I (Cindy Westfall) previously wrote:
> >One of the main criticisms of Fanning is that he doesn't distinguish
between
> >semantics and pragamatics. That is, he doesn't distinguish between what
> the
> >essential meaning of the aorist (semantics) and how the aorist can
function
> >in the with lexus, context and temporal indicators (pragmatics).
>
You replied:
> My reading of his work must obviously differ a little from yours, since I
> thought he actually did a good job this. My recollection of his text,
> which I read through a couple of times while working on my thesis, was
that
> he deals with semantics in the first section of the book, before turning
to
> deal with pragmatics in the latter half of the text. Perhaps I'm
> misunderstanding you, but that was my impression of the layout of his
book.
> For what it's worth, I felt that Porter did a very poor job in making the
> distinction you mention, and the generally "untidy" layout of his text
left
> much to be desired. (That's a personal opinion, which doesn't have to
> become fodder for a spate of Porter vs. Fanning messages!)
>
Fanning's blending of semantics and pragmatics is not a question of his
book's format--and I do agree with your implied statement about the layout.
Fanning's structure of his book is well laid out, well-written and
user-friendly. It seems obvious that he his target audience includes
intermediate Greek students and can be easily comprehended without reference
to other sources. However, within his format (within the first part of the
text) there was a blending of semantics and pragmatics. One example that
illustrates a general approach is a lack of distinction between base meaning
and function: on p. 75 on the topic of prominence, he contrasts the regard of
prominence as a "subsidiary function" with the regard of prominence as "the
primary meaning of the aspects". Function and base (primary) meaning are not
the same thing, and this lack of distinction looks symptomatic.
Let me 'briefly' make a point. The problem with the term "inceptive aorist"
is not that the aorist is not used for inception. It is that the imperfect,
the perfect, and the aorist are all used for inception, which mitigates the
effectiveness of its use as a category. Furthermore, according to Fanning,
the aorist + stative tends to be inceptive and the perfect + stative tends to
be inceptive. Fanning's applications go a long way to explain characteristic
usage. Choices of tense are restricted by characteristic usage and by
something some linguists call "register" (which is, for instance,
characteristic patterns in buying and selling). However, there are instances
in which the choice is not externally limited between, say, the aorist and
the perfect. This is the starting point for a theory of verbal aspect--what
would account for the writer's choice of one tense over the other?
This is why the critics like Fanning's applications best, but they like
Porter's system, because he he is addressing that question against a backdrop
of an established linguistic system. I agree that "Verbal Aspect in the
Greek..." is very difficult to read, but I would suggest that he had a
different target audience than Fanning. A thorough understanding of the
evidence he presents necessitates a rather extensive understanding of
semiotic linguistics (M. A. K. Halliday)--and the books that explain the
linguistic system also tend to be organized in a rather wierd way--I'd have
to call the material that I have read 'non-linear'. However, in "Idioms"
Porter describes his observations in a clear and straightforward way. I
would, at this point, admit that there appear to be problems with some of
Porter's applications. However, the problems that I've seen raised can be
resolved and elucidated without compromising the general linguistic system.
I have two suggestions. One is that we might refrain from saying that
Fanning's or Porter's theories are 'well-established'. The jury hasn't
returned a verdict--I'm not sure that it has even convened. Who is the jury
anyway? That illusive butterfly of scholarly consensus justifiably takes
time to obtain. As individuals, we simply might find one theory more
convincing than another (or neither theory acceptable).
Second, that we concentrate on the areas in which Fanning and Porter agree,
and allow that this agreement is quite significant. I also expect that there
can be a significant amount of harmonization within certain other areas of
disagreement.
> >Carson,
> >Silva and Schmidt evaluated both Fanning and Porter in "Biblical Greek
> >Language and Linguistics".
>
> Yes, I have read these reviews as well, and I must say that they seemed a
> little skittish about the whole thing... in a sense, particularly Schmidt
> (if I recall correctly), seemed to basically be saying that we don't know
> enough at this point, so we'd do best to avoid talking about aspect at all
> at this point. Perhaps that's an over-simplistic analysis, but that's the
> distinct impression I gained.
For what it's worth, I think that I had the same impression of Schmidt. I
much preferred Carson's and Silva's comments, though Silva didnt seem to be
well-acquainted with Halliday's semiotic linguistics, the sytem that Porter
used,
>
> >Fanning's observations about the ingressive
> >aorist belongs under the category of pragmatics.
>
> Absolutely... but his discussion of all this does occur in the section of
> the book where he is noting the various patterns that interactions of
> certain types of verbs have with the aspectual categories he has proposed.
> His discussion of the semantics of the aspectual categories themselves
> occurs prior to this in the first part of the book.
>
> >In the rudimentary
> >examinations I have made, applying the principle can cause the system to
> >drive the interpretation. A very good example of that is Matthew 23:2.
>
> However, I think it would be fair to say that Fanning is not being
> prescriptive in his noting these patterns, but simply describing what
> actually seems to regularly occur. I say this simply because in my own
> personal discussions with him, he is *extremely* tentative about saying
> anything absolutely! He is very cautious about not only the work of
> others, but also most particularly about his own findings.
> Anyway, that's the way I see it, but I'm quite open to the opinions of
> others on this. I'm sure that Rolf or Don would be far more able to speak
> up on this.
Cindy Westfall
PhD Student, Roehampton