From: Don Wilkins (dwilkins@ucr.campus.mci.net)
Date: Sat Dec 12 1998 - 21:44:59 EST
Let me first thank Rolf for his usual thoroughness. As I've said before, I'm
going to avoid retraveling old territory as much as possible.
At 01:14 PM 12/12/98 +0200, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>Dear Don,
>
>I do not want to continue a discussion about aspect, but would like to
>focus on a few things.
>
>I wrote:
>>>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".
>
>You answered:
>>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.
>
>The trap includes what you say above about durativity and punctuality but
>it includes more, namely the claim that "durative" and "punctual" are
>Aktionsart terms and it is confusing to use them at all as descriptions of
>the perfective and imperfective aspect. To illustrate the point, let me ask
>a question: What actually does the words "durative" and "punctual" mean as
>aspectual designations?
>In the linguistic literature the words are used to describe objective
>properties often in relation to lexical meaning. The words "run", "sing"
>and "write" are lexically durative and the words "knock", "fall" and "find"
>are punctual. Most verbs in Greek are durative regardless of aspect.
These comments involve the nomenclature confusion to which I referred
previously. Granted, Aktionsart terms have been defined in linguistics as
lexically oriented, and I take it that you insist on using 'perfective' and
'imperfective' in regard to grammatical aspect to refer to the corresponding
Aktionsart concepts. This continues the potential for confusion in Greek
grammar, but fortunately you seem to prefer other terms below. Let's assume
your nomenclature for purposes of discussion. So understood, the trap
essentially disappears for Aktionsart because we are now addressing
reality-based interpretations of actions. I.e. in common experience "run"
involves moving the legs repeatedly at high speed and can therefore arguably
be designated as durative, while "knock" (in the single instance) means the
punctual action of striking a door once with one's fist. I am not sure why
you say that most Greek verbs are durative, unless your thinking is that
most verbs are first aorist (based on the present-tense stem). Otherwise, I
would think the Aktionsart of many verbs is debatable, and it would take a
good deal of time and effort to determine the common-experience view of
each. But this is probably a minor issue.
>Let us use GRAFW as an example. In John 5:46 we have the aorist form, in
>8:8 the imperfect, in 19:22 the perfect, and in 1 Corinthians 4:14 we have
>the present. In all these instances is GRAFW durative because this is its
>lexical property. If now the imperfective aspect is defined as "durative"
>what is the extra, aspectual property it gets in 1 Cor 4:14. Does the
>aspect make the verb more durative? Or does aspectual durativity mean that
>the action occurs at speech time? ( But if this is the case, how can we say
>that GRAFW in John 8:8 is durative, because here the time is past?).
I am uncertain whether you are arguing merely about nomenclature here or
concepts. If you simpy want me to refrain from using Aktionsart terms for
the sake of the linguist position, then the answers are easy: John 8:8 is
presented to the reader as inceptive, continuous action in past time, while
1 Cor. 4:14 is continuous action in present time. John 5:46 is simple
(non-continuous) past action, and 19:22 is an existing state or results, the
product of a past event. The Aktionsart is the same in every case, if that
is what is determined by common experience.
>Similarly with the word "punctual": In which sense is GRAFW "punctual" in
>John 5:46? Does it blot out the fact that the writing of Moses occurred
>over time, or is only the end-point of the writing meant? And what about
>the perfect of John 19:22, can either "punctual" or "durative" be used in
>this case?
Mostly answered above. By the agreed-upon nomenclature, GRAFW is durative in
every instance.
>In my view it is very misleading to define aspects with Aktionsart terms
>such as "durative" and "punctual", but the four situations above can be
>described by the help of non-aspectual parameters, such as "time",
>"telicity", "stativity", and "durativity".
>
>John 5:46: past time - telic - durative - non-static
Agreed.
>John 8.8: past time - atelic - durative - non-static
Agreed.
>1 Cor 4:14 present time - telic? - durative - non-static
Agreed. Whether 'telic' is questioned or not depends upon the degree to
which we let interpretation and blind guesswork enter the decision. 'atelic'
would be simpler.
>John 19:22: past time/present time - telic - durative - static (the end of
>an action is passed and the following state obtained)
Only present time, agreed on the rest.
>The aspects used do not contain the properties above, but add extra nuances
>to each situation.
>In order to be able to work with as small units as possible I only use
>Aktionsart for the lexical meaning of the verbs. There are, however, other
>objective properties which are quite similar to Aktionsart, but which are
>signalled by other factors than lexical meaning. We can speak of actions
>which are iterative, habitual or frequentative. I claim that these
>properties neither are aspectual. If I said: "Last year I read the New York
>Times." my action would be interpreted as habitual. The simple past would
>suggest a single, finished event, but our knowledge of the world would
>outrule this. Similarly will the interplay of several factors, including
>aspect, help us see that some actions in Greek sentences are habitual,
>iterative or frequentative.
