From: Kimmo Huovila (kimmo@kaamas.kielikone.fi)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 02:18:51 EST
Mark Wilson wrote:
>
> Kimmo:
>
> You wrote:
>
> --------
> >There would have been another option to use if the point was just a past
> >reference time: the imperfect HGAPA. But I feel that the imperfect
> >(imperfective) would be less natural here. God only once "so-loved" the
> >world that He gave His Son. That would make it countable, perfective,
> >bounded, and therefore the aorist is used over the imperfect.
> --------
>
> What this statement appears to attribute to the Aorist (perfective aspect)
> is the semantic charatcteristics of "coutable, perfective, and bounded."
>
> Now, according to Mari Olsen, if these characteristics can be cancelled in
> other uses, then they are not "semantically" part of the Aorist.
>
> The often quoted Gnomic Aorist passage does appear to cancel one or more of
> these characteristics:
>
> 1 Peter 1:24
>
> EXHRANQH hO CORTOS KAI TO ANQOS EXEPESEN
>
> (The grass withers and the flower falls away)
>
> Here, I would say that "countable and bounded" are not semantically related
> to THIS use of the Aorist.
Why not? The grass is (in a timeless context) described as
'reaching/having reached the
conclusion of becoming withered', not just 'engaging in the process of
withering'. Similarly flowers will fall away, not just engage in the
process of falling away.
> And therefore, would not your view of
> John 3:16 be true on PRAGMATIC grounds?
I do not make the same kind of distinction between semantics and
pragmatics that Olsen does (if I have understood her distinction
correctly). I view them as a continuum, not a strict dichtotomy.
> That is, I think your conclusions
> seem valid, but to attribute "countable and bounded" to the Aorist is rather
> its PRAGMATIC, not SEMANTIC, feature. (Namely, elsewhere we see the Aorist
> not used as it is in John 3:16.)
If I were to use Olsen's terminology, I would attribute countability and
boundedness to semantics, not pragmatics. They are not pragmatically
cancelable, though they can be nested inside another aspect.
>
> What makes John 3:16 "countable and bounded" is not the Aorist, but the
> telic aspect of the perfective EDWKEN. The telic aspect of GAVE can NOT be
> cancelled.
No, not the telic aspect. The punctual aspect would be closer to truth.
Many telics can be in the imperfective with no implication that the
event is completed even once. But this is looking at the issue from the
lexical side. The aorist in itself, alone, is enough to make it
countable
and bounded.
>
> This is what I think Mari means when she says that Porter's Verbal system is
> "overly simplistic."
I think there are other reasons, too (though I do not attribute them to
her). He fails to account for prototypicality in grammar, and
consequently seeks an exceptionless system, which fails to draw some
distinctions language users actually did. Therefore he rejects tense.
> Without giving equal weight to LEXICAL ASPECT, much is
> lost. (Remember, I am NOT speaking for Mari. This is only how I understand
> her.)
True.
>
> Kimmo, am I misuderstanding your concept of PERFECTIVE? The reason I
> understand your attributing the "countable and bounded" to the Aorist is
> based on this statement you make: God only once "so-loved" (I almost get the
> sense that because God's love finally attained this level, that he gave.)
Some things I see differently, but I do attribute these to the aorist,
but with no implication of God's
love finally attaining a level. This 'so-loving' is actually expressing
God's love. The verb AGAPAW in this context does not speak of abstract
love, but a concrete expression. Or we could say, the verse speaks of
'God loving in the manner as to give...', which is an active expression.
The love that was the basis behind this is thereby not described as
changing.
>
> By putting "once" into this clause seems to indicate you are taking "LOVE"
> as countable and bounded. On a lexical level, I would think that "love"
> itself can not be converted to "countability or boundedness."
Yes to both. I take love as bounded, but not on the lexical level.
> To view a
> one-time-situation in which love was present does not seem to say anything
> about the nature of that love.
I am not sure what you mean, but if I did not answer this already,
please try again. A one time expression of love can express a whole lot
of the nature of that love.
Kimmo
---
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 - 15:36:44 EDT