be done in one article. Having said that, you may be able to fill in the gaps and make your own sketch between these two.
My beef in this paper is not whether the verb system is aspectual or not. It clearly is. My problem is with Porter's claims about the prominence values of the tense forms, something which neither Campbell nor Decker has affirmed to my knowledge. While they agree with Porter that Greek verbs do not encode temporal semantics, they appear to quietly disagree about his prominence claims regarding background, foreground and frontground. This is very important to keep in mind. Here's the link to this one:
http://www.ntdiscourse.org/docs/Verbal%20Aspect%20and%20Discourse%20Prominence-presentation.pdf
The first paper will be published this summer, the second should be submitted by summer.
Hope this helps the discussion. What one sees within NT studies is remarkably unlike the discussions of aspect and prominence one finds in linguistics. If you read the papers, you'll have a better understanding of why.
Regards,
Steven E. Runge, DLitt
Scholar-in-Residence
Logos Bible Software
srunge at logos.com
www.logos.com
www.ntdiscourse.org
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Randall Buth
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 7:24 AM
To: Carl Conrad
Cc: Louis Sorenson; B-Greek List mail to all
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] An Accessible Brief Introduction to Greek Verbal Aspect
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:
> I personally think Campbell's treatment of the Perfect tense is inadequate, and
> many, I think, would question his acceptance of the "aspect-only" notion of
> the Aorist (Porter's view)
the original post in this thread pointed out that the 'present' is also not
'aspect-only'. It can have its semantic aspect contradicted.
One of the selling points of 'aspect-only' was the existence of the "historical
present" in past contexts. they claimed that one did not need the term,
therefore their view was simpler and 'scientifically' preferable. that
claim was
false, of course, as shown above where the "historical present" can have
its aspect falsified, too, being used in perfective contexts.
A few in NT studies have bought used cars from the 'aspect-only'
car lot. My claim is that the cars are not roadworthy. If the purchasers would
take their car out for a ride, they would discover that themselves.
Use the language. You will find that you will need to restrict it in ways
that are not predicted by 'aspect-only'. You shouldn't say * αὔριον ἦλθεν.
Randall Buth
--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
---
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
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list