Re: Imperfective Imperfects in Acts 8:17

From: CWestf5155 (CWestf5155@aol.com)
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998 - 12:06:18 EST


Dear Clayton,

In a message dated 98-01-19 14:13:33 EST, you write:

>
> In Acts 8:17 both finite verbs EPETIQESAN and ELAMBANON are imperfects.
> (Please note the setting that is established for this verse by the two
> perfect
> participles in 8:16). It appears that these verbs are functioning
> Imperfectively (no, this is not a tautology). I was intrigued to discover
> that
> the ASV (1901) translated these words perfectively, "Then laid they their
> hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." where as the NASB
> translated them Imperfectively "Then they began laying their hands on them,
> and they were receiving the Holy Spirit".
>
> Stanly Porter (Idioms, 2nd ed., pp. 28f) says that the Imperfective
*aspect*
> indicates only the subjective choice of the author about how to represent
> the
> action. I have a problem with this. It seems to me that in this case the
> Imperfect from is used to describe an objective situation where the action
> was
> proceeding. There were not enough apostles to lay hands on all of them at
> one
> time so using the Imperfect was Luke's way of depicting the objective
> situation.
>
> I suppose that I am misunderstanding Porter, which is exceedingly easy to
do.
>
>
> Maybe Cindy or someone else can enlighten me on this.
>
> --
> Clayton Stirling Bartholomew

I'd like to address your original question, but I have read the subsequent
discussion between you and Rolf.

I will try to clarify the theory of aspect that is based on linguistics.

Porter's theory of aspect (theoretically speaking) does not assert that the
occurence of every tense of every verb is based on the subjective choice of
the author. His theory is grounded in a general system of linguistics that
clarifies this.

The theory is grounded in a theory of linguistics called "Systemic
Linguistics" among other things. The principle that the Aspect Theory
explores is that language is basically a system of choices. Sometimes there
is a large amount of choice and sometimes the choice is restricted.

Here are some things other than aspect that would determine a verb's "tense":

Idiomatic usage: In an idiom, a tense would have no aspect

General usage/dialect: If they "just say it that way" and you can't find any
exceptions, then there is no choice involved, and there is no aspect. If
that's the way they say it in a given dialect, there is no aspect.

Register: Vocabulary and verb forms may be restricted in certain
contexts--like a language protocol. In a law court, in a shop, etc.,
vocabulary and verb forms may be restricted in a language, so that there is a
detectable pattern in which no choices are made. Aspect means nothing in
cases like these.

Aspect only applies when there is a choice involved. It also assumes that all
things are not equal. Some tenses will be more common in some contexts and
some authors than others (Mark's use of the present is not the same as
Luke's). Aspect usually involves some "norm" and departures from a norm.
Departures from the norm are "marked". The rarer they are, the more emphatic
they are.

As far as Acts 8:17 is concerned, the author could have conceivably used the
perfect or the aorist instead of the imperfect without making a grammatical or
cultural "mistake". Aspect theories are attempts to explain what might
determine the choice of one tense over another (when there is a grammatical
choice).

The way I understand it, in Acts 8:17, if the aorist had been used for
EPETIQESAN and ELAMBANON, it would have de-emphasized the actions in the
narrative (making the same statement with no frills). The verbs in the aorist
probably would have provided some contextual background or backdrop for the
point he was making.

Cindy Westfall
PhD student, Roehampton

 



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