Page 2 of 2

Re: Pang: Revisiting Aspect and Aktionsart

Posted: June 21st, 2017, 8:49 pm
by MAubrey
I should add: treating Aktionsart of a property of a clause (or better, of a proposition) is the preferred approach more or less across the board these days. Tying Aktionsart solely to the verb only causes pain. Everyone would love to be able to do it, but of those who try, nobody succeeds.

Re: Pang: Revisiting Aspect and Aktionsart

Posted: June 21st, 2017, 9:18 pm
by Stephen Carlson
MAubrey wrote:
June 21st, 2017, 8:49 pm
I should add: treating Aktionsart of a property of a clause (or better, of a proposition) is the preferred approach more or less across the board these days. Tying Aktionsart solely to the verb only causes pain. Everyone would love to be able to do it, but of those who try, nobody succeeds.
I agree. I did try that once, and failed.

Re: Pang: Revisiting Aspect and Aktionsart

Posted: June 21st, 2017, 9:28 pm
by Jonathan Robie
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
June 21st, 2017, 6:56 pm
Thanks for the discussion so far and to Jonathan for the link. I just read Aspect and Aktionsart Once Again. In short: I was pleased.
Can you say more? What were you pleased by?

Re: Pang: Revisiting Aspect and Aktionsart

Posted: June 22nd, 2017, 4:18 am
by Eeli Kaikkonen
Jonathan Robie wrote:
June 21st, 2017, 9:28 pm
Can you say more? What were you pleased by?
He uses good modern linguistic sources, as far as I understand. He handles them well. He's critical of the semantic/pragmatic distinction and seems to understand that issue better than most NT scholars. He understands the importance of Aktionsart, and what's even better, he seems to understand what Aktionsart is in linguistics, unlike most NT scholars. He suggests that we need more research on Aktionsart/lexical aspect/situation aspect and how it interacts with grammatical aspect. He understands the need to develop a Koine Greek specific classification of Aktionsart instead of using an English based one. He writes clearly, logically and understandably.

On the other hand, he offers definitions or explanations only at passing or not at all, so the article requires solid preunderstanding of aspectology and the state of affairs in NT studies. There's also a danger that the preunderstanding or definitions are not really shared between him and the reader even if they seem to be at first.

Re: Pang: Revisiting Aspect and Aktionsart

Posted: June 22nd, 2017, 10:27 am
by MAubrey
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
June 22nd, 2017, 4:18 am
Jonathan Robie wrote:
June 21st, 2017, 9:28 pm
Can you say more? What were you pleased by?
He uses good modern linguistic sources, as far as I understand. He handles them well. He's critical of the semantic/pragmatic distinction and seems to understand that issue better than most NT scholars. He understands the importance of Aktionsart, and what's even better, he seems to understand what Aktionsart is in linguistics, unlike most NT scholars. He suggests that we need more research on Aktionsart/lexical aspect/situation aspect and how it interacts with grammatical aspect. He understands the need to develop a Koine Greek specific classification of Aktionsart instead of using an English based one. He writes clearly, logically and understandably.

On the other hand, he offers definitions or explanations only at passing or not at all, so the article requires solid preunderstanding of aspectology and the state of affairs in NT studies. There's also a danger that the preunderstanding or definitions are not really shared between him and the reader even if they seem to be at first.
Yep. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he's produced the best Greek grammar/linguistics dissertation that's ever come out of McMaster.

Re: Pang: Revisiting Aspect and Aktionsart

Posted: June 22nd, 2017, 7:51 pm
by Stephen Carlson
MAubrey wrote:
June 22nd, 2017, 10:27 am
Yep. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he's produced the best Greek grammar/linguistics dissertation that's ever come out of McMaster.
The breadth and interaction with the current literature on aspect is a breath of fresh air in our discipline. As far as I can tell, all the major and many of the minor players are cited. It is rare for an NT thesis to have such a wide reading in the broader literature.

I still have misgivings over the design of the experimental setup in the second part of the thesis, however. I would like that better explained.