RE: Verbal Aspect Thesis 2

From: S. M. Baugh (smbaugh@adnc.com)
Date: Wed Apr 02 1997 - 13:58:45 EST


Hi Rolf,

You asked some important questions on Monday (deleted to save space!). I
will answer some of them briefly if only to contain this posting to a
reasonable size.

When you say regarding participles "their aspect also plays an important
role, perhaps a primary role" shows your valid concerns to analyze the
underlying logic of aspect in the Greek verb system as a whole. My
concerns are more exegetical (closer to "pragmatics" in linguitics?).
I'm trying to uncover the guidelines directing the choice of tense forms
in Greek and a writer's intention in selecting one form over another. If
a writer chose a form because it was the default in that situation (=
"unmarked"), then it seems that the function of aspect was not as
prominent or important in his mind as when he chose a form *contrary* to
the default form (=the "marked" form). This is similar to a point Moises
Silva made not long ago:

"Neither Fanning nor Porter takes sufficient account of the fact that,
quite frequently, aspectual choices may be greatly restricted by a
variety of factors, such as the grammatical system itself." Silva, "A
Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect" in Porter & Carson,
BIBLICAL GREEK LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS (JSNTSS, 80; Sheffield, 1993):
79.

What are these "variety of factors" in the Greek system? What I meant by
Thesis 2 is that the factors change from mood to mood and even within
the moods. For instance, the present tense form of the complementary
infinitive is default after MELLOW (P[resent]=84; A[orist]=7) or ARCOMAI
(P=87; A=0), but after DUNAMAI (P=57; A=154) or ZHTEW (P=3; A=32) the
default is aorist.

One can see similar principles of construction influence in the
subjunctive. After OU MH, the aorist was demanded (P=0; A=85). Hence, it
is hard to see how aspect enters into the decision to choose a
subjunctive form after OU MH. There may have been an original logic
(i.e., the aoristic "simple" or "constative" idea was being negated),
however to a Greek writer, the aorist was the "proper" form and that was
that. However, after hOTAN, there was a choice of subjunctive form
which, interestingly, involved relative time (or perhaps better: the
imperfective / perfective aspects):

        Example: hOTAN TIKTHi "while she is giving birth" (John 16:21);
        hOTAN TEKHi "after she gave birth" (Rev. 12:4).

There are no such *constructions* governing the imperative proper (not
including imperatival subjunctives) or participles. Of course, there are
*situations* where one form of the imperative or participle was dominant
(such as the preference for aorist imperatives in prayers [seen in the
LXX psalms as well as NT] or present substantival participles which
substitute for an indefinite clause or protasis of a conditional (e.g.,
PAS hO POIWN = EAN TIS POIHi or hOS [E]AN POIHi). There is probably an
underlying aspectual logic (prayers are for specific things; PAS hO
POIWN is a chacteristic event, etc.), but the guidelines are different
from moods with construction demands.

Secondly, tense form choice with participles (and the indicative) does
not seem to be suseptible to the influence of the inherent atelic/telic
nature of lexemes which *does* play a prominent role in infinitives,
subjunctives, and, sometimes, imperativals (includes hortatory and
prohibitory subjunctives). Fanning's data (much of it derived from
Boyer) shows the basic preferences for present forms with atelic verb
meanings and aorist forms by telic verb meanings (keeping in mind that a
particular lexeme may cross the atelic/telic line with its various
meanings). Here are some statistics (some from Boyer/Fanning) ("x" means
"occurrences"):

INFINITIVES:
Atelic (e.g., AGAPAW, ECW): P=51x; A=22x
        AGAPAN (NT 8x; LXX 19x) / AGAPHSAI (NT 0x; LXX 6x)
        DOULEUEIN (NT 8x; LXX 19x) / DOULEUSAI (NT 0x; LXX 1x)
Telic: (e.g., AFIHMI, BALLW): P=11x; A=47x
        APOQNHSKEIN (NT 5x; LXX 8X) / APOQANEIN (NT 16x; LXX 46x)
        DIDONAI/DIDOSQAI (NT 6x; LXX 13x) / DOUNAI (NT 38x; LXX 149x)

SUBJUNCTIVES in NT:
        Atelic: P=68x; A=25x
        Telic: P=1x; A=82x

IMPERATIVES in NT:
        Atelic: P=118x; A=17x
        Telic: P=7x; A=78x

(In the infinitive and subjunctive data above, there is often
"interference" caused by demands of particular constructions; e.g., all
the NT present infinitives of APOQNHiSKW follow MELLW which prefers
present to aorist 84:7 in NT.)

