Page 1 of 1

Runge on Porter on Tense

Posted: August 16th, 2013, 5:14 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Steve Runge has posted a critique of Stan Porter's method as it relates to tense here: http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2013/08/port ... stitution/

Re: Runge on Porter on Tense

Posted: August 16th, 2013, 11:01 pm
by Louis L Sorenson
And here is a link to the paper http://www.ntdiscourse.org/wp-content/u ... nFinal.pdf. But Runge really wants you to read his blog first, so the reader can get a perspective on the greater disagreement.

Re: Runge on Porter on Tense

Posted: August 17th, 2013, 12:14 pm
by Stephen Carlson
In a follow-up post, Steve lays out the following areas of consensus:
Well folks, I am here to tell you that this is not really the case. Regardless of the hype, there is actually quite a bit more consensus on these issues than you might think. If you like Porter’s taxonomy then we have something in common; I like it too. Here is what I mean:
  1. Greek tense-forms convey perfective, imperfective, or a third kind of tense/aspect.
  2. The aspects are present in every mood, whereas tense (“spatial proximity/remoteness” for you timeless folks) is only found in the indicative mood.
  3. The aorist conveys perfective aspect, the present and imperfect convey imperfective aspect, and the perfect and pluperfect convey a third thing. Porter calls it stative aspect, which I can live with.
I'm basically fine with this, but I'd call the aspect of the perfect, well, perfect.

Re: Runge on Porter on Tense

Posted: August 17th, 2013, 3:13 pm
by MAubrey
Stephen Carlson wrote:I'm basically fine with this, but I'd call the aspect of the perfect, well, perfect.
+1