modus.irrealis wrote:Something more classical would probably involve a participle (φαγὼν πιών τε εὐφραίνου ??).
Damoetas wrote:Actually, I wouldn't think so.... Pithy sayings like this seem to call for a more paratactic construction, with all imperatives....
Also, it's not ordering a temporal sequence of events: "Do A and then do B." It's saying, do all of it, right now!
The aorist participles don't imply a temporal sequence any more than the aorist imperatives do.
modus.irrealis wrote:But you have a similar anteriority when you have a sequence of aorist indicatives or aorist imperatives, which is what I meant by saying that the aorist participle doesn't imply a temporal sequence any more than the aorist imperative, so if φάγε, εὐφραίνου can mean "eat and be merry" with no temporal sequence, I don't see why φαγὼν εὐφραίνου can't do the same.
And it's certainly not always true that aorist participles represents an anterior action. With Luke 15:23, καὶ φέρετε τὸν μόσχον τὸν σιτευτόν, θύσατε, καὶ φαγόντες εὐφρανθῶμεν, which involves the same verbs
, I don't see any implication that it's saying "let us eat and then be merry"
Not the same thing, even according to Symth. First, ἐξαμάρτητε is aor. subj. (φάγε can be either aor. or pres. imperat.) Second, as Smyth notes, καταψηφισάμενοι "defines" ἐξαμάρτητε. We aren't talking about a sequence of events, but one event with καταψηφισάμενοι descriptive of the action in that event. Hence Smyth's translation using "of."Smyth has a number of examples (1872c), like μή τι ἐξαμάρτητε ἐμοῦ καταψηφισάμενοι,
So I would disagree that the aorist participle marks anteriority -- rather it marks perfectivity which in most contexts (a significant majority of them) will imply anteriority.
Damoetas wrote:Sorry, not intending to neglect this discussion. It's just that it requires a lot of thought, and I haven't had time to get to it yet!
oberon wrote:First, Luke represents a different dialect than classical greek. Which doesn't necessarily mean one can't use it as an example, simply that one should be wary of doing so.
Second, thuis really isn't a counter-example: a strict translation would be "carry fatted calf, sacrifice it, and having eaten it let us be merry." εὐφρανθῶμεν is a hortatory subjunctive (see e.g. Funk's translation of Blass & Debrunner's A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature section 364.). The same construction is used in classical greece.
In any event, the past participle φαγόντες DOES imply that the action is prior to the "let us be merry."
Not the same thing, even according to Symth. First, ἐξαμάρτητε is aor. subj. (φάγε can be either aor. or pres. imperat.)
Second, as Smyth notes, καταψηφισάμενοι "defines" ἐξαμάρτητε. We aren't talking about a sequence of events, but one event with καταψηφισάμενοι descriptive of the action in that event. Hence Smyth's translation using "of."
In other words, we don't have a mistake/error on the one hand, and a condemning on the other. These aren't two seperate actions. What we have is a mistake which IS the condemning. One event, hence no sequence.
In constructions like μολὼν λαβέ the verbal elements of BOTH actions are central. In this type of construction, the choice of the aorist DOES imply a past tense.
modus.irrealis wrote:The translation I originally gave was also from Luke, so I was looking for similar examples from him to try to see if my participle version could have the same meaning. But I don't think classical Greek and koine Greek differ on this point.
There's nothing in English that perfectly matches the meaning of the aorist participle
I don't see us agreeing on the grammar if we disagree on the meaning, but I can't imagine this implying that he's saying they should eat first and then be merry
φάγε can only be aorist as far as I know.
But now I'm confused. Do you think that the aorist participle marks anteriority, which is how I understood your comment about the strict translation, or that this is only true in most cases? And if it's the latter, what about φαγόντες εὐφρανθῶμεν implies anteriority?
oberon wrote:Arguably, there is nothing in any language which perfectly matches the meaning of another language, but that gets more into linguistic philosophy and is fairly impractical.
So, with μή τι ἐξαμάρτητε ἐμοῦ καταψηφισάμενοι, the "eating" part isn't finished prior to rejoicing simply because the aorist participle implies it should be conceptualized sequentially with the participial action preceding the hortatory subj. Rather, schematically it is[---EATING--] --> Rejoice where the entirety of the event of eating is conceptualized as prior to rejoicing, but this does not mean that it actually is done and over with completely when the rejoicing happens. This is the difference between atemporality of the participle, and the atemporalized event of the participle.
You are using examples from hellenistic greek, where it does occur in the present.
Basically, the aorist participle DOES "mark" anteriority in a sense, but aspects of tense, grammatical aspect, verbal element, etc, are all at least partly dependent on the constructions in which they are found. To use an example, the indicative is usually used as a plain statement of realis. Yet it is found in contra-factual conditions. The "sense" of the indicative is not completely lost in this use (see the analysis of the indicative in Willmott's The Moods of Homeric Greek), but it isn't what we expect.
Like the indicative, the aorist participle has a "normal" function, and it implies a past action prior to the main verb. However, also like the indicative, there are constructions in which the aorist participle is not used in this way, such as (as Smyth notes) when it is more adjectival and descriptive of the main verb (and therefore tied to it).
modus.irrealis wrote:oberon, I can't say that I've understood your argument completely, so I'll have to give it some thought and maybe do some background reading. But some of your reasoning is a bit abstract, and I'm not sure what you're position is in this specific case. Are you saying that φαγὼν εὐφραίνου necessarily has to imply a temporal sequence, but φάγε καὶ εὐφραίνου does not have to? In my opinion the sentences are equivalent in terms of the temporal ordering of events.
