Runge on Porter on Tense
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Runge on Porter on Tense
Steve Runge has posted a critique of Stan Porter's method as it relates to tense here: http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2013/08/port ... stitution/
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
- Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
- Contact:
Re: Runge on Porter on Tense
And here is a link to the paper http://www.ntdiscourse.org/wp-content/u ... nFinal.pdf. But Runge really wants you to read his blog first, so the reader can get a perspective on the greater disagreement.
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Runge on Porter on Tense
In a follow-up post, Steve lays out the following areas of consensus:
I'm basically fine with this, but I'd call the aspect of the perfect, well, perfect.Well folks, I am here to tell you that this is not really the case. Regardless of the hype, there is actually quite a bit more consensus on these issues than you might think. If you like Porter’s taxonomy then we have something in common; I like it too. Here is what I mean:
- Greek tense-forms convey perfective, imperfective, or a third kind of tense/aspect.
- The aspects are present in every mood, whereas tense (“spatial proximity/remoteness” for you timeless folks) is only found in the indicative mood.
- The aorist conveys perfective aspect, the present and imperfect convey imperfective aspect, and the perfect and pluperfect convey a third thing. Porter calls it stative aspect, which I can live with.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: Runge on Porter on Tense
+1Stephen Carlson wrote:I'm basically fine with this, but I'd call the aspect of the perfect, well, perfect.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com