Verb catalog - lexical aspect

[MAubrey]

Sorry, I didn't intend to convey that idea that it was...Rijksbaron is making a contribution to FG with the book, not Greek. The most relevant section for Greek is his appendix.

[Stephen Carlson]

Sorry, I didn't intend to convey that idea that it was...Rijksbaron is making a contribution to FG with the book, not Greek. The most relevant section for Greek is his appendix.

Even that is inadequate to explain his thinking in his Greek Syntax.

[Jonathan Robie]

Sorry, I didn't intend to convey that idea that it was...Rijksbaron is making a contribution to FG with the book, not Greek. The most relevant section for Greek is his appendix.

Even that is inadequate to explain his thinking in his Greek Syntax.

What's in the appendix?

[MAubrey]

What's in the appendix?

The appendix is a disucssion of the passage from Aristotle where he distinguishes energeia from kinesis. That portion of text is the basis for the foundational works on aktionsart classes going back to Vendler.

[Stephen Carlson]

What's in the appendix?

The appendix is a disucssion of the passage from Aristotle where he distinguishes energeia from kinesis. That portion of text is the basis for the foundational works on aktionsart classes going back to Vendler.

Yep, that's what it is. I'm willing to bet that Aristotle's distinction works great for Greek.

[KimmoHuovila]

(I'm also not sure if the state-activity distinction is as important for Greek as it is for English.)

That's entirely possible, but it is something that would require testing to determine for sure. I'm suspicious, though. It's pretty clear that the Greek lexicon has allowed for the formation of distinct prototypical verbs expressing to be and to do. At the same time, the fact that μέγας can be used with both activities and states might suggest you're right. It's a little extreme of a view for me though. I would still expect that some verbs are more state-like and others are more activity-like.

The state vs. non-state distinction is vitally important for English, I'll grant you that. But for Greek, Corien Bary's dissertation on Greek aspect makes the claim that it isn't, instead that boundedness is important, and I haven't been able to come up with any evidence that the interpretation of Greek verbal inflections is sensitive to stativity.

I am jumping in quite late for the thread, and I am not sure how much I will be able to participate, but I will throw in my two cents anyways.

I did not see any mention about the use of ingressive aorists vs. inchoative imperfects. In the past, the beginning of the verbal state or action is usually coded with an aorist if the verb is stative and with an imperfect if it is dynamic.

[Stephen Carlson]

I am jumping in quite late for the thread, and I am not sure how much I will be able to participate, but I will throw in my two cents anyways.

Glad you're jumping in!

I did not see any mention about the use of ingressive aorists vs. inchoative imperfects. In the past, the beginning of the verbal state or action is usually coded with an aorist if the verb is stative and with an imperfect if it is dynamic.

I have a somewhat different understanding of ingressive aorists and immediative (Rijksbaron's term = inchoative) imperfects.

Ingressive aorists can be found with any unbounded predication, usually states but sometimes also (dynamic) activities. In her dissertation, Bary gives the following example with the activity verb δακρύω (I cry):

ἐνθαῦτα ὁ Ξέρξης ἑωυτὸν ἐμακάρισε, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο ἐδάκρυσε.
Then Xerxes declared himself happy, but after that he burst out crying.

We know this aorist is not complexive but ingressive because Xerxes is still crying when Artabanus tells him: μακαρίσας γὰρ σεωυτὸν δακρύεις "for you're crying after you declared yourself happy" (Hdt. 7.46.1).

In the New Testament, the aorist ἠκολούθησαν of the two blind men in Matt 9:27 is also ingressive as the rest of the pericope indicates.

As for immediative imperfects, their inceptive meaning comes about when the context prevents an extension the activity/state earlier than the left edge of the reference time. For example, Mark 9:20 πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων, where the boy can't really begin rolling about on the ground until he fell on it. (As of this moment, I don't have a state example of an immediative imperfect at hand, but I don't see how stativity fits into this account of the construction.)

[KimmoHuovila]

ἐνθαῦτα ὁ Ξέρξης ἑωυτὸν ἐμακάρισε, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο ἐδάκρυσε.
Then Xerxes declared himself happy, but after that he burst out crying.

We know this aorist is not complexive but ingressive because Xerxes is still crying when Artabanus tells him: μακαρίσας γὰρ σεωυτὸν δακρύεις "for you're crying after you declared yourself happy" (Hdt. 7.46.1).

This is a great counter-example. Thank you.

In the New Testament, the aorist ἠκολούθησαν of the two blind men in Matt 9:27 is also ingressive as the rest of the pericope indicates.

As for immediative imperfects, their inceptive meaning comes about when the context prevents an extension the activity/state earlier than the left edge of the reference time. For example, Mark 9:20 πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων, where the boy can't really begin rolling about on the ground until he fell on it. (As of this moment, I don't have a state example of an immediative imperfect at hand, but I don't see how stativity fits into this account of the construction.)

With a stative verb, the aorist is often ingressive (I suspect more than half the cases). At times it refers to a state over a period of time, so it is definitely not exclusively ingressive. However, with an imperfective aspect, I suspect any emphasis on the beginning of the action is contextual and not due to the verb form. Perhaps in these cases the imperfective was chosen to signal background.

[Stephen Carlson]

With a stative verb, the aorist is often ingressive (I suspect more than half the cases). At times it refers to a state over a period of time, so it is definitely not exclusively ingressive. However, with an imperfective aspect, I suspect any emphasis on the beginning of the action is contextual and not due to the verb form. Perhaps in these cases the imperfective was chosen to signal background.

That's my understanding too.

[Louis L Sorenson]

Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek. §8090.

Precision regarding tense-aspect in the imperative/subjunctive, as well as in
the indicative, is impossible apart from the study of individual verbs. For example,
in the sequence of injunctions in Mt. 5:39ff., all injunctive verbs are aorist
(five examples), except for ὕπαγε (5:41), which is present imperative. This verb
is often used in the imperative in the New Testament and always in the present
tense (Bl-D §101, s.v. ἄγειν). In fact, it occurs only in the present (and imperfect)
in any mood. It would therefore be a serious error to attach special significance
to this present imperative occurring among a series of aorists in Mt 5:39ff.
The data for a study of individual verbs have not yet been collected from a
significant body of texts (the use of concordances is a cumbersome and time
consuming method).For that matter, the data for an analysis of tense-aspect in
general are not yet readily available. Traditional Greek grammar has operated
largely on intuitions based on theory and a few random examples

Is the bold text still true today? Funk was written in the 1970's.