From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Thu Apr 10 1997 - 20:06:18 EDT
Dear friends,
Regarding the meaning of aspect I have some questions about 
the definitions of McKay who says (IX): "and I have rejected 
DURATIVE and PUNCTILIAR  as being too specific in an 
erroneous appreciation of ancient Greek aspect." He says 
further (3.2): "The imperfective aspect presents an activity 
as going on, in process, without reference to its 
completion." (3.3) The aorist (AORISTOS, UNDEFINED) is the 
aspect normally used for expressing an act or event, as 
action pure and otherwise undefined, in its totality."
I would like to test these definitions on the word BASILEUW 
which basically is a state but may also be used as an act 
when the meaning is inceptive. 
(1) The inceptive meaning `have begun ruling` or `have 
become kings` is evidently found in 1 Cor 4:8; Rev 11:17:; 
19:6.
(2) But what about Rom 5:14 `death reigned (aorist) from 
Adam to Moses` versus Matt 2:22 `when he heard that Arkelaus 
reigned (present) over Judea`?  A state is by definition 
going on (or continuing). Is the state described by the 
aorist in Rom 5:14 less continuing than the state described 
in Matt 5:14? There is a difference as to time, because the 
aorist refers to the past, while Arkelaus reigned at speech 
time. But this distinction has little significance because 
death did not stop reigning at the time of Moses but still 
reigned in the time of Arkelaus (cf 5:17,21). The aorist of 
5:14 refers to a part og the state of reigning while the 
aorists of v 17,21 are not limited.
On p 28 NcKay says: "The aorist applied to a stative verb 
expresses it as an action, either a whole action or a 
critical point of change in the activity." The last thought 
applies to (1), but I cannot see how the aorist of 5:14 may 
indicate an action. And if it were, it would still be in 
process (continuing). (We may find scores of similar 
examples with action verbs.)
The conclusion I draw from these examples is that `an 
activity going on, in process` may just as well be applied 
to an aorist as to a present, and therefore is no exact 
definition of the imperfective aspect. Does this mean that 
McKay does not know what he is speaking about? I dont think 
so. McKay has a clear mind and great learning, but in 
contrast to Fanning and Porter who state their cases 
explicitly, McKay is more cautious and perhaps conservative, 
and it is easy to overlook important details in his book.
The problem above may be solved by remembering that  aspect 
is `subjective` while Aktionsart is `objective`. McKay 
states this in a discreet way in 3.1.3. The situations 
described by the aorist and present were objectively 
continuing, but they were subjectively described by 
different aspects. To harmonize 3:2 with this view we have 
to stress `presents` in the quote, and to harmonize 3.3 we 
have to stress `used for expressing` in that quote. So 
aspect is an abstraction covering a host of different 
expressions, but being completely different from each 
expression. Have I understood McKay in the right way? 
Greetings
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages
Univrsity of Oslo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:12 EDT