Verb aspect debate outside of Koine

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Runge's article Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb might also be good reading. Steven sometimes writes here, too.

[Jonathan Robie]

By "the other side" I assumed that there are those who reject or at least downplay the trend towards "aspect" trumping "tense.

I don't think aspect was ignored in older grammars, and aspect is very important.

The debate is really about tense. If you want two books from the world of classics that seem very mainstream to me, I would suggest these:

• The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction - easy to read, great examples, very clear and systematic.
• The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek

I don't think aspect was ignored in older grammars, I think they just used different names and models to describe it. Outside of the meaning of tense in the indicative and the perfect, I think people largely agree. If you search this forum, you can find all kinds of discussion.

I am a "newbie" to the arguments, but since the grammars that I used up-played aspect strongly and hinted that aspect had almost been ignored in older grammars, I assumed that the dissenting voices had all but disappeared.

I don't think that's remotely true. An awful lot of modern linguists do not accept the conclusions presented in these grammars. Not because they are dinosaurs who have now all but disappeared, but because they are doing their own linguistic research and reaching different conclusions.

[mikeatnip]

Thanks Jonathan (and the others who have responded).
I have been working my way through The Greek Verb Revisited and finding that not everyone is totally onboard with the shift of emphasis toward aspect. Interesting to see the nuances and perspectives. I think I follow about 80-90% of the presentations, although I am far from a "linguist."
One of my foremost thoughts (now that I am about halfway through the book) is that it seems that some linguists analyze a text to death. I mean, we humans sometimes say things a certain way on a whim, and the next day may say the same thing with different aspect/mood/tense. For example, if someone has just told me a story today using historical presents, I may tell someone about an event that happened last week using historical presents just because that "form" of telling the story happens to be fresh on my mind. Then three days from now I may tell someone else the same story, only this time I happen to use imperfectives. I have not the slightest intention of a nuanced meaning between the two stories.
So my non-linguist advice? Be careful what thou squeezest out of that verb.

[Jonathan Robie]

I have been working my way through The Greek Verb Revisited and finding that not everyone is totally onboard with the shift of emphasis toward aspect.

I wouldn't put it that way. Everyone I know agrees that aspect is really important. Many believe that these same things were discussed in the older grammars too, under different linguistic frameworks that nobody uses these days, which can be confusing to read. That's not the debate.

The debate is really about tense in the indicative. Porter claims that Greek does not have tense at all. As Runge has pointed, out, not a single linguist or grammarian that Porter cites in his research says this. Linguists like Lyons, Comrie, Wallace and Haspelmath treat Greek as a mixed system with tense, aspect and mood all present in the indicative.

https://www.ntdiscourse.org/2013/08/ten ... ndicative/

Most of the people I learn from also understand Greek that way. The Cambridge Greek Grammar summarizes like this:

Tense-aspect: Greek verb forms fall into four overarching systems, depending on which stem of the verb is used (→11.12); these four systems differ primarily in their expression of aspect, although in the case of the future stems tense is the more important variable (these terms are treated in detail in 33):

• the present-stem system, covering the present indicative (or primary present indicative), the imperfect (or secondary present indicative), the present subjunctive, the present optative, the present imperative, the present infinitive, and the present participle;
• the aorist-stem system, covering the aorist indicative, the aorist subjunctive, the aorist optative, the aorist imperative, the aorist infinitive, and the aorist participle;
• the future-stem system, covering the future indicative, the future optative, the future infinitive, and the future participle;
• and the perfect-stem system, covering the perfect indicative (or primary perfect indicative), the pluperfect (or secondary perfect indicative), the perfect subjunctive, the perfect optative, the perfect imperative, the perfect infinitive, and the perfect participle.

Within these systems, tense is expressed by the indicatives, and by all forms of the future-stem system. Aspect is expressed by all forms except future-stem forms.

van Emde Boas, Evert; Rijksbaron, Albert; Huitink, Luuk; de Bakker, Mathieu. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (p. 110). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Note that aspect is very prominent in this description.

