The Aspect of Historical Present 'Against the Grain'
Posted: May 13th, 2011, 4:20 am
Consider Albert Rijksbaron, "Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek", 3rd ed, 2002, p. 24
"The historic present is only found with terminative (telic), not with stative (atelic) verbs."
This is a telling observation. (No comments on punning, Mark!)
It hints as to why and how the 'historic present' is able to function
pragmatically against its grammatical aspect.
Yes, the present indicative can commonly be used
PRAGMATICALLY against its SEMANTIC aspect.
The present indicative is aspectually 'imperfective'. However, when
used in past contexts it gets part of its rhetorical force by being
used against its semantic meaning.
Cf. Mark 8:22-23
ἔρχονται 'are coming' >> as if 'still on the way', but contextually this is complete 'came'.
φέρουσιν 'are carrying' >> as if 'still bringing', but contextually complete 'brought'.
παρακαλοῦσιν 'are begging' >> as if 'in the process of begging', but contextually complete 'begged'.
(Then with a new, central subject)
ἐπιλαβόμενος ... ἐξήνεγκεν 'he (having taken) ... brought out' >> this is definitely after all of the events in the above sequence, and these events 'taken ... brought out' are contextually complete and are presented as contextually complete.
ἐξήνεγκεν becomes the first main-line, foregrounded, act of the story, followed by a backgrounded conversation introduced by
imperfects (also against their aspectual 'grain'--for demotion, in order to lead up to the main events)
and leading on to main line, foregrounded, aorist pasts for the healing and other main points of the story (including an imperfect, correctly describing the situation 'open-endedly').
Now what is important about Rijksbaron's comments is that it explains how the historic present is able to function.
Stative verbs do not have any obvious 'endpoint' or telic completion. Consequently, they are not candidates for use as historic presents, since they cannot show themselves as 'against the grain'. Their grammatical irony would not be visible.
Telic verbs and telic verbal constructions, on the other hand, have a natural completion and they can be evaluated in a context. 'Coming' can have a natural, telic interpretation as arrival to a particular place. By mentioning the place of arrival and contextually showing that the arrival 'happened', an author can extract extra rhetorical effect by putting the verb in an aspect that implies that the arrival had not yet happened.
It is a kind of grammatical irony.
To repeat, it is a "telic" verb, a verb with an 'endpoint', that can be seen as to whether or not the endpoint was achieved. Because of that, a telic verb can be used with ironic aspect.
They can be presented as if they had not yet achieved their endpoint even though it is obvious in the context that they did.
Greeks loved it.
People following 'aspect-only-theory' don't get it. This lack of understanding of a basic Greek grammatical irony is a relatively new digression in NT interpretation, fortunately limited to the last two decades and to a minority of practioners. This lack of appreciation of the historical present will eventually clear itself up and disappear. And all the practioners reading the GNT will once again appreciate the grammatical irony and rhetoric.
ἔρρωσθε
Ἰωάνης
Randall Buth, PhD
http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
"The historic present is only found with terminative (telic), not with stative (atelic) verbs."
This is a telling observation. (No comments on punning, Mark!)
It hints as to why and how the 'historic present' is able to function
pragmatically against its grammatical aspect.
Yes, the present indicative can commonly be used
PRAGMATICALLY against its SEMANTIC aspect.
The present indicative is aspectually 'imperfective'. However, when
used in past contexts it gets part of its rhetorical force by being
used against its semantic meaning.
Cf. Mark 8:22-23
ἔρχονται 'are coming' >> as if 'still on the way', but contextually this is complete 'came'.
φέρουσιν 'are carrying' >> as if 'still bringing', but contextually complete 'brought'.
παρακαλοῦσιν 'are begging' >> as if 'in the process of begging', but contextually complete 'begged'.
(Then with a new, central subject)
ἐπιλαβόμενος ... ἐξήνεγκεν 'he (having taken) ... brought out' >> this is definitely after all of the events in the above sequence, and these events 'taken ... brought out' are contextually complete and are presented as contextually complete.
ἐξήνεγκεν becomes the first main-line, foregrounded, act of the story, followed by a backgrounded conversation introduced by
imperfects (also against their aspectual 'grain'--for demotion, in order to lead up to the main events)
and leading on to main line, foregrounded, aorist pasts for the healing and other main points of the story (including an imperfect, correctly describing the situation 'open-endedly').
Now what is important about Rijksbaron's comments is that it explains how the historic present is able to function.
Stative verbs do not have any obvious 'endpoint' or telic completion. Consequently, they are not candidates for use as historic presents, since they cannot show themselves as 'against the grain'. Their grammatical irony would not be visible.
Telic verbs and telic verbal constructions, on the other hand, have a natural completion and they can be evaluated in a context. 'Coming' can have a natural, telic interpretation as arrival to a particular place. By mentioning the place of arrival and contextually showing that the arrival 'happened', an author can extract extra rhetorical effect by putting the verb in an aspect that implies that the arrival had not yet happened.
It is a kind of grammatical irony.
To repeat, it is a "telic" verb, a verb with an 'endpoint', that can be seen as to whether or not the endpoint was achieved. Because of that, a telic verb can be used with ironic aspect.
They can be presented as if they had not yet achieved their endpoint even though it is obvious in the context that they did.
Greeks loved it.
People following 'aspect-only-theory' don't get it. This lack of understanding of a basic Greek grammatical irony is a relatively new digression in NT interpretation, fortunately limited to the last two decades and to a minority of practioners. This lack of appreciation of the historical present will eventually clear itself up and disappear. And all the practioners reading the GNT will once again appreciate the grammatical irony and rhetoric.
ἔρρωσθε
Ἰωάνης
Randall Buth, PhD
http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life