Jump to content

Talk:Aorist/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Overgeneralized and unhelpful language

I put this here, since the continued revert-warring of our gallant defenders of jargon make it impossible merely to tag this text.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Greek indicative mood,<:ref name="Comrie12">Bernard Comrie, Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems, Cambridge University Press, 1976, ISBN 0521290457, p 12: "In Ancient Greek, the Aorist is in the Indicative Mood primarily a past tense, although it does have some nonpast uses. In other moods and in nonfinite forms, the Aorist is purely aspectual, not an expression of tense."</ref><:ref>Kenneth Leslie McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An aspectual approach, Peter Lang, 1994, ISBN 0820421235, p. 46.</ref> the aorist generally refers to a past action, in a general way or as a completed event.<:ref name="Beetham116">Beetham, p. 116.</ref> It may also be used to express a general statement in the present (the "gnomic aorist"),<:ref name="Wallace562">Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 4th ed., Zondervan, 1997, ISBN 0310218950, p. 562.</ref> less commonly a future event. Used these ways, it is described as the aorist indicative<:ref name="Beetham117">Beetham, p. 117.</ref> or aorist tense. [failed verification][1]
This last sentence is a simple falsehood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In other moods (subjunctive, optative, and imperative), the infinitive, and (largely) the participle, the aorist is purely aspectual (except in indirect discourse when it replaces an indicative).<:ref name="Comrie12"/> In these forms, it need have no temporal implication, and can act purely as a way of referring to an "action pure and simple" without the specific implications of the other aspects.
Observe that the same half-sentence, by a Slavicist, has now been cited three times. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The aorist aspect is used in the imperative, for example, in the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:11, which says "Give (δὸς dòs, aorist imperative) us this day our daily bread".[2] In contrast, the similar passage in Luke 11:3 uses the imperfective aspect, implying a sense of continuation with "Give (δίδου dídou, present imperative) us day by day our daily bread."[3]
This is a genuine difference of aspect; it is difficult for an imperative to mark time; but it should be subsumed under a general statement that the aorist tends to have an aspect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
"The aorist indicative provides a corresponding contrast with the imperfect indicative (often called "imperfect tense") in describing the past. An example of this occurs in Xenophon's Anabasis, when the Persian aristocrat Orontas is executed: "and those who had been previously in the habit of bowing (προσεκύνουν prosekúnoun, imperfect) to him, bowed (προσεκύνησαν prosekúnēsan, aorist) to him even then."[4] Here the imperfect refers to a past habitual or repeated act, and the aorist to a single one.
Already covered in the section on narrative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
For comparison, the perfect indicative (often called "perfect tense") calls attention to the consequences generated by an action.[5] It is often used for the act of writing, where the ongoing consequence is a written document. A famous example is Pontius Pilate's "What I have written, I have written" (ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα ho gegrapha, gegrapha) in John 19:22.[6] The rare[7] perfect imperative occurs in Mark 4:39 (πεφίμωσο pephimōso);[8] this has the sense not just of "be still," as the KJV renders it, but commands an ongoing stillness, i.e. "be in a state of having been rendered harmless."[9]

I see I left out a sentence about perfect imperatives being used in mathematics. So they are; they are also used outside mathematics. But either way they have nothing to do with this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"aorist tense"

As I review the subject I'm somewhat perplexed at the strength of objections to the use of "tense" in the article. I find that many books of the 1990s and 2000s use "aorist tense":

