From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998 - 06:02:53 EST
Cindy wrote:
> 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.
>
Stanley Porter (Idioms 2nd ed page 29 section 2.1)
"The present and imperfect tense-forms occur in contexts where the user of
Greek wishes to depict the action as in progress, regardless of whether this
is an objective characterization."
This is what I mean by the absolutization of subjectivity.
I will grant that the complex older theories of Aktionsart with all their
myriad of subcategorizes had serious problems, but I think Porter has thrown
out the baby with the bath. If on the one hand it is impossible to match every
use of the imperfect with an objective situation which was "in process", this
does not by itself prove that there is no connection between the "choice" of
the author and the objective situation.
The numerous cases where the author's choice of imperfective/perfective forms
do correspond nicely with the objective situation are an embarrassment to
Porter's generalization as stated above. This is what I mean by Aspect theory
not standing up to the evidence. One only needs to open up the GNT at random
and turn it upside down and counter examples simply fall off the page. There
are no doubt other problems with Aspect theory but the absolutization of
subjectivity is a good place to start because is rather central to the whole
system, is it 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