[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #924
b-greek-digest Monday, 23 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 924
In this issue:
(no subject)
Re: Porter on the present
Unsubscribe
Re: Porter on the present
Re: Porter on the present
Re: Greek TMA, II
Re: Porter on the present
Re: Porter on the present
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrzej Wodka <A.Wodka@agora.stm.it>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 95 12:18:25 -0700
Subject: (no subject)
Subscribe B-GREEK Andrzej Wodka
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date:
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
>David L. Moore said,
> It is, then, the practical usefulness of this new paradigm in the
>task of exegesis that should concern us. When, for instance, we find that
>no absolute statements can be made about the encoding of time in certain
>grammatical forms of the verb, is it better to pronounce them unmarked for
>tense, or are we better off, in a practical sense, to note the usual tense
>content of the form and then explain those special cases which constitute
>exceptions.
Classifying them as exceptions is how such instances have been handled
traditionally. I think the primary thrust of the new paradigm (Porter's
version of it at least; less so in Fanning's) is that there are too many
exceptions to provide a useful system.
>IMHO, the latter calls on the exegete to come up with
>objective reasons for his or her interpretations, but the former leaves
>the door open for a substantial subjective factor.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statement, but I think the reverse would
be true. Is it not the "new paradigm" that requires objective evidence from
the context (in the form of deictic indicators, etc.) to justify the
proposed temporal implicature of any given instance? This system does _not_
result in a subjective, "make-any-verb-any-time-you-like" exegesis. It does
suggest that past assumptions have resulted in too hasty conclusions based
only on form with too little attention to the context. Either system can,
of course, be abused, but that does not invalidate either one.
A tense-less approach to Hebrew has not seemed to be an exegetical concern
(and it was once taught in temporal terms: preterites as past, waw
conversives, etc.--but I'm out of my territory there!), why is there more
concern for Greek? I have heard it suggested (though I don't know enough to
judge) that the reason Greek has been treated as a temporal-encoded
language for so long is that the revival of Greek studies in the
Renaissance & Reformation was percipitated by Latin scholars who assumed
more Latin structure/form/function in Greek than was legitimate. (This may
account for some treatments of the cases as well.)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@accunet.com Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: DARINA PICHOVA <darina.pichova@vscht.cz>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 15:21:34 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Unsubscribe
unsubscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: TICHY@cmtfnw.upol.cz
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 17:32:51 MET+2
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
On Fri, 20 Oct 1995 Bruce Terry wrote:
> To better understand my response, I offer to the list for your consideration
> and discussion the following chart on Greek tense. Please note that Mari and
> I are using different vocabulary to a certain extent--hers is more in the
> tradition of modern linguistics, mine more in the tradition of traditional
> Greek linguistics (although I have incorporated the language of marked/
> unmarked from the work of the Prague school).
>
> TENSE in Greek for the Indicative Mode:
I am not reproducing the table.
B. COMRIE, Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect
and Related Problems. Cambridge (England): University Press, 1976, p.
131, sees the relations between tense and aspect in Ancient Greek as
follows:
"Aorist [+PERFECTIVE, +PAST, -FUTURE]
Imperfect [-PERFECTIVE, +PAST, -FUTURE]
Present [-PERFECTIVE, -PAST, -FUTURE]
Future [ -PAST, +FUTURE]"
This table seems to me to be more practical. It can be important to
use the categories of markedness and unmarkedness, but it seems to me
there are differences in understanding of "marked" and "unmarked"
between e.g. the Prague school and Chomsky. For exegesis and
translantion, it is, in my opinion, more important to know that the
Greek Aorist is perfective. This doesn't mean, of course, that the
action described must be punctual. It could be iterative or prolonged,
too, but it is viewed as a whole. The Ancient Greek Future, according
to Comrie, "is apectually neutral" (ibid.).
Ladislav Tichy,
Faculty of Theology,
Palacky University of
Olomouc,
Czech Republic
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 15:57:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
On Sat, 21 Oct 1995, David Moore wrote:
> It is, then, the practical usefulness of this new paradigm in the
> task of exegesis that should concern us. When, for instance, we find that
> no absolute statements can be made about the encoding of time in certain
> grammatical forms of the verb, is it better to pronounce them unmarked for
> tense, or are we better off, in a practical sense, to note the usual tense
> content of the form and then explain those special cases which constitute
> exceptions.
But what is the "usual tense content" of a form? That is what is in
question. If in fact relative time is not encoded in the tense forms at
all, then thinking that it is will result in faulty exegesis. It is better
to pronounce forms unmarked for tense if there is reason to believe that
they are in fact so unmarked (part of scholarship is just trying to
increase knowledge of how things really are). It is also practical in that
(if they are really unmarked for tense) this pronouncement will keep us
from reading a particular form as having a particular tense when it does
not.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 16:35:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Greek TMA, II
On Sat, 21 Oct 1995, Vincent DeCaen wrote:
> > Then you DO think that C can change constantly from one sentence to the
> > next? This seems to take away the helpfulness of identifying a C at all.
>
> not really. does it take away from personal deixis that the first
> person jumps back and forth in dialogue? these categories are well
> established, who would deny them?
This seems quite different to me. First person jumping back and forth is
part of how we know it is a dialogue. It jumps back and forth because
there is more than one person. But what does it mean for C to keep
shifting? Can the time of utterance change within an utterance? Personal
dexis can shift when there is more than one person. Under what conditions
is there more than one point of reference for time?
BTW, thanks for your reply, Vincent, and especially the explanation of
your rejection of future as a tense. That does make sense.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 22 Oct 1995 22:10:47 U
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
I just wanted to thank everyone (Philip Graber, Vincent DeCaen, Bruce Terry,
Mari Olsen, Kenneth Litwak, Rod Decker, David Moore, Ladislav Tichy, my
apologies if I left anyone off!) for contributing to this topic. I've been
reading Porter and have been of two minds whether to trust his system,
especially since he only quotes himself for support of his view point (but a
recent development interprets . . . ., footnote Porter, Verbal Aspect).
What I still don't understand is whether to abandon the system I learned
(afterall, I have to teach the aorist next week) or whether to let all this
stuff come in by osmosis and work with an amalgam of linguistic systems. How
are you all who are teaching Greek approaching this problem? Any thoughts or
suggestions for a lowly, mostly-self educated, but diligent NT Greek scholar?
Thanks again. It's topics like this that make the 30 minutes a day it takes
to read my mail worth it.
Karen Pitts
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of NT Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
kpitts@sarnoff.com
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 22:36:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
rdecker@accunet.com (Rod Decker) wrote:
> Is it not the "new paradigm" that requires objective evidence from
>the context (in the form of deictic indicators, etc.) to justify the
>proposed temporal implicature of any given instance?
That depends on how wide a meaning you ascribe to "deictic
indicators, etc."
>This system does _not_
>result in a subjective, "make-any-verb-any-time-you-like" exegesis. It does
>suggest that past assumptions have resulted in too hasty conclusions based
>only on form with too little attention to the context. Either system can,
>of course, be abused, but that does not invalidate either one.
>A tense-less approach to Hebrew has not seemed to be an exegetical concern
>(and it was once taught in temporal terms: preterites as past, waw
>conversives, etc.--but I'm out of my territory there!), why is there more
>concern for Greek?
It is my impression that Hebrew is a great deal freer than Greek
in terms of temporal considerations. I wouldn't question that Hebrew
calls for the kind of approach being put forth in the new paradigm. I do
question whether it is completely appropriate for Greek.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #924
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu