Porter's SBL review of "The Greek Verb Revisited"

[Matthew Longhorn]

Hopefully this isn't something that is banging a drum that people may no longer want to hear about (Porter's views on verbal aspect), however I saw that Porter gave a review of the Greek Verb Revisited at the latest SBL Conference. I understand that both Fresch, Runge, Fanning and Campbell were also involved with Porter in a discussion.

I haven't got access to any audio or written material from this session, so was hoping that someone who was there may be able to give some thoughts. I am interested in whether his presentation / discussion shed any new light on the linguistic issues involved and whether it may help to move things forward at all.
I understand that there were some criticisms of the book that were not specifically on the linguistic issues, I am not trying to raise any of those.

Again, sorry if this is something that people would rather not have raised given the amount of posts that cover his views on this board already!

[MAubrey]

Hopefully this isn't something that is banging a drum that people may no longer want to hear about (Porter's views on verbal aspect), however I saw that Porter gave a review of the Greek Verb Revisited at the latest SBL Conference. I understand that both Fresch, Runge, Fanning and Campbell were also involved with Porter in a discussion.

I haven't got access to any audio or written material from this session, so was hoping that someone who was there may be able to give some thoughts. I am interested in whether his presentation / discussion shed any new light on the linguistic issues involved and whether it may help to move things forward at all.
I understand that there were some criticisms of the book that were not specifically on the linguistic issues, I am not trying to raise any of those.

Well, there's nothing really to raise. Very little was said on the actual content during the panel. Most of the 'controversy' stuff was about Chris Thompson's chapter on definitions of tense and aspect, since that was the chapter that took head on this weary debate. It wasn't much of a review. He talked about the title being a misnomer and about his suspicion that there's some vendetta against him. So far as I know that's not true.

If you haven't read GVR, though, I'd say just go judge for yourself.

Again, sorry if this is something that people would rather not have raised given the amount of posts that cover his views on this board already!

No need to apologize. I don't think anyone has talked about this stuff for a while. Most of us here view the matter as settled that's all. If you're interested in understanding the data and arguments that ground that conclusion, then asking about it is the very best thing you can do! Never stop asking questions.

[Matthew Longhorn]

Thanks Mike, for advice to not stop asking questions and your thoughts on the session. That’s interesting to hear

I have read much of the GVR and have benefitted from it greatly. Your chapter I am struggling with, but that is a competency issue on my part and not a criticism! Whilst I currently lean towards the Porter side of the debate that may largely be because most of the books I have access to agree with it to some extent. GVR gave some good challenges that certainly make me humble enough to admit that I could very easily be wrong.

[Stephen Carlson]

My impression of Porter's review from being in the audience is that there is more of contemporary linguistics he disagrees with.

[Matthew Longhorn]

Thanks Stephen, that is also interesting to know

What do you think would be required to gain concensus across all parties, or do you think that that would not be possible? Poor folk like me are getting confused!

[Stephen Carlson]

What do you think would be required to gain concensus across all parties, or do you think that that would not be possible? Poor folk like me are getting confused!

I don’t think there will ever be a consensus among these parties. They’re repeating the same points and no one’s giving in. It’s basically an impasse.

[Matthew Longhorn]

Well that is really going to break my bank balance long term then! On a serious note though, that is a shame if it does turn out to be true long term.

[Stephen Carlson]

Well that is really going to break my bank balance long term then! On a serious note though, that is a shame if it does turn out to be true long term.

I think it will last at least as long as Porter is an active scholar. After he retires, it will depend on whether there is someone who can assume his mantle.

[RandallButh]

My impression of Porter's review from being in the audience is that there is more of contemporary linguistics he disagrees with.

For example, Porter dismissed Protoypicality Theory as if it were a marginal fad, not realizing or admitting that it is at the base of most serious work on Semantics these days. Why was P so cavalier? Because Porter's whole edifice hangs on a one-dimensional approach to Semantics where a meaning is not a meaning if it can be falsified in any context. As soon as that restraint is removed from his theory, his theory dissolves. Whoops.

At least Campbell admitted during Q&A that the historical present is used AGAINST the GRAIN for aspect, too. But then he backtracked without discussing examples. Thirty examples, should time be devoted, would be sufficient to show that Campbell's backtracking was just a dodge. That is why these conference sessions are sometimes frustrating and don't resolve anything.