From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Mon Dec 25 2000 - 05:25:31 EST
Dear Moon,
See my comments below:
Moon
>Dear Rolf,
>
>Let me continue the discussion and talk about the intuition behind
>the selection of the parameters for talking about aspect.
>
>You said:
>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).
>
>Could you explain how these parameters can explain various uses of the
>tenses, e.g. inceptive aorist, culminative aorist, inceptive imperfect.
>These uses refer to some kind of transition. There seem to be no ways
>for these parameters to describe transition.
RF
In my view such terms as "inceptive aorist" and all the others that we find
in grammars regarding aorist, present, imperefect etc misleads the reader
to think that each 'tense' has different subgroups, which of course is not
true. These terms do not describe the aspects per se but they describe the
result of the interplay of one of the aspects and one or more other
factors. To illustrate a side of the English imperfective aspect I quote a
passage of the thesis regarding Hebrew verbs on which I am working:
"A difference in view of the details of an event is a distinguishing point
between the English aspects - the imperfective aspect is a closeup view
with details visible, and the perfective aspect could be compared to a
distance view without details visible. This is particularly seen in
situations which are «Achievements» (dynamic and telic) and in
Semelfactives which are punctiliar. Let us look at the four examples below.
(30a) She was reaching the top.
(30b) She was reaching the tops.
(30c) They were reaching the top.
(30d) They were reaching the tops.
When the imperfective aspect is used in English, RT intersects ET in the
middle, and a small section of the ET is made visible. This means that the
hearer/reader expects to have a close look at the progressive action that
is made visible. The «reach-the-top»-event does not have any duration but
is only a point. Because of the nature of the imperfective aspect, we
expect that the details of this progression must be accounted for somehow.
In (30a) the subject and object are definite and singular, and the only
place to account for the progressive action is immediately before the
point. Thus we understand this example to mean that she was on the point of
reaching the top. In (30b) the object is plural and the progressvie view
is iterative -she reached top after top. In (30c) the subject is plural
and this causes an iterative interpretation as well - one after the other
reached the top. In (30d) both subject and object are plural, and again we
give an iterative explanation - different people were reaching different
tops."
The characteristics of the imperfective aspect illustrated above is also
the reason why conative situations are expressed solely by imperfective
verbs both in Hebrew and Greek. In fact, one of the falsifying tests of my
view regarding Hebrew verbs, is the following prediction: Conative
situations can only be expressed by YIQTOL, WEYIQTOL, and WAYYIQTOL and
not with QATAL and WEQATAL.
NB:I am not saying that the English imperfective aspect represents
progressive action but that such is made visible by the aspect. There is a
fundamental difference between the aspect and the progressive action.
>
>I think what made Kimmo think of aorist as "perfective" is the fact that
>often aorists refer to transition from one state to another.
>
>Whether aorist typically has the idea of "pefective" or "complete(d)"
>is an important issue in some theological debates. I would like to discuss
>it further on this thread.
>
>Let me quote two verses.
> Acts 19:2 EIPEN TE PROS AUTOUS, EI PNEUMA hAGION ELABETE PISTEUSANTES;
>
> Did you receive Holy Spirit having believed?
>
>
> Eph 5:26 hINA AUTHN hAGISHi KAQARISAS TWi LOUTRWi TOU hUDATOS EN RHMATI.
> In order that he may sanctify him having cleansed
> by the washing of the water in word.
>
>The question is :
>
>Do aorist participles typically refer to the time point at which
>the situation described by them is completed, relative to which
>the situation described by the main verbs is described?
>
>If so, it is reasonable for some to argue for the order of
> regeneration then sanctification, or believing then receiving Holy
>Spirit, based on the above verses.
>
>Your theory of aorist is "neutral" enough (with respect to the
>notion of "completion") to interpret the above verses without
>implying the order.
>
>
>You would say:
> In Acts 19:2, PISTEUSANTES simply introduces the event as a whole
> and looks at it from outside; This situation is used as the
> reference time for the event of receiving Holy Spirit. Whether
> the reference time refers to the beginning of, the middle of, the end of
> , or after the event of believing depends on the context.
>
>From this viewpoint, Acts 19:2 will be translated as
>
>Did you receive Holy Sprit when you believed?
>
>Eph 5:26 will be translated as:
>
>in order that he may sanctify him by cleasing with the washing of the
>water.
>
>From this viewpoint, believing and receiving Holy Spirit are simultaneous,
>and regeneration (washing) and sanctification are simultaneous!
>
>Or is it the case that aorists in participles are used differently from a
>aorists in indicatives? I mean: do aorist participles typically refer to
>completed situations relative to which the situations described by
>the main verbs are described, whereas it is not typically the case?
>
While aspectual use can be taken into account to understand the doctrine of
the Bible, we should never rest our faith on aspect alone. There are many
examples where the aspects are consciously used for conveying particular
nuances. The aorist subjunctive of hAMARTANW in 1 John 2:2 "to sin"
evidently is a contrast to the present infinitive of the same verb in 3:9
"to practice sin",and the present imperative of AITEW in Matthew 7:7
signals "keep on asking" and not just "ask". But we should not take this
too far, because the writer *had to choose* an aspect, not necessarily
because he had a particular nuance in mind. I have no problems in accepting
that aorist often marks a transition (cf. Kimmo), but this cannot be a
part of a definition of aorist.
I will not use the word "completed" in relation to aspect because it has an
intrinsic time element, which I believe is completely absent from aspects.
Neither will I use "complete", because it is connected with the objective
action and could lead someone to believe that there was an uncancellable
relationship between action and aspect.
In Acts 19:2 there can be no doubt that PISTEUSANTES refers to a past
terminated situation. This conclusion is not based on the perfective aspect
alone, but is based on lexicon, Aktionsart, aspect and context. But whether
the action ELABETE is simultaneous with or comes after PISTEUSANTES cannot
be decided by help of the perfective aspect.
And similarly with hAGISHi KAQARISAS in Ephesians 5:26. In a model where
both "completed" and "complete" are absent from definitions of the
perfective aspect, it is not possible to draw the conclusion that one
*must* precede the other. A conclusion regarding this must be based on the
cantext and even on our knowledge of the world. (BTW, I view aorist
participles as perfective just as the finite aorist verb).
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
---
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