Imperfective Imperfects in Acts 8:17

From: CWestf5155 (CWestf5155@aol.com)
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998 - 14:34:48 EST


From: CWestf5155 <CWestf5155@aol.com>
Return-path: <CWestf5155@aol.com>
To: c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Imperfective Imperfects in Acts 8:17
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:33:43 EST
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Dear Clayton,

In a message dated 98-01-20 14:05:02 EST, you write:

> Cindy wrote:
>
> > Porter's theory of aspect (theoretically speaking) does not assert that
> the
> > occurence of every tense of every verb is based on the subjective choice
> of
> > the author. His theory is grounded in a general system of linguistics
> that
> > clarifies this.
> >
>
> Stanley Porter (Idioms 2nd ed page 29 section 2.1)
> "The present and imperfect tense-forms occur in contexts where the user of
> Greek wishes to depict the action as in progress, regardless of whether
this
> is an objective characterization."
>
> This is what I mean by the absolutization of subjectivity.
>
> I will grant that the complex older theories of Aktionsart with all their
> myriad of subcategorizes had serious problems, but I think Porter has
thrown
> out the baby with the bath. If on the one hand it is impossible to match
> every
> use of the imperfect with an objective situation which was "in process",
> this
> does not by itself prove that there is no connection between the "choice"
of
> the author and the objective situation.
>
> The numerous cases where the author's choice of imperfective/perfective
> forms
> do correspond nicely with the objective situation are an embarrassment to
> Porter's generalization as stated above. This is what I mean by Aspect
> theory
> not standing up to the evidence. One only needs to open up the GNT at
random
> and turn it upside down and counter examples simply fall off the page.
There
> are no doubt other problems with Aspect theory but the absolutization of
> subjectivity is a good place to start because is rather central to the
whole
> system, is it not?
>

As far as my understanding goes, aspect was never intended to be divorced from
the context. I sure that the proponents of aspect that I'm acquainted with
would be very uncomfortable with advocating "the absolutization of
subjectivity".

However, the focus on context has largely been on the idea of how much
"weight" (how marked) the action is given in the context. The role of
prominence and foregrounding seems to be missing from our discussions, and I
always saw it as central as to why an author would make these kind of choices.

Cindy Westfall
PhD student, Roehampton



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT