Re: Imperfective Imperfects in Acts 8:17

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998 - 03:59:21 EST


Jonathan Robie wrote:
>
> At 11:00 AM 1/19/98 +0000, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
> >My skepticism about aspect theory(s) grows with time. I was a true believer
> >three years ago but the theory(s) has not stood the test of time. As I read
> >the NT and the LXX I find lots of counter examples. Aspect theory(s) does not
> >seem to hold up well against evidence.
>
> This is probably much too broad a statement to defend or discuss
> profitably...for the record, I've been convinced that Mari Olsen's
> treatment of aspect provides a useful, coherent theory which does account
> for the data nicely.
>
> Jonathan

The broad statement holds because I am not attacking the details of aspect
theory but the essential core of the theory. I see no compelling evidence that
*Aspect* as it is defined by Porter and Fanning is a property of NT Greek
verbs. I am proposing that this *aspect* (as it is defined by Porter and
Fanning) if it exists at all, is communicated by semantic indicators in the
larger situational context and that it is not tied to the morphological
markings of verbs. I do see some evidence that Aktionsart is connected with
the morphological markings of NT Greek verbs. So the focus of my question is
at the point where Aktionsart and Aspect differ according to Porter and
Fanning.

Rolf's response was directly too the point because he saw that I was
questioning a fundamental aspect of aspect theory. I don't accept his argument
but he at least understood clearly what I was up to.

I am going to get a hold of Fanning's big book and we can deconstruct it
paragraph by paragraph if that suits you. Probably ought to do it off list, a
lot of people are tired of this subject.

-- 
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255  Seahurst WA 98062


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT