Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

164 Chapter 7. Comparison to theories in ClassicsI have argued, however, on the third option we lose Ruijgh’s account of theautonomous use of the aorist.In sum, I have shown that Ruijgh’s analysis of aspect requires a nonuniformaccount of tense to explain the data. To explain one phenomenon,tense has to concern the relation between eventuality time and utterance time,whereas to explain the other, tense has to locate both the eventuality timeand the moment donné with respect to the utterance time. Since my ownaccount does not suffer from this shortcoming, I conclude that it is superiorto Ruijgh’s.7.3 Sicking: aspect as focusSicking (1991, 1996) proposes an analysis of aspect that is very different fromthe ones discussed so far. In contrast to, for example, Ruijgh’s account andmy own, Sicking argues that the contribution of aspect cannot be capturedin terms of temporal relations. His motivation for deviating from a temporalanalysis are examples like (196) (from Sicking 1991:27):δdeMardonius.nom prt(196) Μαρδνιο̋Mardoniosγγελονangelonmessenger.accΑµντεωAmunteōAmyntas.genτιhotibecauseοhoihe.dat̋estoσανēsanbe.pst.ipfv.3plΜαρδνιο̋MardoniosMardonius.nomεηeiēbe.ipfv.opt.3sgΑλέξανδρο̋AlexandrosAllexander.nom......µετmetaafterΑθήνα̋AthēnasAthens.accνδραandraman.accπροσκηδέε̋proskēdeesakin.nom...,...,ταταtautathat.accΑλέξανδρονAlexandronAlexander.accΜακεδνα,Makedona,Macedonian.accοhoithe.nomµαhamaat.the.same.timeπυθµενο̋puthomenoslearn.aor.ptcp.nom〈κε〉 κα〈ekei〉 kaithere and π ε µ π ε.epempesend.pst.IPFV.3sg π ε µ ψ εepempsesend.pst.AOR.3sgτνtonthe.accµαhamaat.the.same.timeΠέρσαιPersaiPersians.nomδdeprtτιhotithatεεργέτη̋euergetēsbenefactor.nomhothe.nomπρξειν̋proxeinosprotector.nomhothe.nomµνmenprtτεteprt
7.3 Sicking: aspect as focus 165“After that Mardonius sent as a messenger to Athens Alexander, aMacedonian, son of Amyntas, partly because the Persians were akinto him (...), and partly Mardonius sent him because he learned thatAlexander was a protector and benefactor of the Athenians.” Hdt.8.136In (196) the same sending eventuality is mentioned twice, the first time withaoristic aspect, the second time with imperfective aspect. At first sight atleast, this use of the imperfective is puzzling for any temporal theory of aspect,since it is intuitively used for a complete eventuality. That the imperfectivesometimes seems to be used to refer to complete eventualities hasoften been observed in the literature (e.g. Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950:277,Kühner and Gerth 1898:143). Many grammars note that this phenomenon isparticularly common with verba dicendi in the broad sense (ibidem). Examplesof verbs that display this behaviour are κελεω keleuō ‘to order’, πέµπωpempō ‘to send’, and δέοµαι deomai ‘to ask’. Blass (1889:410) speaks of Verba,Handlungen bezeichnend, die ihr Ziel und ihre Vollendung in dem Thun einesAndern haben (‘verbs that refer to actions that find their goal and completionin the action of someone else’).Several attempts to save a temporal account for these kind of exampleshave been proposed in the literature. One popular approach is to claim thatthe meaning of the above mentioned verbs does not correspond to the meaningof the English translations that I gave but that the so-called Fortwirkung ispart of the meanings of these verbs too (see e.g. Svensson 1930:passim, Hettrich1976:61–62). On this view the Greek verb πέµπω pempō in (196) refers to aneventuality that consists not only of the sending of a messenger but also itseffect, that is, the messenger go and tell his message. Even if the sendingitself is completed, the imperfective can be used as long as its effect is not yetcompleted.Note that in order to deal with examples like (196), we have to assumethat the verbs in question are ambiguous, since the aorist in the first clauseis not taken to indicate that the Fortwirkung is completed, that is, that themessenger completed his task. It’s only the sending itself that is completed.Sicking (1991, 1996) is not convinced by this solution and takes exampleslike (196) to be a reason to develop a new, non-temporal approach to aspectin Ancient Greek. He claims that the choice of aspect relates to focus ratherthan temporal relations. More specifically, he argues that with the aorist, incontrast to the imperfective, the verb has focus function, a notion that hedescribes as follows:... I will, without further ado, use the terms ‘focus function’ forthe part of the unit involved that, from a viewpoint of information,is the most prominent in the sense of being its ‘nucleus’, or the
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:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125: 114 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?