From: Don Wilkins (dwilkins@ucr.campus.mci.net)
Date: Fri Dec 11 1998 - 16:58:44 EST
I almost feel that it is in order for me to apologize for bringing up aspect
again, because it has been discussed in very great detail before on the
list, but perhaps I have unknowingly introduced a new wrinkle which needs
clarification and comment. I owe Greg a fuller explanation which I will
attempt to do off-list if this post is insufficient. Briefly, though, I was
referring to the fact that in essence Hebrew has no tense--at least none
morphologically--and that one must therefore decide on tense from the
context, given Hebrew's distinction between complete and incomplete actions
in what roughly corresponds to the indicative mood. This gives grounds for
the kind of flexible translation that some of our general linguistics
colleagues would like to impose on Greek (that too has been discussed before
in considerable length, if not depth). I would also like to respond to a few
of the comments below.
At 06:17 PM 12/11/98 +0200, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>Randall Buth wrote:
>
>
>>{g. kilbrai wrote:}
>>>I am finding the whole concept of aspect quite fascinating compared to
>>English (where it doesn't really
>>>exist). What then is the relative importance of Greek aspect?
>>{end quote}
>>
>>aspect exists in english.!
>>it is just not handled morphologically on the verb but with auxillaries.
>>[it is hebrew that has partially "ignored" aspect since both tense and
>>aspect have been lumped into one dichotomy. hence the problem of hebraists
>>to "define" what is happening. cf. gn. 37.28 "they were passing by"
>>narrative prefix tense translated by imperfect (!) in LXX]
I think Randall is essentially correct here, but I would switch his
definition of "tense" with "aspect". Hebrew has the perfect and the
imperfect "tenses," but these are aspect concepts, as the Latin meanings of
"perfect" and "imperfect" themselves show. Randall might argue that these
Latin designations were arbitrarily chosen and are not recognized by Hebrew
grammar, but I think that a convincing case can be made that they do
represent the meanings of the Hebrew "tenses".
>>english:
>>"while I WAS WRITING an email my daughter BROUGHT me some coffee." . . .
>>
>>this story would develop the note about daughter and coffee if it were
>>well-wruitten. the email was "backgrounded".
>>
>>read lots of greek and relate it to other greek texts.
Amen, Amen, Amen, and Amen.
>>greek is very pedantic about aspect since every non-indicative event-word
>>must be marked for aspect (e.g. aorist versus continuative subjunctive,
>>optative, infinitive, and to some degree participle, though relative tense
>>plays a role with aorist and continuative participles) to illustrate:
>>Hebrew can say "Give us our rightful bread". Greek must say either "dos --
>>Give us [this time] our bread" OR " didou -- Be giving us [over and over]
>>our bread". Both are right and both appear in the canonical gospels. the
>>point is that Greek requires one or the other, a choice had to have been
>>made.
It's nice to see someone finally distinguishing between the indicative and
non-indicative moods when addressing aspect in Greek, even if the
distinction is casual. Compared to Hebrew, Greek is highly defined and
allows very little room for interpretation of "tense". I think what Randall
means by his illustration of the imperative mood is that Heb. does not have
the Greek distinction in non-indicative moods between simple and continuous
action. However, when he says "Hebrew can say...Greek must say...," I would
differ by arguing that Heb., like Eng., defaults to the simple (aorist)
command which can only be made continuous by contextual modifiers or
periphrastic constructions. Greek has more options, not less. BTW, it is a
misconception (I'm not addressing Randall on this point) to argue that the
aorist can mean anything because its name means "undefined"; that has also
been discussed in previous threads.
>Dear Randall,
>
>I think that some of your views expressed above may mislead the reader.
>Particularly dangerous is it to compare English and Greek as far as aspect
>is concerned. The Danish linguist, Carl Backe ("Verbal Aspect", 1985)
>compared Russian and English aspect. He said (p 5):
>
>"Since aspect is probably one of the most controversial areas not only in
>language-specific grammars but also in general linguistics, it is
>impossible to refer to any single generally accepted definition. However,
>most definitions in the literature have as their central theme
>"Gesichtspunkt, unter dem ein vorgang betrachtet wird" (Porzig 1927;152),
>"the speaker/writer's view of the action or situation described."
We really should put this old concept to bed once and for all, or else
clarify it. To say that aspect is "the viewpoint from (or under) which an
action is viewed" is technically correct (given the Latin term 'aspect' for
"look at"). However, it is the way that action is *described* as determined
by verbal grammar, regardless of how the writer personally views it. I dare
say that it also has nothing to do with the way the reader views it, since
the choice of description is the writer's alone.
>If one try to understand Greek aspect in the light of English
>"continuous/past continuous versus past tense/perfect, the student will
>almost certainly fall into the trap of defining Greek aspect with
>Aktionsart terms such as "durative" and "punctual".
Rolf's differentiation above (...vs...) makes no sense to me, and perhaps it
is inadvertantly a straw man argument. I hope the trap to which he refers is
the misconception of thinking that aspect is describing actions in their
reality and concluding that "durative" are time-consuming while "punctual"
actions are of the split-second type. That certainly is a trap that
beginning students may fall into.
My advice to those
>struggling with Greek aspect, is to try to find the the *differences*
>between the continuous tenses of English and the Greek imperfective aspect
>rather than the similarities, because the differences are more profound.
>The student should realize that there both is a quantitative and a
>qualitative difference.
When I was a student I used to agree, and it made Greek seem mysterious and
exciting, which may have contributed to my extended study of it. But what
Randall said is much closer to the truth. The excitement of learning Greek
for NT study does not so much lie in its mysterious differences from
English, but in acquiring the ability to see what it really says, as opposed
to how it may have been translated.
>Much better is it to compare Hebrew and Greek aspect, which in my view are
>of exaxtly the same nature, except that Greek imperfect codes both for
>aspect (the imperfective one) and past time, and aorist codes for aspect
>(the perfective one) and possibly past time. I challenge your claim that
>tense is grammaticalized in biblical Hebrew. B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor,
>"Biblical Hebrew Syntax", 1990, pp 459,460 says about the tense and
>waw-conversive theory: "The theory has, however, tremedous weaknesses."
>They continue and ask: "How can forms which "represent" all three English
>major tenses have a primarily temporal value?"
Obviously I think a Hebrew/Greek comparison for aspect is enlightening as
well. However, to call the aspect of the aorist "perfective" is IMO sloppy
and confusing in light of the existence of the Greek perfect and pluperfect,
even if this nomenclature is standardized in some schools. Also, Rolf's
challenge to Randall is, grammatically speaking, a cheap shot and clearly
invalid logic. The waw-conversive (or -consecutive) is an anomaly which does
not reflect on the rest of Hebrew grammar. It would be like saying, "If we
can't figure out how aspirin really works, how will we ever be able to do
brain surgery?"
>The best way to learn about Greek aspect is to study Greek texts, but I
>teach my students who both have some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, that to
>study the versatile use of Hebrew aspect may greatly help the understanding
>of Greek aspect. This is so because in Greek we have to account for two
>factors when we study verbs, both tense and aspect, but in biblical Hebrew
>we have to account for just one factor, namely aspect. It is easier to
>handle one than two factors. I suppose this is the very opposite of what
>you teach your students.
Rolf's last comment is unnecessarily provocative, but I tend to agree with
his comments in this paragraph. However, the emphasis should be on his first
statement about Greek texts, and the texts should not be limited to biblical
literature. One cannot gain an adequate understanding of Greek (nor any
other language, I suspect) by assuming that what is true of this or that
language is equally true of Greek.
Don Wilkins
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:10 EDT