Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

92 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoristic and imperfective aspectµακάρισε,emakarise,declare.happy.pst.aor.3sgµετ δ τοτοmeta de toutoafter and that.acc δ ά κ ρ υ σ ε.edakruse.weep.pst.AOR.3sg“Then Xerxes declared himself happy, and after that he started toweep.” Hdt. 7.45(115) PAST(AOR(INGR(λe x cry(e))))= λQ[tTT ≺ n ⊕Q(t TT)](λPλt[eτ(e) ⊆ t ⊕P(e)](λPλe[¬ [t e ′τ(e) = IB(t)τ(e ′ ) = tt ′ e ′′t ⊂ t ′t ′ = τ(e ′′ )⊕P(e ′′ )]⊕P(e ′ )](λe x cry(e))))≡e t ′ e ′x cry(e ′ )τ(e) = IB(t ′ )τ(e ′ ) = t ′t ′′ e ′′¬t ′ ⊂ t ′′t ′′ = τ(e ′′ )x cry(e ′′ )τ(e) ⊆ t TTt TT ≺ nThe adverbial µετ τοτο meta touto ‘after that’ specifies the topic time as aninterval after the time of the declaration of happiness. (115) states that (114)is true iff there is a crying eventuality e ′ whose beginning e is included in thetopic time, which precedes the moment of utterence.The fact that both MAX and INGR solve mismatches between the aoristoperator and unbounded predicates raises the question how the interpreterchooses between these two coercion operators. Here the Duration Principle
4.5 Aorist and coercion: the ingressive and complexive interpretations 93(cf. section 3.3.3) comes into play. This is due to the fact that MAX and INGRinfluence the duration associated with the predicate in different ways. MAXraises the lower limit of the duration associated with an unbounded predicateand leaves the upper limit the same. For example, the duration associated withthe predicate John be king ranges from seconds (since it is a stative predicate,and hence fully divisive) to a whole life. The duration of maximal being kingeventualities, however, ranges from, let’s say, weeks to a whole life. INGRreturns predicates with which no duration is associated. It lowers the upperlimit, and for non-stative predicates it lowers the lower limit as well (stativepredicates can already be true of moments themselves).The fact that the effects of the two operators on duration are different iscrucial for the choice between them, since information on duration from variouslinguistic sources must be compatible, as stated by the Duration Principle. Theaorist morphology introduces the duration information that the time of theeventuality is included in the topic time. The information introduced by thepredicate, that is, the typical duration associated with the predicate, must becompatible with this information. This means that there must be eventualitiesin the extension of the predicate whose duration is at least as short as the topictime. Whether this is the case may be different for the predicates that resultfrom the application of MAX and INGR, respectively.Let me illustrate this with a few examples. In (116) (= (20)) we have aningressive interpretation of the aorist.(116) ΑποθνήσκειApothnēiskeiδ ον Μάριο̋d’ oun Mariosdie.prs.ipfv.3sg prt prt Marius.nom σ χ εeschehave.pst.AOR.3sgπαραυτίκαparautikaimmediatelyτνtēnthe.acc. . . κα...; kaiandΡώµηνRōmēnRome.accµέγαmegagreat.nomχάρµαcharmajoy.nomκαkaiandθάρσο̋tharsoscourage.nom“Then Marius dies, and immediately great joy and courage took possessionof Rome.” Plu. Mar. 46.6Depending on whether ingressive or complexive reinterpretation is involved,we get the logical form in (117a) or (117b) (where λe j have r(e)is thepredicate for great joy and courage have Rome):
Page 3:
Aspect in Ancient GreekA semantic a
Page 6 and 7:
viNick Asher, David Beaver, the lat
Page 9:
Contentsix8 Conclusions and discuss
Page 12 and 13:
2 Chapter 1. Introductiongroundbrea
Page 14 and 15:
4 Chapter 1. Introduction(4) µετ
Page 16 and 17:
6 Chapter 1. Introductionimperfecti
Page 19 and 20:
1.3 Organisation of the thesis 9In
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 2The interpretations of aor
Page 23 and 24:
2.3 Additional interpretations of t
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31:
2.5 The challenge 21scriptions of h
Page 34 and 35:
24 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal sema
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52: 42 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal sema
Page 57 and 58: 3.2 The perfective-imperfective dis
Page 77 and 78: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 673.3.1 Aspe
Page 79 and 80: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 69bials ((88
Page 81 and 82: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 71the term c
Page 83 and 84: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 73in the ext
Page 86 and 87: 76 Chapter 4. An analysis of aorist
Page 110 and 111: 100 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoris
Page 132 and 133: 122 Chapter 5. Aspect and performat
Page 144 and 145: 134 Chapter 6. The temporal structu
Page 152 and 153:
142 Chapter 6. The temporal structu
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
158 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
172 Chapter 8. Conclusions and disc
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
178 Appendix A: The language of Com
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
192 Appendix B: Examples spelled ou
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
206 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 218 and 219:
208 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 220 and 221:
210 References(Eds.), Cross-linguis
Page 222 and 223:
212 ReferencesGrice, P. (1975). Log
Page 224 and 225:
214 ReferencesLemmon, E. J. (1962).
Page 226 and 227:
216 Referencesvan der Sandt, R. (19
Page 228 and 229:
218 References
Page 230 and 231:
220 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
Page 232 and 233:
222 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
show all

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?