From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998 - 05:15:47 EST
Cindy wrote:
>
> I'd like to address your original question, but I have read the subsequent
> discussion between you and Rolf.
>
> I will try to clarify the theory of aspect that is based on linguistics.
>
> Porter's theory of aspect (theoretically speaking) does not assert that the
> occurence of every tense of every verb is based on the subjective choice of
> the author. His theory is grounded in a general system of linguistics that
> clarifies this.
>
> The theory is grounded in a theory of linguistics called "Systemic
> Linguistics" among other things. The principle that the Aspect Theory
> explores is that language is basically a system of choices. Sometimes there
> is a large amount of choice and sometimes the choice is restricted.
>
> Here are some things other than aspect that would determine a verb's "tense":
>
> Idiomatic usage: In an idiom, a tense would have no aspect
>
> General usage/dialect: If they "just say it that way" and you can't find any
> exceptions, then there is no choice involved, and there is no aspect. If
> that's the way they say it in a given dialect, there is no aspect.
>
> Register: Vocabulary and verb forms may be restricted in certain
> contexts--like a language protocol. In a law court, in a shop, etc.,
> vocabulary and verb forms may be restricted in a language, so that there is a
> detectable pattern in which no choices are made. Aspect means nothing in
> cases like these.
>
> Aspect only applies when there is a choice involved. It also assumes that all
> things are not equal. Some tenses will be more common in some contexts and
> some authors than others (Mark's use of the present is not the same as
> Luke's). Aspect usually involves some "norm" and departures from a norm.
> Departures from the norm are "marked". The rarer they are, the more emphatic
> they are.
>
> As far as Acts 8:17 is concerned, the author could have conceivably used the
> perfect or the aorist instead of the imperfect without making a grammatical or
> cultural "mistake". Aspect theories are attempts to explain what might
> determine the choice of one tense over another (when there is a grammatical
> choice).
>
> The way I understand it, in Acts 8:17, if the aorist had been used for
> EPETIQESAN and ELAMBANON, it would have de-emphasized the actions in the
> narrative (making the same statement with no frills). The verbs in the aorist
> probably would have provided some contextual background or backdrop for the
> point he was making.
>
> Cindy Westfall
> PhD student, Roehampton
>
I have no serious problems with any of the above. What I have a problem with
is making the subjectivity of the author's choice into an absolute. The author
can choose to depict the laying on of hands as a finished simple event
(aorist) or the author can make an issue out of the process by using the
imperfect. But the notion that the author's choice is divorced from the
objective situation is mildly absurd. If Porter is not making subjectivity an
absolute then I am not arguing with Porter. But some members of this list seem
to be making this subjectivity an absolute are they not?
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT