Paul Derouda wrote:I'm not sure if an aorist participle should be called an inceptive/ingressive aorist.
Paul Derouda wrote:It's a imperfect because it expresses the beginning of a action. The emphasis is not just in the jumping out of bed (where you would have an aorist), but in the whole process of getting up and being up as a result.
ἦμος δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς,
ὤρνυτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐξ εὐνῆς ἱερὸν μένος Ἀλκινόοιο,
ἂν δ᾽ ἄρα διογενὴς ὦρτο πτολίπορθος Ὀδυσσεύς.
τοῖσιν δ᾽ ἡγεμόνευ᾽ ἱερὸν μένος Ἀλκινόοιο
Φαιήκων ἀγορήνδ᾽, ἥ σφιν παρὰ νηυσὶ τέτυκτο.
ἐλθόντες δὲ καθῖζον ἐπὶ ξεστοῖσι λίθοισι
πλησίον. ἡ δ᾽ ἀνὰ ἄστυ μετῴχετο Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη
εἰδομένη κήρυκι δαΐφρονος Ἀλκινόοιο,
νόστον Ὀδυσσῆι μεγαλήτορι μητιόωσα,
καί ῥα ἑκάστῳ φωτὶ παρισταμένη φάτο μῦθον:
John Harington wrote:
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Qimmik wrote:Or perhaps the imperfect is used to set the scene?
Scribo wrote:There's little point doggedly playing off aorist vs impef here alone, if you need to look at the metre, the background of the formula system, pitch counter and euphony.
Paul Derouda wrote:Another example which might be relevant:
Ἀτρεὺς δὲ θνῄσκων ἔλιπεν πολύαρνι Θυέστῃ,
αὐτὰρ ὃ αὖτε Θυέστ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνονι λεῖπε φορῆναι
Chantraine (Grammaire Homérique II p. 194) thinks λεῖπε is imperfect because Agamemnon still has the scepter - not because the handing of the scepter was gradual.
Despite what it seems, I don't really think we disagree much.
I would have guessed that imperfective chital meant "I've have been reading it but I'm not through yet", not "I have finished reading it but didn't necessarily read it very thoroughly", which is apparently the meaning if I understand you correctly.
Qimmik wrote:No, the imperfective form doesn't imply less than thorough reading--it simply states the fact of having read the book; the perfective form emphasizes that the speaker read it cover to cover and finished it.
I just don't think reified rules ought to be pressed too far
As a Finn, I'm sure you're glad that Finland wasn't incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1917-8, if for no other reason than that you were spared learning Russian numerals and verbs of motion (which have three verbal aspects). But I don't think you're really Finnish--your English is too good.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], polemistes and 18 guests