  • Stump in Inflectional Morphology (CUP, 2001) distances himself from the phrase by putting it in scare quotes, which however is an indication that the phrase, though to be questioned, is commonly used and merits explanation;
  • Woodward in The Ancient Languages of Europe expresses a slight revulsion on p. 33 while turning around and using the phrase on pp. 36 and 67;
  • Clackson speaks of the "aorist tense stem" in the perennial Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction;
  • the phrase "aorist tense" appears five times in Sanskrit Computational Linguistics, a 2009 publication that gathers work from two international symposia in 2007;
  • twice in Semitic and Indo-European: Comparative Morphology, Syntax and Phonetics (2002);
  • although Comrie doesn't use the phrase "aorist tense" in his Aspect textbook from the 1970s, two decades later it isn't shunned by Comrie and Corbett's The Slavonic Languages (Routledge, 1993 and reprinted 2003);
  • Fanning in Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford, 1990, reprinted 2002) uses "aorist tense" no fewer than seven times while talking about aspect;
  • Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament is excessively fond of it;
  • Chapter 4 of Campbell's Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament is called "The Aorist Tense-form";
  • in Corresponding Sense: Paul, Dialectic, and Gadamer, Pearson uses the phrase "aorist tense" even as he explicitly states that it does not convey anything to do with time.

This is the cause of my perplexity: the phrase “aorist tense,” particularly in regard to “aorist tense stem,” is used in contexts where awareness of aspect is keen. I’m not understanding why it’s problematic here to deal with this usage. These of course are only a few examples, and only represent the exact phrase "aorist tense," not passages where the aorist is treated in the context of "tense." I'm obviously not understanding the issues that are preventing the proper development of the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Several of those sources, such as Campbell, Porter, and Fanning, make it clear that the aorist is not a tense even while they continue the traditional use of the word tense. Many are written at a rather high level, not the introductory level appropriate for this article, and perhaps feel that they don't need to be more rigorous than that, given the high degree of background knowledge they expect from their readers. In light of how confusing it could be for us to say "the aorist tense is not a tense", I think we need to be careful how we use the term. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
How about avoiding saying "the aorist tense is not a tense"; say "the aorist does not have to assert a time, past, present, or future"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


