Remoteness & Tense
Posted: May 15th, 2011, 5:55 pm
With the discussion of about Porter's view of aspect and Campbell's view of aspect being discussed elsewhere currently, I thought it might be worthwhile to make some of my own comments. These are somewhat scattered notes from thoughts I've had on the subject over the past four years or so. I've been intending to write them down and it might be worthwhile here.
In principle, I have nothing against the possibility of tenseless languages. My own protest against the view for Greek involves a number of interrelated factors.
So the points that follow essentially function as a sort of "What one would need to explain in order to convince me." To anyone who might hold to to a tenseless view, I would encourage you to view these issues as a useful starting point for dialogue. How do you view these four points below? Are they issues that you have thought about (one or two or all)? Do you have a perspective on them? How can we meaningfully discuss the question?
Morphological Factors
1) The ἐ- prefix* that appears on the aorist and imperfect verb-forms** cannot be easily ignored for what it is: the marker for past tense. Some want to label it as the marker of remoteness, but if that's the case, then why does it not appear in the non-indicative moods? Surely the subjective and optative expressions of potentiality are equally remote as indicative forms, but only in a different way. Now I could imagine *tense* being distinguished in the realis vs. the irrealis moods, but its hard to see why such a more abstract category like remoteness would be distinguished in such a way. Why should it only be an indicative category?
2) Also if we are to prefer remoteness as the correct semantic category over against tense, then why is the future not marked with either the of the supposed "remoteness markers": either the ἐ- prefix or the "secondary" person-number endings. So if the future is not remote, then why not? If tense is merely a metaphorical extension of spatial remoteness (in principle, a perfectly acceptable idea), why is it also not remote? For some, the inflectional form labeled "future" merely marks "expectation." Why isn't expectation remote?
Diachronic Factors
1) Greek has a long history. At the time of the New Testament, we're talking already over 1,500 years (1,800 years?). PIE didn't have tense. That's generally agreed upon. But those who reject the category of tense either entirely or partially must then explain to me how it is possible that over the course of those 1,500 years the semantic category of remoteness never grammaticalized into tense. I find that idea that it has not highly dubious.
2) If there way anytime in the history of Greek that could be described as not having tense, Mycenaean Greek would be the better option. In some sense, its more believable for the Classical period when the optative was a far more viable inflectional category. The optative is the only non-indicative mood that does not take the "primary" person-number endings and essentially functioned as a "more remote" version of the subjunctive. But even then, the optative still never requires the augment. This separation of the augment from the secondary endings is quite notable. I might go as far as to say that the "secondary" person-number endings did, indeed, mark remoteness at one point in time, but the ἐ- prefix marked past tense. Eventually with the decline of the optative, the "secondary" person-number endings were reanalyzed by speakers of the language as marking past tense. Variation in the appearance of the augment is then of little relevance for demonstrating that there is no tense because the secondary ending contributed to fill the roll as well.
Notes:
* I find the term augment not particularly useful for description. Labeling it according to its function seems to me to be more useful: past tense prefix.
** The term tense forms that has recently come int vogue grates my ears. Some of those who use it do not even believe Greek has tense. It confuses the issue and will continue to lead students into thinking that Greek is a tense prominent language. We all know it isn't.
In principle, I have nothing against the possibility of tenseless languages. My own protest against the view for Greek involves a number of interrelated factors.
So the points that follow essentially function as a sort of "What one would need to explain in order to convince me." To anyone who might hold to to a tenseless view, I would encourage you to view these issues as a useful starting point for dialogue. How do you view these four points below? Are they issues that you have thought about (one or two or all)? Do you have a perspective on them? How can we meaningfully discuss the question?
Morphological Factors
1) The ἐ- prefix* that appears on the aorist and imperfect verb-forms** cannot be easily ignored for what it is: the marker for past tense. Some want to label it as the marker of remoteness, but if that's the case, then why does it not appear in the non-indicative moods? Surely the subjective and optative expressions of potentiality are equally remote as indicative forms, but only in a different way. Now I could imagine *tense* being distinguished in the realis vs. the irrealis moods, but its hard to see why such a more abstract category like remoteness would be distinguished in such a way. Why should it only be an indicative category?
2) Also if we are to prefer remoteness as the correct semantic category over against tense, then why is the future not marked with either the of the supposed "remoteness markers": either the ἐ- prefix or the "secondary" person-number endings. So if the future is not remote, then why not? If tense is merely a metaphorical extension of spatial remoteness (in principle, a perfectly acceptable idea), why is it also not remote? For some, the inflectional form labeled "future" merely marks "expectation." Why isn't expectation remote?
Diachronic Factors
1) Greek has a long history. At the time of the New Testament, we're talking already over 1,500 years (1,800 years?). PIE didn't have tense. That's generally agreed upon. But those who reject the category of tense either entirely or partially must then explain to me how it is possible that over the course of those 1,500 years the semantic category of remoteness never grammaticalized into tense. I find that idea that it has not highly dubious.
2) If there way anytime in the history of Greek that could be described as not having tense, Mycenaean Greek would be the better option. In some sense, its more believable for the Classical period when the optative was a far more viable inflectional category. The optative is the only non-indicative mood that does not take the "primary" person-number endings and essentially functioned as a "more remote" version of the subjunctive. But even then, the optative still never requires the augment. This separation of the augment from the secondary endings is quite notable. I might go as far as to say that the "secondary" person-number endings did, indeed, mark remoteness at one point in time, but the ἐ- prefix marked past tense. Eventually with the decline of the optative, the "secondary" person-number endings were reanalyzed by speakers of the language as marking past tense. Variation in the appearance of the augment is then of little relevance for demonstrating that there is no tense because the secondary ending contributed to fill the roll as well.
Notes:
* I find the term augment not particularly useful for description. Labeling it according to its function seems to me to be more useful: past tense prefix.
** The term tense forms that has recently come int vogue grates my ears. Some of those who use it do not even believe Greek has tense. It confuses the issue and will continue to lead students into thinking that Greek is a tense prominent language. We all know it isn't.