Understanding Randal Buth's example of the Perfect tense he presents to critique Campell

Biblical Greek morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Jacob Rhoden
Posts: 131
Joined: February 15th, 2013, 8:16 am
Location: Greenville, South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Understanding Randal Buth's example of the Perfect tense he presents to critique Campell

Post by Jacob Rhoden » May 19th, 2018, 7:18 am

I am becoming inclined to believe that Randal's example "Πᾶν ὁ μεγας τεθνηκεν" would not be considered by Campbell to suggest process (dying). (Although I am not inclined just yet to disagree with Randall, he seems smarter and more experienced than me :D )

Reading his 2007 (Verbal Aspect...) publication did not help clear this up, however, going back to his 2008 (Basics) publication, it does seem to be clarified somewhat:
If a lexeme is intransitive, it may also be stative. A stative verb is not performed upon an object and describes a state of being. It is not time bound or progressive; it simply is. ... Whether or not a lexeme is stative is decided simply by what the type of action is. (p57)
Campbell goes on to provide the following rule to help categorise verbs:
Is the action performed upon an object?
If no = intransitive.

Does the action describe a state of being?
If yes = stative.
(p58)
So it seems to me that Campbell does assert that we should translate "Πᾶν ὁ μεγας τεθνηκεν" as Pan the great is dead, not "Pan the great is dying". What do you think?
Last edited by Jacob Rhoden on May 19th, 2018, 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 x



Jacob Rhoden
Posts: 131
Joined: February 15th, 2013, 8:16 am
Location: Greenville, South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Understanding Randal Buth's example of the Perfect tense he presents to critique Campell

Post by Jacob Rhoden » May 19th, 2018, 7:26 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
May 15th, 2018, 3:58 am
Can anyone tell me what "the spatial value of heightened proximity" is supposed to mean?

I think it just means "more prominent" or emphatic, yet not really spatial in the physically spatial sense.
I think his Basics (2008) book clarifies this. I only have the kindle version (i.e. locations rather than page numbers) here so I don't know what page number it would be:
Screen Shot 2018-05-19 at 9.24.18 pm.png
Screen Shot 2018-05-19 at 9.24.18 pm.png (267.6 KiB) Viewed 647 times
0 x

RandallButh
Posts: 961
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Understanding Randal Buth's example of the Perfect tense he presents to critique Campell

Post by RandallButh » May 19th, 2018, 8:33 am

Jacob Rhoden wrote:
May 19th, 2018, 7:18 am
I am becoming inclined to believe that Randal's example "Πᾶν ὁ μεγας τεθνηκεν" would not be considered by Campbell to suggest process (dying). (Although I am not inclined just yet to disagree with Randall, he seems smarter and more experienced than me :D )

Reading his 2007 (Verbal Aspect...) publication did not help clear this up, however, going back to his 2008 (Basics) publication, it does seem to be clarified somewhat:
If a lexeme is intransitive, it may also be stative. A stative verb is not performed upon an object and describes a state of being. It is not time bound or progressive; it simply is. ... Whether or not a lexeme is stative is decided simply by what the type of action is. (p57)
Campbell goes on to provide the following rule to help categorise verbs:
Is the action performed upon an object?
If no = intransitive.

Does the action describe a state of being?
If yes = stative.
(p58)
So it seems to me that Campbell does assert that we should translate "Πᾶν ὁ μεγας τεθνηκεν" as Pan the great is dead, not "Pan the great is dying". What do you think?
I would expect Con to translate into English that way in order to make sense of the context.

However his System is contradicted. ΘΝΗΣΚΕΙΝ 'to die, be dying' is not stative and the perfect does not emphasize that imperfectivity--the perfect is transformed into a state.
0 x

Post Reply