It might help if the opponents of "tense" as a morphological term would suggest a term they would prefer for these entities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain what you mean by "tense as a morphological term"? Tense and aspect are grammaticalizations of semantic categories of time, and thus either morphological or syntactic. I'm not aware of anyone who uses different terms for morphological tense than for syntactic tense, unless you're speaking of aktionsart, but that involves derivational morphology and is therefore lexical, not grammatical.
If you mean the stem, then we can use "aorist stem", "perfect stem", "imperfect stem", just as several of the Greek texts quoted above do. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean the class (or one of the classes) of verb-forms made from the stem, which is what "tense" meant until some linguistic gentlemen had a "better idea".Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
As Kwami said, "tense" is not a morphological term anyway. And, well, "aspect" is the appropriate term to use for aorist. I thought that was clear. --Taivo (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)\
That's your unsourced opinion; contradicted by the list of sources above - and by Rijksbaron. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any problems skimming through Modern Greek grammar, so perhaps that could be taken as a model, even if the forms aren't completely congruent. — kwami (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Not completely congruent? Not congruent at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Rijksbaron (2002 edition, p.1) identifies five "tense stems" [sic] including the aorist. Of these, the future and the future perfect refer to absolute time; he explains in a note that the name and essential quality of the other three is disputed. He considers them expressions of relative time (the aorist expressing anteriority); he continues:
"it is often stated that Greek had no proper means of expressing relative time and that the stems are really aspect stems [Example omitted] In general, this position is untenable."
In describing the functions of the aorist, he discusses uses which do express relative time (thus, in narrative, something which had already happened is aorist) and uses which express aspect, such as the so-called "tragic aorist".
This controverts, as clearly as the facts will allow, Taivo's position, and defies his claims on usage. We are not here to reform the English language, least of all against the authorities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
A) I hope the clashes up till now won't stop people from giving due attention to Rijksbaron, who I believe is widely recognized as a sophisticated linguist. For a linguist like Rijksbaron in the tradition of functional grammar, I think "very strong conversational implicature" tends to establish the importance of understanding the Ancient Greek aorist for understanding tense (in "Kwami and Taivo's sense") in the language.
In short, may I perhaps hope for some consensus, across the divide here, that Rijksbaron is one of our best available sources for the structure and content of the Greek section of this article? If so, the section will have a lot to say about morphological "tense stem" and tense-as-time.
B) Then, perhaps the point in writing the lead is to consult WP:LEAD: " a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article...summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies" (I would add, "and discrepancies"). In other words, there can and should be a section entirely devoted to the "aorist aspect" as understood in a sense of pure aorist, by those linguists who have used the word to mean this. And there should be a section discussing the Greek aorist-tense-and-aspect-complex as described by Rijksbaron and other linguists & philologists whose main concern is to give a satisfactory account of Greek in detail. And the job of the WP:LEAD is not to take sides between them, but to be a comprehensible introduction for the reader to understand how and why both topics will be treated in the appropriate fashion below. Wareh (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I cannot but agree. Rijksbaron seems an excellent, learned, and comprehensive text; the use of aorist as an aspect should have a section, preferably leading to usage (in Romanian? outside IE?) for "morphological tenses" which have that aspect. We shall see how long it takes before some people denounce Rijksbaron now I have praised him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I evaluate references according to how you evaluate them. My world revolves around you.
I do not have access to Rijksbaron, so I can only take your word for it that he considers the aorist to be anterior tense, and thus tense is the technical sense of the word. He may well be right. However, this is so far the only scholar we have cited who takes this view. He is specifically contradicted by Campbell (2008) in Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, Chapter 1, p. 17:
Clearly the aorist participle is capable of non-antecedent temporal reference. Consequently, stringent adherence to the relative temporal position has led to some droll suggestions. In one renowned case in Odyssey 2.3, an aorist participle indicates Telemachus' act of dressing while the principal verb denotes his getting out of bed. While it would make plain sense to read the aorist participle as indicating subsequent temporal reference ... Scott's elaborate explanation has him dressing in bed before rising: 'The Homeric Greek went to sleep unclad, but he had a certain modesty about exposing his person and did not needlessly appear naked'.
Masterman goes so far as to suggest that the whole idea of relative temporality owes its existence to the loss of distinction between time and aspect, and 'becomes irrelevant once that distinction is restored'. Burton argues that it is aspect that determines the usage of the aorist participle, not relative time. So Decker; 'It is more common to express past (or: prior) reference with perfective aspect (aorist form) since it is most common to refer to such events as complete rather than to view them as in progress.'
And in (2007) Verbal aspect, the indicative mood, and narrative, p. 49:
Fanning and Evans retain the traditional tense understanding, though for Fanning 'The relative time-values are a secondary effect of the aspects'
The question I have about Rijksbaron is this: does he claim that the aorist is pure tense, with no aspectual value? If so, then we have one notable scholar who thinks it is tense, and we should note that. If, however, he believes that it is anterior in addition to perfective, as Wareh intimated earlier, then he is little different from the many other scholars, such as Comrie, who have said that the aorist is PFV past. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
None of that contradicts what Rijksbaron actually said. I quoted him at some length to make clear that he was (1) talking about the aorist stem, (2) denying the position that it was purely aspectual, leaving Greek no means of indicating true relative time. As a result, he calls it - and its four siblings - tense stems, and states that the meaning of the aorist stem is anteriority. That the aorist does, in some very important uses, have aspect - as the perfects do - he would surely assert; the distinction between the aorist and the imperfect in narrative (which I have condensed severely) is largely a difference in aspect within the past. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, then his position is apparently that the aorist is PFV past, as others have said, with the proviso that the past is relative rather than absolute--though you say that it's not relative. I'd have to see the context to figure that out. Regardless, it would appear that R is perhaps a refinement on what others have said, or a disagreement in the details. — kwami (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No it isn't. It can't be; the aorist doesn't have to address the past; it doesn't have to be in the "perfective". It can be both, or either, or (I think) neither; both are more common than the alternative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Overtagging

