[B-Greek] XWRIS TELOYS vs. META TELOYS and EXEI TELOS
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Sep 16 14:48:24 EDT 2008
On Sep 16, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
> Dear Randall,
>
> It seems that what needs to be done is that the people of various
> linguistic
> theories on aktionstart, aspect, etc., need to come to an agreement
> on the
> definitions and terminology (No, I won't hold my breath since one's
> pride, pet
> theory and reputation would clearly be at stake!).
>
> I like what you say regarding the Aorist Indicative. Now, my
> question is that
> still considered "perfective" since the action is completed? It did
> occur and
> has ended.
>
> For example, If I say, "I hit George." I am using the Aorist
> Indicative. But if
> I say, "I was hitting George." That could be also be Aorist
> Indicative or could
> be Aorist Participle with copula. If I say, "I continually hit
> George." I would
> be using Aorist Participle or Present Participle preceded by Aorist
> Indicative.
>
> Comments please.
Your examples are English, not Greek. I would not equate English "I
hit George" with an Aorist indicative (e.g. TON GEWRGION EBALON); I
think that the English "preterite" is a different from an ancient
Greek aorist.
And how could "I was hitting George" be an Aorist Indicative in Greek?
Wouldn't it have to be an imperfect in Greek? Even if you had the sort
of periphrastic that is common in Koine Greek, e.g. TON GEWRGION HN
BALLWN, that wouldn't be an aorist but a periphrastic imperfect.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com>
> To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; "Kimmo Huovila"
> <kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:20 AM
> Subject: [B-Greek] XWRIS TELOYS vs. META TELOYS and EXEI TELOS
>
>
>> Another thread discusses aktionsart vs. aspect terminology in
>> Moulton-Howard-Turner.
>> I would add a comment and then a substantive question.
>>
>> Basic comment:
>> one should always read an author according to the terminology of
>> their
>> time or of their choice.
>> That means that some early twentieth century English-writing Greek
>> grammarians used Aktionsart as a synonym for aspect, probably more
>> out of an attempt to appear 'learned'
>> (it was the age of Weltanshauung and Gemeinde in Theologie)
>> than precisely scientific, even if they claimed the opposite.
>> Enough already.
>>
>> This did cause me to re-check terminology in Goodwin. He appears to
>> skip the terminology problem entirely, or rather to aggrevate it,
>> by using
>> the old Greek inheritance of 'present' vs 'aorist'. But that is
>> irrelevant to
>> my question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Substantive question:
>>
>> Goodwin says that the aorist indicative is without limitation of
>> "completion, continuance, repetition, etc., which belong to the other
>> past tenses."
>>
>> Is it really true that the Greek aorist has no sense of COMPLETION?
>>
>> In linguistic theory, a basic opposition perfective vs.
>> imperfective does
>> carry a sense of completion. NB: viewing the "whole" event
>> necessarily includes an end point or a boundary point. It certainly
>> appears that the AORISTOS XRONOS and PARATATIKOS XRONOS
>> capture this perfective vs. imperfective distinction in the past
>> tense.
>> One may say that the end-point is included within the viewpoint.
>> So-called ingressive aorists 'he became rich' EPLOYTHSE imply
>> crossing a boundary, crossing "the endpoint of not-being rich".
>>
>> I find it more satisfactory to say that the aorist is
>> META TELOYS or EXEI TELOS (it has an endpoint)
>> and that the PARATATIKOS XRONOS (a.k.a. imperfect) is
>> XWRIS TELOYS (without an endpoint), OYK EXEI TELOS.
>>
>> That is why I appreciate Rijksbaron's Syntax and
>> Semantic of the Verb in Classical Greek.
>> He calls a spade a spade. Aorist is a 'completed state of
>> affairs', 'indivisible whole'. He notes, significantly, that
>> PAYSAI παυσαι 'stop!' cannot be used with an aorist
>> participle complement.
>> Thus, *PAYSAI LALHSAS is not Greek, you can't stop something
>> that already has an endpoint and that is 'whole'.
>> But PAYSAI LALWN 'stop speaking' is correct.
>> (Kimmo may have something to add on the domain of aspect, though
>> that is an additional refinement.)
>>
>> This is a nice rule-of-thumb proof on the aspectual side,
>> like *AYRION HLQE is a similar proof on the time side that
>> time is part of the indicative aorist.
>> (PS: omnitemporals 'the sun rises' are singularities that are
>> outside of the above dichotomies. Something like the way math
>> notation allows both 4.0 and 3.999...+, one can use either
>> aspect in some languages, including Greek.)
>>
>> And the terms XWRIS TELOYS versus EXEI TELOS allow one to
>> describe these verbs in Greek from early stages of Greek learning,
>> within a first semester when taught primarily in Greek (90% time).
>>
>> ERRWSQE
>> IWANHS
>>
>> --
>> Randall Buth, PhD
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list