From: Kimmo Huovila (kimmo@kaamas.kielikone.fi)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 08:22:54 EST
I assume that most Greek aspectologists nowadays would agree that the
aorist is not aspectually neutral, but it indicates perfective aspect.
Stagg wrote an article in the 70's claiming that the aorist is neutral,
but recent aspectological studies have concluded differently*.
Mark Wilson wrote:
<snip>
> And because it does NOT denote COMPLETION, I thought grammarians had
> invented all kinds of Aorists: GNOMIC, CONSTATIVE, CULMINATIVE,
> INGRESSIVE...
<snip>
The gnomic use has nothing to do with aspect, but temporal reference.
Constantive and culminative are hardly really aspectually distinct. They
can be analyzed conveniently as the same category. Ingressive comes out
as an interpretation of putting a stative verb in a perfective context
(though not the only possibility, it could also be constantive).
Constantive and ingressive are just subcategories of the perfective
aspect.
"Steven R. Lo Vullo" wrote:
<snip>
> It's true that the aorist itself, unrelated to contextual indicators, gives
> us no clue as to the *aspect* of the action. I think the fallacy you are
> trying to combat is that of the "once-for-all" aspect of the aorist that
> until recently was pretty popular in preaching/teaching circles. But while
<snip>
The perfective aspect is quite a bit different from a once-for-all idea.
But in my opinion the aorist itself grammaticalizes the perfective
aspect.
Kimmo Huovila
* See for example Fanning's or Porter's dissertation or my MA thesis. I
am not aware of any recent aspectological studies claiming aspectual
neutrality for the aorist.
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:43 EDT