PMAnderson, your use of tags isn't appropriate. You've got a disputed tag at the top of the article, but tagging every sentence that you personally disagree with as "dubious" is overkill and poor Wikipedia practice. I have removed them while leaving the tag at the top of the page. If another editor disagrees with my removal then so be it, but as it stands, from my reading of the comments over the last week or so, you are standing alone in your objections. That barely makes a "disputed" tag necessary, but I've left it there. But adding "dubious" on every sentence is ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing sentences which are simply wrong is what is ridiculous. Go learn some Greek, find relevant sources, learn to read your sources correctly - and in the meantime, please go edit an article on jargon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have, I have, I have, and that's not my interest. --Taivo (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think tagging dubious sentences i bad wikipedia practice - a better tag instead of "dubious" would be citation needed.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that if there is a particular problem it should be tagged. PMAnderson, however, placed a tag on the entire article, a tag on the particular section, and was placing tags on every other sentence. That is inappropriate overtagging and WP:POINTy. --Taivo (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes; but sometimes these errors have citations: to sources which are carelessly phrased, carelessly read, or which do not intend to be taken literally. Sometimes it is simple enough to add a {{fv}}, but when it isn't, and the text is wrong, {{dubious}} covers the ground. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
At this point in the discussion, however, PMAnderson is the only editor who thinks it is wrong and is the only editor disagreeing with many of the sources cited. --Taivo (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Which is an ingenious way of phrasing: Taivo has bored away all but one of the actual classicists with his jargon, obfuscation and miscitation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. You've already hit WP:3RR today. You may want to read WP:BOLD for a suggestion on proposed revisions. — kwami (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No, actually, I made two reverts; one of them accidental. The rest of my edits have been novel text - which is the purpose of 3RR. If each side writes new text, we may find points of agreement and converge; revert warriors can't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

PMAnderson, why don't you just throw every single tag that Wikipedia has on the front of this article? Your continued addition of unnecessary tags is WP:POINTy. With a disputed and technical tag already there, the POV tag is absolutely ridiculous. You've made your points in your edit wars. You have been unable to build consensus around your POV. Adding another needless tag to the article is not a very mature way to deal with your inability to convince anyone else of your position. --Taivo (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comrie, in writing and editing about the actual Slavic languages, uses the phrase "aorist tense". Since I was following his book, I used it myself. The two of you have yet to explain why we should seek to correct the widespread usage of our authorities, although Cynwolfe asked you more than a week ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Because we have presented multiple authorities to show that the usage of "tense" is not appropriate in all the circumstances where you claim it is. Lehmann, for example, is very explicit that Proto-Indo-European had no tense, only aspect. You ignore all authorities who don't reflect your single-minded POV. --Taivo (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No, you cherry-pick quotations from sources talking about something else. The mutilation of a sentence solely on Slavonic cannot be justified by citing a sentence on a different subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Time for "Aorist (Greek)" split?

