The negation of perfect verb forms

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1603
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms

Post by Barry Hofstetter » September 10th, 2018, 8:36 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
September 10th, 2018, 8:20 am
Well, οἶδα is only the most common perfect in the New Testament. Get that wrong and you're not "simply" describing the perfect. And οἶδα is not the only perfect that has no completed action. For example, ἔοικα is like οἶδα in this regard. I could add others but I don't want to get into a "No True Scotsman" situation.

Of course, οἶδα cannot be generalized to all perfects, and I never said it should be. The Greek perfect is polysemous and there is no way to "simply" describe it accurately. Giving the example of οἶδα, however, is sufficient to contradict your simple claim.

As for Latin, I wasn't discussing it, but come to think of it, your explanation of the Greek perfect sounds a lot like the one for the Latin perfect I heard in class. You still need to distinguish the Greek aorist and perfect, because "referring simply to completed action" won't cut it.
Very formally logical of you. Jack is a black swan, therefore all swans are not white. However, how do you think that οἶδα came to be used with a present sense in Greek, and why would nōvī in Latin do the same thing? BTW, fun fact, noscō is cognate with the Greek γιγνώσκω (in early Latin it is spelled gnoscō), which is not used in the same way in the perfect.
0 x


N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2834
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms

Post by Stephen Carlson » September 12th, 2018, 2:17 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
September 10th, 2018, 8:36 am
Very formally logical of you. Jack is a black swan, therefore all swans are not white.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
September 10th, 2018, 8:36 am
However, how do you think that οἶδα came to be used with a present sense in Greek, and why would nōvī in Latin do the same thing? BTW, fun fact, noscō is cognate with the Greek γιγνώσκω (in early Latin it is spelled gnoscō), which is not used in the same way in the perfect.
Not just Greek or Latin, but Swedish too. "I know" in Swedish is "jag vet," using a verb that is preterit in form but present in semantics. In fact, "vet" is a cognate of οἶδα. The answer is not a Greek answer but involves something way back in Proto-Indo-European or even pre-Proto-Indo-European.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1603
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms

Post by Barry Hofstetter » September 12th, 2018, 6:19 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 2:17 am
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
September 10th, 2018, 8:36 am
However, how do you think that οἶδα came to be used with a present sense in Greek, and why would nōvī in Latin do the same thing? BTW, fun fact, noscō is cognate with the Greek γιγνώσκω (in early Latin it is spelled gnoscō), which is not used in the same way in the perfect.
Not just Greek or Latin, but Swedish too. "I know" in Swedish is "jag vet," using a verb that is preterit in form but present in semantics. In fact, "vet" is a cognate of οἶδα. The answer is not a Greek answer but involves something way back in Proto-Indo-European or even pre-Proto-Indo-European.
Interesting. I suspect the answer is semantic. οἶδα is the o-grade of εἶδον, originally Ϝιδ- root. That comes into Latin as videō, perfect vīdī (yeah, I know, vēnī and vīcī). However, that perfect is used normally in Latin (I saw, I have seen) whereas the perfect of (g)noscō, nōvī, cognate with γιγνώσκω, is used in the present sense parallel to οἶδα.

My point is that οἶδα is a specialized usage. It doesn't speak for how the perfect is used for practically every other verb in Greek, so it really needs to be left out of the equation.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Garrett Tyson
Posts: 26
Joined: July 14th, 2018, 6:54 pm

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms

Post by Garrett Tyson » September 12th, 2018, 8:40 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 6:19 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 2:17 am
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
September 10th, 2018, 8:36 am
However, how do you think that οἶδα came to be used with a present sense in Greek, and why would nōvī in Latin do the same thing? BTW, fun fact, noscō is cognate with the Greek γιγνώσκω (in early Latin it is spelled gnoscō), which is not used in the same way in the perfect.
Not just Greek or Latin, but Swedish too. "I know" in Swedish is "jag vet," using a verb that is preterit in form but present in semantics. In fact, "vet" is a cognate of οἶδα. The answer is not a Greek answer but involves something way back in Proto-Indo-European or even pre-Proto-Indo-European.
Interesting. I suspect the answer is semantic. οἶδα is the o-grade of εἶδον, originally Ϝιδ- root. That comes into Latin as videō, perfect vīdī (yeah, I know, vēnī and vīcī). However, that perfect is used normally in Latin (I saw, I have seen) whereas the perfect of (g)noscō, nōvī, cognate with γιγνώσκω, is used in the present sense parallel to οἶδα.

