Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Post by Stephen Hughes » November 3rd, 2014, 7:58 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:Who's got the better of the argument?
Were you looking for point by points and a discussion to follow, or just an impressionistic answer?
0 x


Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

MAubrey
Posts: 991
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Post by MAubrey » November 3rd, 2014, 10:30 pm

Just to clarify:

Is Espinsosa concluding that ἐλθεῖν is inherently telic?

Or that ἐλθεῖν can be used in telic contexts?
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

MAubrey
Posts: 991
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Post by MAubrey » November 3rd, 2014, 10:34 pm

MAubrey wrote:Just to clarify:

Is Espinsosa concluding that ἐλθεῖν is inherently telic?

Or that ἐλθεῖν can be used in telic contexts?
I would say the former is incontrovertibly false.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2835
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Post by Stephen Carlson » November 3rd, 2014, 11:00 pm

MAubrey wrote:Just to clarify:

Is Espinsosa concluding that ἐλθεῖν is inherently telic?

Or that ἐλθεῖν can be used in telic contexts?
"Inherently telic" is not a collocation in Espinosa's paper, so to answer this kind of question, we'd have to figure what you and Espinsosa mean by "inherently" and "telic" and see if and how they match up. For example, Espinosa talks about ἐλθεῖν being "lexically telic" and "inherently deictic" but are those the same as or different from your "inherently telic"?
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

MAubrey
Posts: 991
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Post by MAubrey » November 4th, 2014, 2:23 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:Espinosa talks about ἐλθεῖν being "lexically telic" and "inherently deictic" but are those the same as or different from your "inherently telic"?
Well, he bases his 'lexical telicity' on the basis that the verb 'denotes motion toward the deictic center', so they seem the same to me. Either way, I'm not sure that's a very good inference for him to make.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2835
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Post by Stephen Carlson » November 4th, 2014, 4:07 am

MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Espinosa talks about ἐλθεῖν being "lexically telic" and "inherently deictic" but are those the same as or different from your "inherently telic"?
Well, he bases his 'lexical telicity' on the basis that the verb 'denotes motion toward the deictic center', so they seem the same to me. Either way, I'm not sure that's a very good inference for him to make.
And what's your objection to it? The general concept? Or, as as applied to ἐλθεῖν?
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

cwconrad
Posts: 2110
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Post by cwconrad » November 4th, 2014, 7:13 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:The Greek that is being discussed in those theses is coming up in some places in English letters! I'm finding that difficult to read and distracting.
That's what happens when writers don't use Unicode fonts.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Does my computer need something else to be done to it to display the Greek words properly in the Greek alphabet?
Well, actually, looking at it again more closely, it seems to be intentional...
Example of transliterated Greek from RMS wrote:phulassō ... diaphulassō
I think that it is intentional. That's what Linguists do when they're talking about Greek to other Linguists, rather than to those who regularly work in Greek.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

cwconrad
Posts: 2110
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Post by cwconrad » November 4th, 2014, 7:18 am

MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Espinosa talks about ἐλθεῖν being "lexically telic" and "inherently deictic" but are those the same as or different from your "inherently telic"?
Well, he bases his 'lexical telicity' on the basis that the verb 'denotes motion toward the deictic center', so they seem the same to me. Either way, I'm not sure that's a very good inference for him to make.
Ain't Linguistic lexicology wunnerful? Sometimes I wunner if it's a communicable disease. (Sorry about that, but I couldn't help it.)
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2835
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Post by Stephen Carlson » November 4th, 2014, 7:12 pm

MAubrey wrote:Well, he bases his 'lexical telicity' on the basis that the verb 'denotes motion toward the deictic center', so they seem the same to me. Either way, I'm not sure that's a very good inference for him to make.
I should add that "motion toward" a destination does not define a telic event, but an atelic activity. I think Espinosa meant "motion to," which would be telic. It is an error on his part to say "toward."
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

MAubrey
Posts: 991
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Telicity of ἐλθεῖν (ἕρχομαι)?

Post by MAubrey » November 4th, 2014, 10:46 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
MAubrey wrote:Well, he bases his 'lexical telicity' on the basis that the verb 'denotes motion toward the deictic center', so they seem the same to me. Either way, I'm not sure that's a very good inference for him to make.
I should add that "motion toward" a destination does not define a telic event, but an atelic activity. I think Espinosa meant "motion to," which would be telic. It is an error on his part to say "toward."
Agreed, if the verb is telic, then that would be the bettter characterization.

But clauses like: δόξα θεοῦ Ισραηλ ἤρχετο κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν (Ezekiel 43:2) or ἦλθεν γὰρ Ισραηλ ὁδὸν Αθαριν (Numbers 21:1) tell me that the verb isn't telic. I also think his analysis of Matt 15:29 is getting awfully close to question begging.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Post Reply

Return to “Word Meanings”