I think nothing goes too far, but to me it seemed that you were making an argument about the Greek on the basis of a translation into English, an argument I'm not fond of and which I think can only be valid if the two languages grammaticalize the same distinctions (at least in the relevant subsystem of the grammar).
Even if participles conceptualize actions the way you say, that still does not explain why you think the aorist participle conceptualizes the event of eating as prior to rejoicing. It can't be simply by virtue of the use of the participle because it's not true for present or future participles. There's something about the aorist participle in contrast to the present participle that indicates anteriority (in the majority of cases).
Can you give an example (or a reference)?
Why take the normal function of the aorist participle to be relative tense, when there's another analysis (that it marks perfectivity), which not only covers more cases but also lets you have a more unified analysis of the aorist participle, subjunctive, optative, infinitive, etc.?
modus.irrealis wrote:Can you give an example (or a reference)?
oberon wrote:To return to the greek, the particple does encode temporality in φαγὼν εὐφραίνου. However, it also does in φάγε καὶ εὐφραίνου. The difference is how the temporal nature of the verbal elements is scanned and sequenced. In the former example (φαγὼν εὐφραίνου), the action of "eating" is brought into focus prior to the act of rejoicing, i.e. "let us having begun eating rejoice" where the first verbal event begins prior to the second. However, in φάγε καὶ εὐφραίνου neither verbal element has temporal prominence.
First, I am unclear what you mean when you assert I am arguing for taking the aorist participle as a "relative tense."
Second, while a "unified analysis" is all well and good, sometimes it misleads more than it helps. For example, when analyzing case use in latin or greek, the typical grammar undoubtly gives far more uses than are necessary. They give a long list of "gentive of x" and "dative of Y" but fail to point out that these uses are related, not discrete. However, any attempt to find one proto-typical usage from which the genitive or dative is derived is likely doomed to fail (there is a great article on the genitive in indo-european languages by Nikiforidou). One of the most important results of research into constructions grammars is that often enough it is the construction, not the morphological realization of the lexical item which determines its use/meaning/etc.
oberon wrote:From Liddell and Scott: ...inf. of ἔφαγον, with no pres. in use (exc. in late Gr.,
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... ek#lexicon
modus.irrealis wrote:"...the aorist participle has a "normal" function, and it implies a past action prior to the main verb."
On what basis (in terms of Greek) would you make a distinction between the use of the aorist participle in "μολὼν λαβέ" and "μή τι ἐξαμάρτητε ἐμοῦ καταψηφισάμενοι"? What is gained by seeing these as two different constructions?
oberon wrote:Even finite verbs in a particular tense can construe time in various ways. Look at the gnomic aorist in greek. The aorist here isn't really expressing past time, but is used similarly to how we use the simple present (rather than the continous present).
It is from the temporal structure of the aorist that the aorist participle comes to be generally used to indicate time prior to the main verb.
Smyth himself makes a distinction: "it is sometimes coincedent or nearly so when it defines, or is identical with, that of the leading verb, and the subordinate action is only a modification of the main action". In other words, as participles are both verbs and adjectives, often the adjectival nature is prominent (in various ways), as in μή τι ἐξαμάρτητε ἐμοῦ καταψηφισάμενοι, where the participle is use primarily as a modification of the main verb. Hence Smyth's translation "do not commit the error of condemning me, rather than "don't commit error condemning me." The condemnation is a modifying event with the error.
With μολὼν λαβέ, we have two clearly seperate events, rather than two events with one modifying or identical to the other. And the aorist past tense/aspect is clear: having come, take.
modus.irrealis wrote: but all I'm saying is that the concept of tense is unnecessary to an understanding of how the participle functions, and nothing is gained by bringing it in.
is to seperate tense and aspect in a way I don't think they can be. And this isn't limited to latin and greek (or even indo-european) as several studies indicate. It is clear that part of the verb tells you when it happens, and part of the verb gives you a more structural view of the event, but this doesn't mean we can clearly seperate the two. To attempt to do so would amount to endless search through examples and a great deal of "lumping" and "splitting" where some say "this is aspect" and others "no it is tense." A better way is to conclude that how events are structurally conceived (i.e. verbal aspect) is intrically and often inseperably linked to when the event occurs.I'm using tense to mean only "location in time",
I think Smyth is mostly right but that definition is not worth much because it's applicable to each and every case. If you'll allow me to return to our example there's no reason you can't think of eating and rejoicing as the same event, or seeing the eating as modifying the rejoicing: rejoicing by feasting.
There's a great deal of flexibility in how speakers can portray events...
, with this distinction here arising from whether the participle is represented as bounded separately from the main verb, in which case you get an antecedent action, or bounded together with the main verb, in which you get a coincident action -- but that's exactly saying that the action of the participle is being portrayed as defining or modifying the main verb. That's why I don't think these two functions are distinct functions or that one needs to invoke tense to explain anything.[/quote]and if you accept the definition of perfective as "bounded", it seems to me that all the uses of the aorist participle can be understood
cb wrote:1. Does putting a ppl in the aorist indicate that its action occurs earlier in time than the main verb?
My answer: No. Only future and future perfect ppls indicate temporality. Present, aorist and perfect ppls don’t. The key authority for this is Chapter 2 Part 2 of Duhoux 2000. I have scanned it for you (link 1 below).
To summarise it, Duhoux shows, going through one-by-one, that present, aorist and perfect ppls can each be used for actions occurring:
- before the moment of speaking (s40) or before the action of the main verb (s43),
- at the same time as the moment of speaking (s41) or at the same time as the action of the main verb (s44),
- after the moment of speaking (s42) or after the action of the main verb (s45).
Duhoux’s analysis shows that present, aorist and perfect ppls can each be used for any timezone.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 35 guests