My point is that οἶδα is a specialized usage. It doesn't speak for how the perfect is used for practically every other verb in Greek, so it really needs to be left out of the equation.
My understanding is that there are quite a few verbs that are naturally stative that take the perfect, although the perfect usually takes telic verbs. οἶδα isn't really an exception.

I've been reading Aubrey's thesis lately, and tried summarizing his views of the perfect (I didn't want to post the summary on here until he's had a chance to respond-- not sure he will like the way I've tried to simplify/summarize it). I'll just put in one small section here.

He says when a verb that's normally stative becomes intensified/perfected, it becomes the "highest degree of the state" (https://koine-greek.com/2015/05/14/stat ... fect-pt-1/). This understanding particularly fits verbs that are gradient or express emotion (Aubrey thesis 109):

τεθύμωντο πρὸς τὴν ὕβριν
They were furious from the insult
(Josephus, Wars of the Jews 4.284).

Ἰσραὴλ μεμεθυσμένος οὐχὶ νοήσει
Israel, completely drunk, will have no ability to think
(Sibylline Oracles 1.360)

So verbs that are naturally stative, still become completive in the perfect. That is the difference the perfect makes in that situation.

Using the last example, what I was expecting was that if the Sibylline oracle quote was negated, we'd end up with Israel being a little buzzed, but not drunk.

Rev. 2:3 καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις, καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου, καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες.

Why is the perfect form used in Revelation 2:3, with the negative? Is it that they aren't at all tired? Not completely tired? Or is that asking too much of the verb-- all we can say for sure, is that something/someone isn't completely X, and whether they are a little X, or not at all X, is not something we know from the negated perfect.

In checking Rev. 2:3 this morning, BDAG says: "the pf. here expresses the thought that the Ephesian congregation has not become tired to the extent of ‘giving up’)."

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 558). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
0 x

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2834
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms

Post by Stephen Carlson » September 12th, 2018, 9:18 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 6:19 am
My point is that οἶδα is a specialized usage. It doesn't speak for how the perfect is used for practically every other verb in Greek, so it really needs to be left out of the equation.
It's one example out of many. I also gave ἔοικα. Please tell me how "the perfect refers simply to completed action" in James 1:6: αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει μηδὲν διακρινόμενος · ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένῳ.

Once you're done with that, we can move on to the next example on my long list of counter-examples. I'm sure they'll last longer than your patience for defending an untenable oversimplification.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1603
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms

Post by Barry Hofstetter » September 12th, 2018, 1:09 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 9:18 am
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 6:19 am
My point is that οἶδα is a specialized usage. It doesn't speak for how the perfect is used for practically every other verb in Greek, so it really needs to be left out of the equation.
It's one example out of many. I also gave ἔοικα. Please tell me how "the perfect refers simply to completed action" in James 1:6: αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει μηδὲν διακρινόμενος · ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένῳ.

Once you're done with that, we can move on to the next example on my long list of counter-examples. I'm sure they'll last longer than your patience for defending an untenable oversimplification.
ἐμοὶ οὔτε ἄπορον οὔτε ἀπλουστερον ἔοικεν... :)

Good parallel and rejoinder. Isn't it interesting that both are perfect forms without a present stem? I agree with you that this is something deeply rooted in the PIE, and I would assert here that the development and usage of the two are precisely parallel, and have to do with the semantics involved, i.e., "to have obtained knowledge" = "to be in current possession of knowledge," = "to know" and similarly with ἔοικα.

Glad to discuss any further examples, if you like.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2834
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms

Post by Stephen Carlson » September 12th, 2018, 5:09 pm

Where’s the reference to a completed action?
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1603
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms

Post by Barry Hofstetter » September 12th, 2018, 10:41 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 5:09 pm
Where’s the reference to a completed action?
For which verb that we've been discussing?
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2834
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms

Post by Stephen Carlson » September 12th, 2018, 11:12 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 10:41 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote:
September 12th, 2018, 5:09 pm
Where’s the reference to a completed action?
For which verb that we've been discussing?
ἔοικεν
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Jacob Rhoden
Posts: 152
Joined: February 15th, 2013, 8:16 am
Location: Greenville, South Carolina
Contact:

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms

Post by Jacob Rhoden » September 13th, 2018, 3:25 am

I have stumbled across Verbal Aspect Theory and the Prohibitions in the Greek New Testament today, I don't have time to read it, but skimming the Table of Contents suggests, unless I missed it, it has sections on all indicative verb forms except the perfect.

hmmmm....
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Grammar Questions”