Obviously this is the contextual/interpretive factor, which has nothing to
do either with lexis or syntax. This is all very old analysis, and the only
thing I should do is reiterate (from an ancient post somewhere) the caveat
not to confuse these three factors, but I would think that you agree.
>I wrote:
>> 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.
>
>You answered:
>>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.
>
>I do not understand how you can ascribe to me a mysterious view of Greek
>from my words above. My view is empiric rather than mysterius.
Hopefully we are all empiric. I use "mysterious" because you apparently want
to emphasize the differences between Greek and English. This gives the
impression that there are quite a few (many?) things which cannot be
understood about Greek from an English mindset.
>The
>qualitative difference between Greek and English is based on the fact that
>aspect is grammaticalized in Greek and is the backbone of the whole verbal
>system, while this is not the case in English. (The same difference is true
>for Hebrew and English).
Randall stated that English conveys aspect in part through auxiliary verbs
and the like, and I noted my essential agreement with him.
> The quantitative difference is based on the
>observation that the English participle, which is supposed to express the
>English imperfective aspect, has a Greek counterpart, while Greek present
>and imperfect have several functions which is completely absent in the
>English participle. To claim that the Greek consciousness and understanding
>of aspect, based on a verbal system where aspect permeats everything, is
>very different from the English understanding, where a supposed perfective
>aspect is difficult to differentiate from simple past or perfect, and the
>imperfective aspect is just a part of the system, is no bold claim. An it
>certainly is neither metaphysical nor mystical.
Actually it would be right at the edge of a metaphysical or mystical
proposition if you meant that we must first learn to think as Greeks before
we can understand their language, and you did not intend your phrase "of
aspect" to go with "Greek consciousness" as well as "understanding". Again,
the only significant difference in the handling of aspect between the two
languages seems to be the methodology. English speakers are, it would seem,
every bit as conscious of aspect as Greeks, sometimes more so. For example,
we are acutely aware of the difference between the simple present ("I go")
and its progressive counterpart ("I am going"), but the Greeks seem for the
most part not to care about specifying the distinction.
>There is a similarity between the participles of English and Hebrew, both
>having a certain nominal and verbal force. This is also true for the Greek
>participles but they are at the same time modified by the aspects. If we
>should compare anything in the English and Greek verebal system, it must be
>the participles. The Greek aspects have, however, additional properties.
>The use of the present participle in English is very restricted compared
>with the Greek imperfective aspect. Three examples where the Greek
>imperfective aspect together with other factors signal particular
>properties and behave differently from English participles:
>
>(1) Conative situations: Gal 5:4 "Whoever you are that try to be declared
>righteous (DIKAIOUSQE) by means of law."
>(2) Ingressive situations (beginning included) Acts 11:2 "When Peter came
>up to (ANEBH) Jerusalem,those who were circumsized began to debate
>(DIEKRINONTO) with him."
>(3) Factitive/resultative situations (the object is lead into a state) Mark
>2:5 "Your sins are forgiven (AFIENTAI)."
The irony of our argument here is that in each of the examples you are
expressing the nuance of the Greek by using English with modifiers, with no
concession to the effect that the Greek meaning is not adequately being
expressed. However, we can certainly agree that the meanings are
communicated by more morphological means (no alliteration intended) in Greek.
>I wrote to 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."
>
>You answered:
>>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.
>
>(I do not understand where the reader enters the scene.)
S/he doesn't, as I indicated. I only mentioned the reader to illustrate that
the concept of "viewpoint," as I see it, is not technically correct; having
eliminated the speaker's viewpoint would have theoretically left the reader's.
>Fanning defines aspect this way: "Aspect involves a way of viewing the
>action, reflects the subjective conception or portrayal by the speaker;
>focusses on the speaker's representation of the action." This accords with
>Backe's words above, and I agree with Fanning in this definition.
While maintaining that "aspect" is at best a mediocre designation (somewhat
like the established use of "tense"), I would modify Fanning's definition:
"Aspect is a view of the action as subjectively portrayed by the speaker and
represented as a simple event, an ongoing progression, etc." (I'm sure we
could work to improve on this and Fanning's original words.)
> I would,
>however, deviate somewhat from Fanning as far as the details of the aspects
>are concerned. I find that aspect does almost the same for the verbal part
>of a clause as the article does for the nominal part. The article has no
>objective meaning of its own but plays an important role together with
>other factors. Together with PAS for instance, will a lack of article often
>let the focus be on the individual member of the group but the occurrence
>of the article will help focus on the group as a whole. In a similar way do
>I not find that aspects have an objective meaning of their own, (but
>participles have such a meaning), but together with other factors are the
>aspects important for conveying small nuances in the process of
>communication.
I'm not sure I follow. Aspects do have an objective meaning of their own,
and yes, they do combine with other factors to convey nuances. PAS may not
work exactly as you describe it, but it illustrates your point sufficiently.
My regards to you too, Rolf.
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