* I find the term augment not particularly useful for description. Labeling it according to its function seems to me to be more useful: past tense prefix.
** The term tense forms that has recently come int vogue grates my ears. Some of those who use it (e.g. Porter) do not even believe Greek has tense. It confuses the issue and will continue to lead students into thinking that Greek is a tense prominent language. We all know it isn't.
RandallButh wrote:The Greeks looked at its form and called it αὔξησις 'increase'. Since it's their language, they get to name things. But 'past-prefix' is good for English.
RandallButh wrote:The 'otherside' needs to answer why they have a problem with 'e' marking 100% of imperfects as past,
RandallButh wrote:why the historical present could break its aspectual character without upsetting them (see other thread),
RandallButh wrote:why the future isn't used in the past, why the aorist isn't used in the future (or very very very rarely if so),
RandallButh wrote:why a clause never says καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος αὔριον, and why the Greeks called the system χρόνος.
Con has stated his agreement with this as the case. I doubt that it upsets him though...
and whether Porter still holds that it does not 22 years on is unknown (<--believe it or not, that's a relatively chunk of time and sometimes people's minds change). Considering that Steve Runge's HP paper was only recently presented,
I'd like to wait and hear what other tense-only people would say about it, too. Until they explicitly reject it, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
RandallButh wrote:It should, since the historical present is one of the main 'hooks' to catch unsuspecting Greek students for 'aspect only'. They claim to 'falsify' tense and then bamboozle the unsuspecting as if there were no similar problem with aspect.
RandallButh wrote:The perfectiveness of the historical present is not a new idea. It had to have been ignored and suppressed by those doing 'aspect only'. Pretending that it wasn't true and hoping that people might not be able to define aspect accurately enough so as not to see through the smoke.
RandallButh wrote:Who are 'tense-only'? Is this ironic inverse-speak?
The 'otherside' needs to answer why they have a problem with 'e' marking 100% of imperfects as past, why the historical present could break its aspectual character without upsetting them (see other thread), why the future isn't used in the past, why the aorist isn't used in the future (or very very very rarely if so), why a clause never says καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος αὔριον, and why the Greeks called the system χρόνος.
RandallButh wrote:Also good points, though it is not 'hate' to say that 'aspect-only' is wrong, period. Aspect-only is also misleading, and distracting for students.
The conclusions are not for convincing 'aspect-only' people but more for students who are confused about what aspect is.
Yes, it would also be nice to hear aspect-only folk answer the questions above.
Users browsing this forum: Scott Lawson and 1 guest