Re: global aorist

Jonathan Robie (jwrobie@mindspring.com)
Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:27:56 -0400

At 07:32 AM 4/11/97 -0700, Micheal Palmer wrote:
>At 7:25 AM -0400 4/8/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>
>>"The aorist views an action from the time of its completion. In most cases,
>>the action is in the past, but it can also depict a future action, a present
>>action, or an action not fixed in time, always viewing it from the time of
>>its completion."
>>
>>I like the phrase "views an action from" as a way of explaining aspect. The
>>perfect views a completed action from the time of the speaker or writer. The
>>present views an action from the time of the action. The imperfect views a
>>past action from the time of the action.
>
>I think a better reflection of some strands of aspect theory would require
>modifying Jonathan's definition slightly to eliminate any reference to
>time. This can be accomplished by using 'complete' rather than 'completed'
>or 'time of complition'. For example,
>
>The aorist views an action as complete (as a whole). In most cases, the
>action is in the past, but it can also depict a future action, a present
>action, or an action not fixed in time, always viewing it as a whole rather
>than as in progress.
>
>Fanning uses a distinction between 'from the inside' (imperfective aspect)
>and 'from the outside' (perfective aspect). I don't have his book with me,
>but I believe I remember his persepective (maybe even from personal
>conversation rather than the book), and I *think* he would reword
>Jonathan's definition something like this:
>
>The aorist views an action from the outside. In most cases, the action is
>in the past, but it can also depict a future action, a present action, or
>an action not fixed in time, always viewing it externally rather than as if
>in the middle of the action.

Thanks, Micheal, I think I just grasped what Rolf was trying to explain to
me the other day when he was saying my definition was insufficiently
abstract (EGNWN TI QELEI TOUTO EINAI!) - it went over my head then. For now,
I'm going to leave that as a question: is there a time element to aspect?
You are correct in saying that my interpretation up to now *does* have a
time element. I don't know whether I think this is good or bad, and I doubt
that I'll have an answer to this question for a while.

Actually, I'm quite convinced that there *is* a time element to aspect -
hours and days and weeks and months trying to understand it.

Thanks for pointing this out!

Jonathan

***************************************************************************
Jonathan Robie
POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703
Ph: 919.598.5728 Fax: 919.598.6728
email: jwrobie@mindspring.com, jonathan@poet.com
http://www.poet.com <--- shockwave enabled!
***************************************************************************