The remark about driving away classicists prompts me to reconsider a suggestion made more than once above: perhaps there should be a separate article called Aorist (Greek). If it's so impossible to arrive at an article that fills the needs of both linguists and the classicists or NT scholars, then there's a fundamental problem. Such an article would clearly not constitute a POV fork: since the classicists all seem to be speaking the same language and in basic agreement, there must be a genuine content split that can't be negotiated away. As someone mildly interested in Indo-European linguistics (in a Calvert Watkins/Emile Benveniste sort of way), I find this a repugnant but seemingly necessary solution. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, many of the classicists agree with the version we have, and linguists would continue to be relevant, so I expect the argument would simply continue at the new article. "Aorist in Ancient Greek" (or s.t. similar, since we don't cover Modern Greek) would still be a linguistic article. Our disagreement here no longer seems to be an issue of whether to use the word "tense", which can easily be sidestepped, but whether the aorist is a tense, an aspect, or a combination of the two within Ancient Greek. It seems that Sep is not arguing for a classical view in general, but for one of several classical views without representing them equally. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Who? Nobody has agreed with Kwami and Taivo's confusing and erroneous text - except Taivo and Kwami. The extent and vehemence of our objections differ. But Radagast, Cynwolfe, Wareh, Akhilleus and Maunus all would change it - and only these two reverters prevent them from doing so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That is not an accurate description of my position.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this addressed to me? The indentation is unclear. If so, please explain these comments further; they seem to indicate support for clarification of the lead, which is one of the changes I support and which has been consistently reverted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I am in favour of using less jargon heavy language in the lead, however I don't have a feeling that Taivo or Kwamikagami are against this - they are against using definitions that are based usage in classic Greek studies rather than linguistics, something with which I agree. What I object to is using my comments as support for accusations of ownership against Taivo and Kwami - that is not my experience of what is happening here.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Let them prove it. Every effort to make this article comprehensible to all but a small clique of "transformational linguists" has been reverted or vandalized, despite general agreement among the rest of us that it should be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Created the article Aorist (Ancient Greek), based on the template of Simple present (English), Simple past (English). — Eru·tuon 03:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Then this obscurantist article, which will be useless to the general reader for the foreseeable future, and documents (if anything) the jargon of one version of theoretical linguistics, should be moved to Aorist (linguistics).
This atrocious edit, which attempts to replace Comrie's own usage with pedantic Newspeak is POV; this entire article is a POV waste of the reader's time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What is "atrocious" is your edit warring, PMAnderson, and your refusal to recognize any contributions to the article that you haven't written yourself. You have failed to recognize consensus and failed to get consensus for your own views. Proto-Indo-European aorist was not a tense and I simply removed the word "tense", as has been suggested many times on this page as a way to avoid the haggling between "tense" and "aspect". It was a reasonable, rational, and NPOV edit. --Taivo (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It was rewriting Comrie's usage to serve your own agenda on vocabulary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Rewriting Comrie's usage to serve my own agenda would have been to replace "tense" with "aspect". Simply removing the controversial "tense" so that the wording was neutral is not violating the spirit of Comrie and is a move toward compromise that has been proposed by other editors above. That way, you can read "aorist (tense)" if that is your POV or "aorist (aspect)" if that is your POV. Lehmann's grammar of Proto-Indo-European Syntax is quite explicit that PIE had no tense, only aspect. --Taivo (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Lehmann's grammar of Proto-Indo-European Syntax is quite explicit that PIE had no tense, only aspect. Which, if true, should be reflected in the section on proto-Indo-European. That does not explain or justify mutilation of the language on Slavic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The sentence I edited on Slavic was about the change of Proto-Indo-European aorist. Just because it was in the Slavic section doesn't make the sentence suddenly refer to something besides Proto-Into-European. And your characterization of removing the controversial word "tense", which made no change whatsoever in the meaning of the sentence, as "mutilation" is rather stupid. --Taivo (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article to avoid more move-warring and incite discussion. If there is consensus to unprotect I will.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested that I am "involved" in this dispute so even though I don't cvonsider myself involved in the sense of having an opinion about the proposed move I will unprotect. Any I believe that Pmanderson is much too intelligent to try to move the page again without consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but I believe there is no opposition to the move but the two POV-pushers who have taken over and ruined this article. I am willing to let them have their erroneous POV fork; but it should be possible for those who seek the common and traditional sense of aorist to find the article on the aorist tense without wading through this.
If I am wrong, the remedy lies at WP:RM. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
You are edit warring, PMAnderson. I am reporting you for 3RR for moving this page without getting consensus. I oppose the move. --Taivo (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist without aspect

