Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

160 Chapter 7. Comparison to theories in ClassicsAlthough he does not discuss the semantics of tense as such, Ruijgh (1985:10–12) does address the location of the moment donné with respect to the momentof utterance for the tense-aspect pairs present-imperfective, past-imperfective,and past-aorist:Dans le cas de l’indicatif primaire (valeur : ‘non-passée’) du TPr[the combination present-imperfective], le MD [moment donné] esten principe le moment présent. ...Dans le cas de l’indicatif secondaire (valeur : ‘passée’) du TPr [thecombination past-imperfective], le MD est un moment du passé....L’ind. sec. du TAo [the combination past-aorist] exprime, en revanche,l’achèvement de l’action antérieur au MD. Le MD peutêtre ou bien le MP [moment présent, moment of utterance] ... oubien un moment du passé.(In the case of the primary indicative (value: ‘non-past’) of the TPr[the combination present-imperfective], the MD [moment donné] isin principle the moment of utterance. ...In the case of the secondary indicative (value: ‘past’) of the TPr[the combination past-imperfective], the MD is a moment in thepast. ...The secondary indicative of the TAor [the combination past-aorist],by contrast, expresses the achievement of the action before the MD.The MD can be the moment of utterance or a moment in the past.)Let’s try to deduce from these remarks, in combination with his semantics ofaspect, as given in Figure 7.1, which of the three above mentioned optionsRuijgh takes to be the semantics of tense.As the last citation shows, Ruijgh claims that with the combination pastaoristthe moment donné can be the moment of utterance. This means thattense does not locate the moment donné with respect to the moment of utterance,which excludes the second and third option. We are left with thefirst option, according to which tense locates the time of the eventuality withrespect to the moment of utterance. However, the fact that with the combinationpresent-imperfective the moment donné is the moment of utterance,suggests the second or third option. Hence, when combined with his semanticsof aspect Ruijgh’s remarks concerning the location of the moment donné withrespect to the utterance time result in a non-uniform account of tense. 33 One could try to save a uniform account of tense in the following way. We stick with thefirst option and try to explain the claim that with the combination present-imperfective themoment donné is the moment of utterance as the result of combining the contributions of
7.2 Ruijgh’s moment donné 161Actually, the problem is worse than this: not only are the actual remarksat odds with a uniform account of tense, it is simply impossible to combineRuijgh’s account of aspect with a uniform account of tense, even if we ignorehis remarks about the location of the moment donné for the various tenseaspectpairs. In other words, Ruijgh’s account of aspect is problematic for anyuniform semantics of tense, as I will show now.There are (at least) two phenomena that Ruijgh would like to explain withhis approach to aspect: the autonomous use of the aorist (see the previouschapter) and the lack of a form for the combination present tense and aoristicaspect (see chapter 5). As I will show, however, given Ruijgh’s analysis ofaspect, these two phenomena impose conflicting constraints on a theory oftense. The former requires the first tense option, the latter the third.Let’s start with the autonomous use of the aorist. This use is the reasonwhy Ruijgh allows the moment donné to be the moment of utterance for thecombination past-aorist, since he claims that with this use the moment donnéis the moment of utterance. Imperfective aspect then does not have this use,for with the past-imperfective the moment donné cannot be the moment ofutterance. 4 As we have seen, the fact that with the combination past-aoristthe moment donné can be the moment of utterance excludes the second andthird options: tense does not locate the moment donné with respect to themoment of utterance. Hence, the autonomous use of the aorist requires thefirst tense option, in which tense locates the time of the eventuality with respectto the moment of utterance.But now let’s consider the second phenomenon, the absence of a form forthe combination of present tense and aoristic aspect. This phenomenon canonly be explained on the third tense option. To see this, let’s start with thesecond option, since it is immediately clear that this option doesn’t work. Iftense would locate the moment donné with respect to the moment of utterpresenttense and imperfective aspect. However, the combination of these two contributionsdoes not result in the moment donné being the moment of utterance, as I will explain. Onthe first option, the present tense indicates that the time of the eventuality overlaps withthe moment of utterance. (Note that on the first option, it is impossible to say that withthe present tense the time of the eventuality is (rather than includes or overlaps with) themoment of utterance, since then we could only describe very short eventualities with thepresent tense, which is not the case.) The combination of the two contributions allows theconstellation that both the moment of utterance and the moment donné are included in thetime of the eventuality, without the moment of utterance being equal to or overlapping withthe moment donné. Hence, we cannot save a uniform account in this way.4 Stated this way it is not so much of an explanation of course, since why can’t the momentdonné be the utterance time for the past-imperfective? One could try to turn it into anexplanation in the following way: if the utterance time functions as the moment donné andimperfective aspect indicates that the eventuality time includes the moment donné, then theeventuality time overlaps with the utterance time, and hence we expect the present tense.For aoristic aspect, on the other hand, since the eventuality time precedes the momentdonné, the eventuality precedes the utterance time, and hence we expect past tense.
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:
Page 57 and 58:
3.2 The perfective-imperfective dis
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
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 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
100 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoris
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121: 110 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 168 and 169: 158 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 182 and 183: 172 Chapter 8. Conclusions and disc
Page 188 and 189: 178 Appendix A: The language of Com
Page 202 and 203: 192 Appendix B: Examples spelled ou
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?