But it was in older grammars like Robertson or Smyth too, see Smyth's Stage of Action

1852. Every form of the verb denotes the stage of the action.

a. Continued action is denoted by the present stem:

1. Present: γράφω I am writing, πείθω I am persuading (trying to persuade), ἀνθεῖ is in bloom.
2. Imperfect: ἔγραφον I was writing, ἔπειθον I was persuading (trying to persuade), ἤνθει was in bloom.
3. Future: γράψω I shall write (shall be writing), βασιλεύσει he will reign.

N.—Continued action is incomplete: hence nothing is stated as to the conclusion. Thus φεύγει he flees does not state whether or not the subject succeeded in escaping.

b. Completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem:

1. Perfect: γέγραφα ἐπιστολήν I have written a letter (and it is now finished), ἤνθηκε has bloomed (and is in flower).
2. Pluperfect: ἐγεγράφη ἐπιστολήν I had written a letter (and it was then finished), ἠνθήκει had bloomed (and was in flower).
3. Future Perfect: γεγράψεται it will have been written, τεθνήξει he will be dead.

c. Action simply brought to pass (simple attainment) is denoted by the

1. Aorist: ἔγραψα I wrote, ἔπεισα I persuaded (succeeded in persuading), ἐβασίλευσε he became king or he was king, ἤνθησε burst into flower or was in flower.
2. Future: γράψω I shall write, βασιλεύσει he will become king.

N.—The aorist tense (ἀόριστος χρόνος from ὁρίζω define; unlimited, indefinite, or undefined time) is so named because it does not show the limitation (ὅρος) of continuance (expressed by the imperfect) or of completion with permanent result (expressed by the perfect).

[mikeatnip]

I have been working my way through The Greek Verb Revisited and finding that not everyone is totally onboard with the shift of emphasis toward aspect.

I wouldn't put it that way. Everyone I know agrees that aspect is really important. Many believe that these same things were discussed in the older grammars too, under different linguistic frameworks that nobody uses these days, which can be confusing to read. That's not the debate.

You are correct; my word choices here did not reflect what was moving through my brain.
I am glad for the conversation and the links. I think (subjective assessment here) that my conception of aspect/tense has been sharpened. By no means a linguist yet, though.

[Jonathan Robie]

You are correct; my word choices here did not reflect what was moving through my brain.
I am glad for the conversation and the links. I think (subjective assessment here) that my conception of aspect/tense has been sharpened. By no means a linguist yet, though.

I think you are trying to read texts, not to do linguistics. But try this exercise: print out a text in Greek (or use a word processor if you prefer). Color each verb according to aspect. Use a different indicator to distinguish primary tenses (perhaps a ⌋) from secondary tenses (perhaps a ⌞). Use another indicator to indicate indicative. (If you are good at .css and have an XML or HTML text with morphology you can automate this.)

Try doing this with narrative. Note how the aorists show the passage of time in a past event. Note how the imperfections (imperfect, historical present) are used to "look around" the scene. Find the main verbs and see how other verbs relate to it in aspect and in time. No need to use fancy linguistics for this. Reading sensitively will help you get a feel for this.

[serunge]

I think you are trying to read texts, not to do linguistics. But try this exercise: print out a text in Greek (or use a word processor if you prefer). Color each verb according to aspect. Use a different indicator to distinguish primary tenses (perhaps a ⌋) from secondary tenses (perhaps a ⌞). Use another indicator to indicate indicative. (If you are good at .css and have an XML or HTML text with morphology you can automate this.)

Try doing this with narrative. Note how the aorists show the passage of time in a past event. Note how the imperfections (imperfect, historical present) are used to "look around" the scene. Find the main verbs and see how other verbs relate to it in aspect and in time. No need to use fancy linguistics for this. Reading sensitively will help you get a feel for this.

