David M. Miller wrote: Actually, what I was originally asking—and am still wondering—is whether the connection between the semantic meaning of the imperfect (imperfective aspect + past time) and offline information (the pragmatic function) is consistent enough to be a “rule.”
ἤλαυνον — ἤλαῡνον,ἐλαύνω (drive): imperf ind act 1st sg LSJ drive, set in motion, of driving flocks w/ εἰςSoph. OT.
1135ὁ μὲν διπλοῖσι ποιμνίοις, ἐγὼ δ᾿ ἑνὶ
ἐπλησίαζον τῷδε τἀνδρὶ τρεῖς ὅλους
ἐξ ἦρος εἰς ἀρκτοῦρον ἑκμήνους χρόνους·
χειμῶνι δ᾿ ἤδη τἀμά τ᾿ εἰς ἔπαυλ᾿ ἐγὼ
ἤλαυνον οὗτός τ᾿ ἐς τὰ Λαΐου σταθμά.
1140λέγω τι τούτων, ἢ οὐ λέγω πεπραγμένον;
… he with two herds and I with one,
I was in this man’s company for three whole periods
of six months each, from spring to the rising of Arcturus;
and when winter came I would drive my flock back to their byres
and he his to the steadings of Laius.
Is what I am saying true, or not?
LCL, Lloyd-Jones 1994
The ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ provides an embedded narrative where the "customary imperfect" ἤλαυνον is part of the narrative backbone or mainline . The events narrated occurred over three spring to fall seasons of pasturing the flocks.