Thanks for that. I was more wondering, when I started this thread, whether Porter has gone back and considered Aktionsart afresh in light of developments since 1990. I don't think his dissertation really addressed what Fanning did with Aktionsart (and of course it couldn't address it directly as Fanning was still working on it).Robert Burcham wrote:Consulting K.L. McKay's work may help explain Porter's view of a firm division between semantic and pragmatic, subjective and objective. Porter follows many of McKay's conclusions, including aspect as a subjective view of the author contra Aktionsart (see Porter's Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, 48–50).Stephen Carlson wrote:It is almost as if there is a blind spot in Porter to Aktionsart. I want to understand why.
ETA: 'I'm also confused how something can be both "objective" and "pragmatic" as Aktionsart is being claimed to be.