I saw that you are a Logos user, so here is a morphological visual filter that would get you to much the same place (though without the same benefit as marking the text yourself as Jonathan suggested). Then I would suggest (re)reading Chris Thomson's article very carefully, digesting and letting it percolate. His article catalogs how scholars within our guild have tended toward simplifying very complicated and nuanced concepts. At some point the simplification will become "wrong" if too much detail is left out, but recognizing this point can require a fair amount of competence.

There are two ways of looking at the GVR volume: it is a strange outlier that refuses to accept the inevitable, or it is one of the most complete, linguistically-grounded account (including correction) of what most have long understood about the verb from the standpoint of traditional grammar. We intentionally invited Classicists and linguists from outside of NT Studies to contribute, some of whom fell into Stephen Carlson's " horrified" group. No honorariums were paid, they were intrinsically motivated to contribute.

People in our guild have been waiting for a linguistically viable account of tense in the indicative because of the misgivings they have had about Porter's claims, especially when applied to actual texts. It sounds great in theory, but breaks down quickly in practice, particularly the prominence/grounding claims, IMO. I'd encourage you to find one of his accounts of the triumphal entry in Mark, an exegesis of a passage he has doubled down on despite the criticism received.

As with most things, it is more complicated than what you see at first blush, and sadly about as likely to reach a unified, tidy consensus as as the 2020 US presidential election. Apply and test the claims, whatever you do. Read the works cited in the footnotes, regardless of whom you are reading. And then move on, do not overspend time on it.

[Jonathan Robie]

All who hold to "tenseless" view are primarily NT scholars, not purely linguists or classicists. Porter has studied linguistics, but tries to be a jack of all trades. He's a real genius, I have to admit, but goes against the larger field of linguistics in this one. All the others are more or less his followers as far as I know.

He's a genius, very genial, and very good to his students. I know several people who have worked with him closely. I had a great time visiting McMaster for a few days three or four years ago.

[mikeatnip]

I think you are trying to read texts, not to do linguistics.

That is probably a very accurate assessment.
My earlier critique about over-zealous linguistic analysis has to do with my life experiences. We lived five years in rural Bolivia, where I rarely heard the Spanish subjunctive used, as well as other "barbarisms." That is just the way people talked there, and they needed no subjunctives to get their point made. Near me is an Amish community where English is a second language. You hear "I seen a deer yesterday" and similar expressions. After being around that misused "seen" tense, I find myself saying it even though I know better. I have also done some low-grade editing and copy editing for people who are less-than-desired educated in English, which makes me realize how "butchered" our Koine English is. I think of the old-time Methodist circuit preacher Peter Cartwright in Illinois who complained about all the college-educated preachers that were being sent to the frontier: he lamented their finely-tuned, written sermons as unproductive. "We [circuit riding preachers] murdered the King's English at every lick," he wrote, "but souls were saved."
My point is that most people in this world do not follow all the rules nor even the subconcious word choices that are supposed to happened. Our world is too woefully whimful. This is doubly true with second languages, like a Galilean fisherman may represent, trying to write a gospel or epistle in Greek.
While I appreciate the linguistic analysis and what it may (and many times does) tell us, I wonder what a linguistic analysis of Cartwright's English would come up with? Perhaps the "naughty three-year-old" that someone recently posted about?
Anyways, enough of my rant. I will keep digging into this. Maybe someday I can call myself a linguist. I am currently trying to learn Hebrew, so my brain easily gets too full of new material to properly digest.
I do appreciate the nudging and the pointers.

[mikeatnip]

I saw that you are a Logos user, so here is a morphological visual filter that would get you to much the same place (though without the same benefit as marking the text yourself as Jonathan suggested). Then I would suggest (re)reading Chris Thomson's article very carefully, digesting and letting it percolate. His article catalogs how scholars within our guild have tended toward simplifying very complicated and nuanced concepts. At some point the simplification will become "wrong" if too much detail is left out, but recognizing this point can require a fair amount of competence.

Thank you for the filter. I do use Logos (a newbie with it, just a few months), but mostly for reading books that they happen to have a sale on for a better price than other places. I do not have any Greek texts on Logos. As you mention, doing the markup manually would also be a better practice to help it stick in the brain.