The following samples are important, because they are infinitive pairs
occurring in the same construction in the same statement. The atelic
lexemes were expressed as present tense forms, the telics as aorist:
KREISSON GAR HMAS DOULEIEIN TOIS AIGUPTIOIS H APOQANEIN EN THi ERHMWi
TOUTHi, "For which is better? *To be slaves* to the Egyptians or *to
die* in this desert?" (Exod. 14:12). See also: ZHN and APOQANEIN in
Phil. 1:21; APOQANEIN H ZHN, Jonah 4:3, 8; Tobit 3:6; APOQANEIN H
EPIDEIN, 1 Macc. 5:59; APOQANEIN H ECEIN, Sir. 16:3; APOQANEIN H
EPEITEIN Sir. 40:28; DOQHNAI . . . ARCEIN Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1.8-9.

Further example: The infinitive in 1 John 3:9, OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN is
customary (iterative) or continuative nuance: "[the one born of God]
cannot live in sin" (cf. hO POIWN THN hAMARTIAN of vv. 4, 8; hAMARTANEI;
hO hAMARTANWN v. 6; hAMARTIAN OU POIEI v. 9a = "practice sin" "live in
sin"). hAMARTANW in John is telic, referring to discrete acts of
lawbreaking (cf. 1 John 3:4, "sin is lawlessness"); cf. the aorist
subjunctives in 1 John 2:1, "if someone does commit a sinful act". Hence
the *aorist* is default for this verb (DUNAMAI prefers aorist
complements in NT 154:57). Dodd followed by Marshall and Smalley in
their commentaries claim that the present infinitive hAMARTANEIN does
not have a customary or continuative notion in 1 John 3:9 because the
present participle hAMARTANONTA in 1 John 5:16 does not have such a
notion. This is an illegitimate comparison. The present infinitive in
3:9 was chosen specifically contrary to the default expectation. An
aorist is expected and would make sense as a simple referent: "he cannot
commit sin" (i.e., perfection). In contrast, the present (adverbial)
participle in 5:16 was required to communicate that the person who sees
the "sinning" is an *eyewitness* of that event. The aorist or perfect
participle is not really possible in that situation: "If someone sees
his brother after he has commited a sin. . . " (i.e., but did not
necessarily see the event).

A final example from Epictetus: When Florus inquired of Agrippinus
whether he should enter a festival put on by Nero, Agrippinus replied:
KATABHQI, "go ahead and enter" (aorist); but Agrippinus would not
participate (whether as an actor or sponsor of a play is not certain).
After some discussion, Florus decides that his alternative is to enter
the festival or be beheaded. Agrippinus answers: APELQE TOINUN KAI
TRAGWiDEI, EGW Dâ OU TRAGWiDHSW, "Go on then and play a part, but I'm
not going to play any part" (Epictetus, Discourses 1.2.16-17). The first
imperative APELQE is telic and aorist, the second TRAGWiDEI ("to act";
"to produce plays") is atelic and present. (APELQE is interesting
because imperatives with verbs of motion curiously tend to be expressed
in their present forms.)

Rolf wrote:
>And how shall we view the imperatives? Do you see the contrast `do` (aorist)
>and `continue to do` (imperfective)?
In the case of Epictetus example, the present form was default with this
atelic verb (hence there is no continuative nuance) while the aorist was
the unmarked form with the telic verb. There are cases where aspect
plays a key role in imperatives (i.e., present = "stop doing" "continue
to do" "try to do," etc., but the question of "tense form choice
factors" must be examined first before making that judgment.

Well, I'm sorry that this is what we call a "hodge podge" of material,
but I thought you might find something useful in it that may actually
address your questions! It is possible that my Thesis Two is misstated.
I think you see that my real concern is to say that the conventions
directing tense form choice varies between the moods.

Xariti,

SmB

S. M. Baugh
New Testament
Westminster Theological Seminary
1725 Bear Valley Parkway
Escondido, CA 92027



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:11 EDT