MAubrey wrote:Well, I don't know how to make it clearer. It means what it means. Could you hazard a guess as to what causes the incoherence?
Yeah, I had no idea what it meant for a state of affairs to be aoristic. That seemed to be a category confusion.
Haug 2004, 395-6 wrote:We therefore espouse the view that the perfect denotes a present state resulting from a former event that can be expressed by the VP in the aorist. The perfect, therefore, has a double reference: a present state and a past event that culminated.
That's very different than what you said, as I read it. Nothing in this part of this article suggests that a perfect implies an aorist.
Maybe "implies" means something differing for us, but "a former event that can be expressed by the VP in the aorist" was pretty much what I was referring to. But the idea that the perfect has both a perfective component and an imperfective component is not something I (or Haug) concocted on the spot. It's in the literature. For example, one cross-linguistic explanation of the perfect (Bhat, Prominence of Aspect
, p.170) is that is notion is of a "completed (perfective) event with continuing (imperfective) relevance" in aspect-prominent languages
But let me try to rephrase what I'm suggesting:
Joseph and Aseneth 13.10 wrote:καὶ πεπίστευκα αὐτοῖς καὶ πεπλάνημαι καὶ ἐξουθένηκα τὸν ἐκλεκτόν σου Ἰωσὴφ καὶ λελάληκα περὶ αὐτοῦ πονηρά, μὴ εἰδυῖα ὅτι υἱὸς σοῦ ἐστι.
I believed and I was wrong, and I began to despised Joseph, your chosen one, and I spoke evil of him, not knowing that he is your son.
When I say "ingressive" perhaps I should be saying, using Haug's terminology, that this text represents a perfect where we have a past event culminated. That is to say, the entrance into the state (i.e. ingressive semantics) is precisely the culmination of the past event. They are one and the same.
OK.... Haug thinks that both (telic) events and (atelic) states and activities can be realized for purposes of his notion of the perfect. Telics are realized at the end, at their culmination, while atelics are realized at their ingression. Of course, ingression is a perfectly fine ('xcuse the pun) perfective view of a state. This is how the aorist works with telics and atelics, respectively, hence the analogy. The perfect refers to the state that comes from this culmination in some sense; hence Haug's confusing talk about target states, etc.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Rijksbaron's "totalizing" perfect is a lot like the experiential (aka, existential, whatever), except that a plural series is not actually necessary for the latter. His explanation of γέγραφα on the previous page is basically that of an experiential perfect. I think an experiential perfect fits the context is because her having despised Joseph is relevant to her repenting before God.
Well, I think part of the problem here in our communication failure is that I simply do not have this set of well-defined categories in my mind as you do. The idea of his example of γέγραφα as being "experiential" makes no sense to me. If that's an example of the category, then do I understand that you view every resultative state (in Haug, 2004's terminology--the contrast be between a target state from a telic verb and a resultative state from an atelic verb) as "experiential"? And even if I should accept the category, its difficult for me to accept "experiential" as the category for both ἐξουθένηκα and γέγραφα when one is a state predicate and the other is an activity. They definitely don't function the same. There's a clear difference in distribution. State verbs that form perfects are fundamentally different than Activity verbs that form perfects.
I'm getting concerned that the literature we've read on the perfect is fairly disjoint. Experiential (and "universal") are fairly common terms in the literature on the perfect outside of Greek (and have been applied to Greek, too: Bentein, Haug, Gerö-von Stechow, etc.). For me, Rijksbaron's discussion of the perfect γέγραφα clearly corresponds to the experiential perfect. Yes, it's not in Wallace, Fanning, Porter, etc., but I don't find their treatments coherent.
I don't have a problem with considering both ἐξουθένηκα and γέγραφα experiential. It's a reading of the perfect that's generally available but it only becomes relevant when the resultative perfect (Haug's target state?) is not available. I haven't found situation type to be that helpful for understanding the different functions of the perfect--not as helpful as diathesis, at least.
MAubrey wrote: MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:As for the intensive, with the kind of gloss you're giving it, my reading leads me to believe that this is a Homeric usage.
Why? Clearly Rijksbaron view it as existing in the Classical period. Is there a particular reason you diverge from that? As far as I can see, the system hasn't really changed from between the Classical period and the Koine...
I'm basically agreed on the continuity of the system between the Classical period and Koine, but Homer is pre-Classical. Haug's article certainly refers to it as a Homeric usage, and he even complains of conflation of the Homeric usage with later uses by some grammarians. I think that Gerö and von Stechow say the same. (I wonder if both are dependent on Chantraine or Wackernagel for this observation.)
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala