Re: 'default' aorist

From: Somi Chuhon (kittycat@uniserve.com)
Date: Fri Oct 25 1996 - 18:05:11 EDT


At 10:38 AM 10/24/96 -0400, you wrote:

>***
>I agree that it is sometimes difficult to figure out how the category
>of aspect fits into interpretation. It helps if you recognize
>"default" as a linguistic term of art (going back to the Prague
>School, at least, in the early part of this centurey) for "unmarked".
>THat is, the aorist, Porter argues, is the form used when one doesn't
>want to say anything "marked", i.e. special.
>
>*******

My concern here is if we are able to say that the aorist tense is NOT saying
anything special. By attributing the name, "default" or "unmarked," could
we possibly be downplaying a possible exegetical significance to the aorist
tense. I understand that in the past there was probably too much emphasis
placed on the sematic significance of the aoritst. Yet, as a reaction to
it, could this "fresh" way of denoting the aorist actually be eliminating
its exegetical contribution to the task of interpretation? This is more of
what I am concerned about.

Somi.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:54 EDT