On page 13-15 of Black's book he has a discussion of tense, aspect and
time. On page 13, second paragraph he says: *The term aspect refers
to the view of the action that the speaker chooses to present to the
hearer.* This sounds at least fairly close to Porter's definition. But on
page 14 Black has a chart that claims to show the relationship
between aspect and time of action. The aspect column on this chart is
labeled *kind of action*. I spent at least an hour tracking down his
terminology and comparing it to Porter's. What we have here is a
linguistic Tower of Babel.
***Please note: I am not saying Porter is right and Black is wrong.***
All I am saying is that both these men are reputed to be linguists and
both are writing on NT Greek grammar and both are talking about verb
aspect but their use of terminology is not only different but seems to
actually be contradictory.
A few examples will illustrate. The label on this chart *kind of action*
for the *aspect* column is a actually a definition of *aktionsart*, is it
not? But back on page 13 Black states *The term aspect refers to the
view of the action that the speaker chooses to present to the hearer.*
I see this as a internal contradiction within the grammar. Possibly
there is another explanation for this? I am open to suggestions.
Porter and Black also use different terms for the aspects. Porter's
perfective is Black's aoristic. Porter's stative is Black's perfective.
This would be confusing enough if it were not for the fact that
*aspect* itself is being defined differently.
I haven't really taken the time to prove it but what I sense here is that
these two authors are really working with rather different models of
the verb system. I suspect that any similarity in their terminology is
actually misleading because it covers a deep level dissimilarity in
their understanding of the semantics of the NT Greek verb system.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point