From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Fri Dec 22 2000 - 10:58:02 EST
Dear Kimmo,
In lexical semantics and word studies we distinguish between 'word',
'concept', and 'reference'. The 'word' is just a semantic signal which has
no meaning in itself, the 'concept' is the 'entry' in the mental lexicon
signalled by the word, i.e. the total range of meaning that a particular
word can signal, which is stored in our mind. The 'reference' is the thing
in the world denoted by the word.
The concepts in the minds of people having the same presupposition pool may
be quite broad; each concept use to have a nucleus which is easily
discernable but it becomes become fuzzy toward its border. When someone
speaks or writes, s/he makes just a part of each concept (signalled by the
word) visible (e.g. KOSMOS = universe, the human family, the human family
outside the church, the arrangement in which the human family lives etc).
It is the context which helps the listener/reader to ascertain which side
of the concept that is made visible. In my view the contect does not
generate new meaning, it only helps make visible a part of what already is
there.
A distinction as the one above is almost never made in aspectual studies or
definitions. For instance, when the words 'bounded' and 'complete(d)' are
used, to what do they refer? Do they refer to the real, objective event or
state, or just to the part of the event or state that the author has made
visible? In other words, Can we say that any event that is expressed by an
aorist factually is terminated? In my view the perfective and imperfective
aspects play about the same role in relation to events and states
(signalled by verbs) as the context does in relation to things and
qualities (expressed by substantives). The aspects do not generate new
meaning, but they make visible (by the interplay of several other factors)
a particular side of the events and states. It is from this point of view
meaningless to define aspects with words such as 'bounded', 'not bounded',
'punctiliar', 'durative' etc. This does not mean that 'aspect' is a
metaphysical concept or is so elusive that it cannot be defined. MH
GENOITO! But to get a meaningful understanding we should analyse aspects in
a similar way as words ara analysed, as mentioned above.I use three
parameters to distinguish between the aspects: 1) The kind of focus
(closeup/distance, details visible or not),2) the area of focus (length of
section of Event time intersected by Reference time), and 3) The angle of
fucus i relation the the nucleus (before/after nucleus, beginning/end
included or not).
If we differentiate between the factual situation and what is made visible
of it (as I did in my previous post) I claim that perfective and
imperfective aspects (and the 'tense' perfect) can describe situations
which both are factually terminated and which are not factually
terminated. It is true that the imperfective aspect often makes visible a
part of a situation which is not terminated and the perfective aspect makes
visible the terminated situation, but this is not allways the case. So we
cannot by the aspect alone know whether the situation referred to factually
is terminated or not.
An interesting example of the same verb used in parallel clauses, but with
different aspects, is Hebrews 11:17 The perfect PROSENHNOCEN is
paralellized with the imperfect PROSEFEREN. The event referred to was not
terminated. To try to convey through translation what the author wanted to
make visible, I would translate: "as good as offered up" and "tried to
offer".
Your arguments are consistent and logical, but we use completely different
systems of analysis. Each system may hava advantages and disadvantages. But
I believe that it is important for any system to differentiate between the
'reference' (the real objective situation), and what can be compared to
'word/concept' (which part of the situation that is made visible.
As to Romans 5:14, it is correct as you say that 'to Moses' marks an end.
But this is only the end of the part of the state 'reigning' that is made
visible. My point, however, was that the objective state 'death was
reigning' had not come to its end. And similarly with God's rest. In
Genesis chapter 1 it is not stated that the seventh day reached its end as
was the case with the previous six days. But it is said that God rest(ed)
(I take imperfect consecutives as imperfective) on the seventh day, so the
aorist of KATAPAUW in Genesis 2:2,3 LXX can hardly cover just a point of
time. And the argument of Hebrews chapter 4 is that the day of rest still
continued (See "Hebrews" by J. Moffat in "The International Critical
Commentary"). So both verses do show that the aorist can be used of states
which are not objectively terminated. So again, it is extremely important
to distinguish between the objective situation which is denoted and the
part of it which is made visible by help of the aspect and other factors.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>Rolf,
>
>Sorry for neglecting your comments so long, but your message kind of got
>buried under other e-mail in my mailbox.
>
>Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> Dear Alan,
>>
>> I agree with you that neither punctiliarity nor completeness is an
>> uncancellable characteristic of the aorist. When discussing the subject it
>> is important to differentiate between states (which continue without an
>> input of energy) and actions (which need energy to continue). Two examples
>> of states which neither were completed, nor complete, nor punctiliar, but
>> were expressed by the aorist are:
>>
>> ROMANS 5:14 ALLA EBASILEUSEN hO QANATOS APO ADAM MECRI MWUSEWS
>>
>> The factual, objective situation was that death continued to rule over
>> mankind after Moses as well, and it still rules. A part of this ruling is
>> made visible by Paul, and to do this he used the aorist form of the verb.
>> The aorist therefore can code for an open situation (if we by 'situation'
>> mean the objective state or action - here the ruling of death over
>> mankind), and if we by 'open' mean an objective situation whose end is not
>> included in what is focused upon by the verb.
>
>But if one understands as "reigning from Adam to Moses" as an
>accomplishment, it can still be seem as bounded, with no implication
>that the situation changed. Reigning is lexically unbounded, but it is
>bounded in an outer layer by "from Adam to Moses". The verb gets its
>morphological aspect from this semantic layer. If nesting is not
>considered, the analysis of aspect becomes much more problematic, in
>this case to the point of losing its meaning (as if aorist described an
>open aspect).
>
>The analysis would be different if one saw the layers differently:
>reigning first bounded and only then the bounds described temporally.
>Then the reigning would have ended at Moses. But there is no need to
>take it this way. The bounded interpretation still stands. So this verse
>is a good example of the importance of looking at layers when studying
>aspect.
>
>>
>> HEBREWS 4:4 KAI KATEPAUSEN hO QEOS EN THi hHMERAi THi hEBDOMHi
>>
>> The context shows that God's rest still continued ( see v 11), and that it
>> was possible for the Christians to experience a similar rest from
>> particular actions (see v 10). Thus no end is seen even though the aorist
>> is used.
>
>KATAPAUW is aspectually different from 'to rest'. KATAPAUW means ceasing
>from work, and looks quite punctual. Thus the aorist is appropriate
>regardless of the length of the following rest.
>
>Kimmo Huovila
---
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 - 15:36:45 EDT