[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Aktionsart vs. Aspect

Dear geeks,

I still have problems with inceptive imperfects with invisible 
beginnings. So I tried a new approach, and I will appreciate your 
comments. The problem is whether examples can be found of Greek 
imperfects whith the beginning of their action not included. In the 
quest, it is important to keep in mind that  (1) we cannot a priori 
exclude the possibility that Greek imperfects function as English past 
continuous or French imparfait, without the beginning included, and 
(2) whether we feel "began" is necessary or not necessary in our 
translation of them into English is not decisive for how the Greeks 
viewed them.

To find data which could throw light on the question I sought 
constructions where the aorist occurred in a  when-clause and where 
the lexical meaning of the following imperfect could help us decide 
whether the beginning was visible or not. I found the following 
examples:
Acts 11:2 "When Peter came up to (ANABAINW, aor.) Jerusalem, those who 
were circimsized began to debate/were debating (DIAKRINW, imperf.) 
with him."
Acts 21:12 "When we heard this (AKOUW, aor.) both we and the local 
residents began begging/were begging (PARAKALEW, imperf.) him not to 
go up to Jerusalem."
Gal 2:12 "but when they arrived (ERXOMAI,aor.) he began to 
withdraw/were withdrawing (hUPOSTELLW, imperf.) and 
separate/separating (AFORIZW, imperf.) himself."
Ex 33:9 "And it came about, that when Moses went into/ (EISERXOMAI, 
aor.) the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend/ began to descend 
(KATABAINW, imperf.) and would stand (hISTHMI, imperf.) at the 
entrance of the tent."
1 Macc 9:32 "When (KAI) Baccides heard the news (GIGNOSKW, aor.), 
(KAI) he began to seek /was seeking (ZHTEW, imperf) to kill Jonathan.

None of the examples are decisive, but to claim that the beginning of 
any of the imperfects is invisible or that the previous aorist 
constitutes the beginning of the action expressed by the imperfect 
seems very strange to me. In Ex 33:9 we even have a downward movement  
both with a beginning and an "end" (how are we to explain the second 
imperfect? Hebrew has perfect!).

The standard definition of the imperfective aspect will not allow the 
beginnings to be included. But how would you argue regarding the 
mentioned passages to defend this definition? 

Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages
University of Oslo