Tense-Aspect (esp. Future) in Non-Indicative Moods
Posted: February 25th, 2013, 10:29 pm
I'd be interested in the B-Greek opinions on tense/aspect categories of the non indicative moods and specifically how this works out in the Future. Unfortunately "future" "non indicative" and "tense" are too common of terms for a successful forum search, so to break the ice:
(1) In the classroom I typically describe verbs in the indicative mood as aspectual (perfective, imperfective, stative) + grammaticalized time. There are the obvious caveats here, given the non-temporal Decker/Porter/etc. camp, but let's run with this. The tense/aspect combined categories are morphologized as follows:
Perfective Aspect: Aorist Indicative (past time via past-time augment), and Future Indicative (future time). These two tenses manifest a shared morphologizing of their aspect via: shared sigmatic morphology (pardon to Sihler and second aorists); their shared development of the θη to morphologize passivity beyond the medio-passive shared by the other aspects; anecdotal evidence via historical comments by Dionysius Thrax.
Imperfective Aspect: Present Indicative (present time), Imperfective Indicative (past time via past-time augment)
Stative (Fientive?) Aspect: Perfect Indicative (resultant state in the present time), Pluperfect Indicative (resultant state in the past time)
(2) Following the modern zeitgeist of aspect theory, I typically view the non-indicative moods as NOT marking/morphologizing time, but only grammaticalizing aspect (again, perfective, imperfective, stative aspects). This explains why the imperfect is subsumed into the present (both being imperfective in aspect) and the pluperfect is subsumed into the perfect (both stative in aspect) since there is no grammaticalized time to distinguish each pair. Accordingly, I think about so-called "aorist/perfective" infinitives as generally unmarked or "viewed as a whole" (note: not "completed", as in Rijksbaron); I think about so-called "present/imperfective" infinitives" as marked for imperfectivity; I think about so-called "perfect" infinitives as marked for stativity. (So far so good, in my mental construct of the language anyways).
However, then I reach the Future non-indicatives: If the future and aorist as both perfective in aspect, and if "time is not grammaticalized outside the indicative", why do we have future participles, imperatives, infinitives? I.e., why are the future non-indicatives not subsumed into the aorist participles, imperatives, infinitives, as happened with the imperfective and stative aspects?
Is this continued presence of the future non-indicative a function of:
(a) a breakdown in the aspectual categorization (i.e., we shouldn't actually think about the Future and Aorist as both being perfective in aspect - hence why Rijkbaron describes a fourth "Future Aspect", in which case we'd need to reconsider the three-aspect system across the board, also in the indicative; but in this case, why the shared sigma with the aorist, and also consistently, why the shared development of the θη with the aorist in the passive voice, moving in tandem away from the medio-passive morphology, across the range of modality?).
Or, is this continued presence of the future non-indicative:
(b) simply a function of the future being always marked for future time, even outside the indicative mood (perhaps given its late development within the history of the language)? In this case, the Future tense would retain its perfective aspect (hence the shared morphologizing features with the aorist), but uncharacteristically retain its future-oriented markedness across the range of modalities?
In any case, whether stocking to my aspectual guns or not, shouldn't I change my basic description of time outside the indicative: since the Future (Perfective?) is still around in the non-indicative moods while the past time-specific forms have collapsed in the non-indicative moods, rather than saying "time is not grammaticalized outside the indicative" is it better to simply say that "NON-FUTURE time is not grammaticalized outside the indicative" (i.e., future time is grammaticalized outside the indicative, but nothing else is so grammaticalized), thereby leaving room for future time across the modal spectrum?
Hope that is clear. Rijksbaron would seem to solve some of this by adding the additional fourth aspectual category of the "future aspect", but in doing so he marks aorist as "completed" rather than "unmarked or seen as a whole", and more frustratingly he doesn't address the morphological similarities between the aorist and the future that would appear to morphologize some kind of shared aspect.
Nicholas Ellis
(1) In the classroom I typically describe verbs in the indicative mood as aspectual (perfective, imperfective, stative) + grammaticalized time. There are the obvious caveats here, given the non-temporal Decker/Porter/etc. camp, but let's run with this. The tense/aspect combined categories are morphologized as follows:
Perfective Aspect: Aorist Indicative (past time via past-time augment), and Future Indicative (future time). These two tenses manifest a shared morphologizing of their aspect via: shared sigmatic morphology (pardon to Sihler and second aorists); their shared development of the θη to morphologize passivity beyond the medio-passive shared by the other aspects; anecdotal evidence via historical comments by Dionysius Thrax.
Imperfective Aspect: Present Indicative (present time), Imperfective Indicative (past time via past-time augment)
Stative (Fientive?) Aspect: Perfect Indicative (resultant state in the present time), Pluperfect Indicative (resultant state in the past time)
(2) Following the modern zeitgeist of aspect theory, I typically view the non-indicative moods as NOT marking/morphologizing time, but only grammaticalizing aspect (again, perfective, imperfective, stative aspects). This explains why the imperfect is subsumed into the present (both being imperfective in aspect) and the pluperfect is subsumed into the perfect (both stative in aspect) since there is no grammaticalized time to distinguish each pair. Accordingly, I think about so-called "aorist/perfective" infinitives as generally unmarked or "viewed as a whole" (note: not "completed", as in Rijksbaron); I think about so-called "present/imperfective" infinitives" as marked for imperfectivity; I think about so-called "perfect" infinitives as marked for stativity. (So far so good, in my mental construct of the language anyways).
However, then I reach the Future non-indicatives: If the future and aorist as both perfective in aspect, and if "time is not grammaticalized outside the indicative", why do we have future participles, imperatives, infinitives? I.e., why are the future non-indicatives not subsumed into the aorist participles, imperatives, infinitives, as happened with the imperfective and stative aspects?
Is this continued presence of the future non-indicative a function of:
(a) a breakdown in the aspectual categorization (i.e., we shouldn't actually think about the Future and Aorist as both being perfective in aspect - hence why Rijkbaron describes a fourth "Future Aspect", in which case we'd need to reconsider the three-aspect system across the board, also in the indicative; but in this case, why the shared sigma with the aorist, and also consistently, why the shared development of the θη with the aorist in the passive voice, moving in tandem away from the medio-passive morphology, across the range of modality?).
Or, is this continued presence of the future non-indicative:
(b) simply a function of the future being always marked for future time, even outside the indicative mood (perhaps given its late development within the history of the language)? In this case, the Future tense would retain its perfective aspect (hence the shared morphologizing features with the aorist), but uncharacteristically retain its future-oriented markedness across the range of modalities?
In any case, whether stocking to my aspectual guns or not, shouldn't I change my basic description of time outside the indicative: since the Future (Perfective?) is still around in the non-indicative moods while the past time-specific forms have collapsed in the non-indicative moods, rather than saying "time is not grammaticalized outside the indicative" is it better to simply say that "NON-FUTURE time is not grammaticalized outside the indicative" (i.e., future time is grammaticalized outside the indicative, but nothing else is so grammaticalized), thereby leaving room for future time across the modal spectrum?
Hope that is clear. Rijksbaron would seem to solve some of this by adding the additional fourth aspectual category of the "future aspect", but in doing so he marks aorist as "completed" rather than "unmarked or seen as a whole", and more frustratingly he doesn't address the morphological similarities between the aorist and the future that would appear to morphologize some kind of shared aspect.
Nicholas Ellis