Does the "present" have to be non-past?
Posted: February 14th, 2017, 12:30 am
Hi guys,
This is my first post here and I'm an absolute beginner so if I make claims that sound like I think I know what I'm doing, I don't. Please be gentle (though feel free to tell me I'm wrong).
I'm trying to wrestle through all the stuff about the meaning of the forms of Greek verbs (yes, some of us have to wade through the mess that your debates are creating!). I've been reading Runge's article on the historic present, The Greek Verb Revisited and a bunch of Mike Aubrey's blog musings. Although I've been using the terms 'Past Perfective', 'Non-Past Combinative' etc. as I've been learning, I'll use the traditional terms here.
I'm perfectly happy that aspect is prominent in Greek and that the Aorist is perfective, the Imperfect/Present are imperfective and the Perfects are resultative (-ish). It also makes good sense to me that the augment prototypically marks past time and that it would be fine for Aorists to be used by metaphorical extension in situations that are not past because you want/need perfective aspect. (I'm still figuring out what I think about the proposal that the pair to the aorist is the future).
If the aorist, imperfect and pluperfect all mark anterior time, I'm wondering what the options are for the present/perfect. You guys have convinced me that Porter goes too far in saying that there is no tense marking at all and that the augment is worth something. My basic question is, why does the opposition to 'past' have to be 'non-past'? I know that is common enough cross-linguistically, but I don't see why it has to be the case. Put another way:
Aorist: +PERF +PAST
Imperfect: +IMPERF +PAST
Present: + IMPERF -PAST
But why couldn't present be undefined?
Aorist: +PERF +PAST
Imperfect: +IMPERF +PAST
Present: + IMPERF +/-PAST
If this were the case (which I'm asking about, not asserting), then the present would be more like a participle in that the surrounding context would tell me about time (so historic present wouldn't be so confusing). All the non-past uses of the present would still be there and make sense (ie: you still choose against marking +PAST for present and future events). The imperfect can be used if you want to and it will establish past time, but you are free to use the present if you need imperfective aspect and you don't need to establish past time (either because it's non-past or because it's already been established).
Would anyone be able to give me an example/link that kills my hypothesis dead?
This is my first post here and I'm an absolute beginner so if I make claims that sound like I think I know what I'm doing, I don't. Please be gentle (though feel free to tell me I'm wrong).
I'm trying to wrestle through all the stuff about the meaning of the forms of Greek verbs (yes, some of us have to wade through the mess that your debates are creating!). I've been reading Runge's article on the historic present, The Greek Verb Revisited and a bunch of Mike Aubrey's blog musings. Although I've been using the terms 'Past Perfective', 'Non-Past Combinative' etc. as I've been learning, I'll use the traditional terms here.
I'm perfectly happy that aspect is prominent in Greek and that the Aorist is perfective, the Imperfect/Present are imperfective and the Perfects are resultative (-ish). It also makes good sense to me that the augment prototypically marks past time and that it would be fine for Aorists to be used by metaphorical extension in situations that are not past because you want/need perfective aspect. (I'm still figuring out what I think about the proposal that the pair to the aorist is the future).
If the aorist, imperfect and pluperfect all mark anterior time, I'm wondering what the options are for the present/perfect. You guys have convinced me that Porter goes too far in saying that there is no tense marking at all and that the augment is worth something. My basic question is, why does the opposition to 'past' have to be 'non-past'? I know that is common enough cross-linguistically, but I don't see why it has to be the case. Put another way:
Aorist: +PERF +PAST
Imperfect: +IMPERF +PAST
Present: + IMPERF -PAST
But why couldn't present be undefined?
Aorist: +PERF +PAST
Imperfect: +IMPERF +PAST
Present: + IMPERF +/-PAST
If this were the case (which I'm asking about, not asserting), then the present would be more like a participle in that the surrounding context would tell me about time (so historic present wouldn't be so confusing). All the non-past uses of the present would still be there and make sense (ie: you still choose against marking +PAST for present and future events). The imperfect can be used if you want to and it will establish past time, but you are free to use the present if you need imperfective aspect and you don't need to establish past time (either because it's non-past or because it's already been established).
Would anyone be able to give me an example/link that kills my hypothesis dead?