PManderson, you assert that the aorist sometimes doesn't have aspect. Which uses of the aorist are you referring to? — Eru·tuon 23:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Most obviously, the past-within-past of Rijksbaron $6.3.2, which is pure relative time, but there are others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Does Rijksbaron say that it has relative time and no aspect? — Eru·tuon 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Having said that the meaning of the aorist stem is anteriority (and denied that it is pure aspect) he has no need to; but he describes it in full, and in contrast to the normal narrative aorist, which has both past time and perfective aspect (although he avoids the jargon). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
R says, "the value [past] is not part of the meaning of the aorist indicative; it is, rather, in Gricean terms, a conversational implicature, be it a very strong one'. (1986:246) Bakker summarizes R's opinion as aorists owing their pastness to an imperfect in the context. Bakker then continues, "strictly speaking, the aorist is not even a past tense at all. The sequential function of these aorists, then, seems less a matter of any inherent meaning of the aorist than of its function in context." (1997:31) — kwami (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Anteriority is not an inexpugnable part of the aorist indicative (for example the tragic aorist is not past); neither is aspect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is vandalism. Kwami should be desysopped, for fraudulently pretending to br a neutral closer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist (linguistics) → Aorist — Consensus among editors on this page has been to keep this page at "Aorist". A single editor moved the page ignoring previous consensus and ignored the warnings of an admin to stop moving the page without consensus. Taivo (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(His demand for a topic ban is based solely on the fact that I disagree with him and have accused him of WP:CIVIL violations. --Taivo (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC))
A falsehood. Taivo should be banned because his edits have consisted almost entirely of revert-warring to defend an obscure and error-ridden text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Pmanderson created two of those articles where there was only Aorist - they are basically Pov-forks made without consensus. Aorist is one single topic and can be treated as such. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I created one of the three articles, not as a POV fork, but in order to explain Greek uses in more detail. — Eru·tuon 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, struck.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Coming from the outside, I don't care who created the articles; two of them may be a POV fork, or not, but that is an issue to be settled elsewhere, not here. What matters here is that there are 3 articles and an argument about whether one of them can capture the traffic from incoming links to Aorist, or if the traffic should be apportioned according to relevance, by putting a disambiguation page at Aorist and changing the incoming links. I favor the latter. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Broadest sense does not equal primary topic. Is there a clear primary topic here? If not, then it would appear Aorist should be a disambiguation page. Whether the existing articles should number 2 or 3 is a separate issue. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't ride in the CGR bus (those guys have sometimes tried to run over me), and I won't ride in the linguists' limousine (those guys drive around with the blinds down). I ride a scooter and I'm happy to blow smoke in both your faces. However, WP needs a single article on the Aorist - separate articles for separate disciplines can come later when the ideas are expanded. The guys in the limousine have to get out of their comfort zone and negotiate with the guys from the bus - in language that we can all understand. The intro should not include any terms or concepts that provoke inter-disciplinary feuding. McZeus (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Those of us who ride around in a humble Subaru like the idea of a readable introduction from which an earnest young seminarian could derive benefit. Has anybody tried to bring in a perspective from an editor with some Sanskrit expertise? Cynwolfe (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted the move as move warring and a violation of WP:BOLD before seeing this request. I do agree with Sep on one point: I don't see a reason to split the article either. But I'm not opposed enough to object to the split that's been made. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

The three articles. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, it is relatively easy to check which of these is more common. This article asserts that the aorist is an aspect, and is not a tense.

The very first book in the Google Books search for "aorist tense" states and tries to explain how aorist tense and perfective aspect (in aorist tense) are different, at least in Bulgarian. That tells me this content dispute exists in reliable sources, which means it has to be dealt with directly here on Wikipedia. Is that a fair summary? This is a content dispute that cannot be settled on Wikipedia except by explaining as clearly and simply as possible what the dispute is about. Toward that end, I expect that multiple articles, perhaps more than already exist, will be needed to explain these linguistic concepts as applied both within and between languages. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing linguistics by Google Search. I thought I had seen everything. --Taivo (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no "doing linguistics" on Wikipedia, only looking it up in reliable sources. Some of those sources are on Google Books. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There is also a difference between looking up the random quote (usually out-of-context and often misunderstood) on Google Books and looking at actual books that you've read. --Taivo (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There is more to Google Books beyond the snippet views you see on the search results page. Preview and full text books show entire pages; full text books are complete scans, as good as a reprint. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That's true when the complete text is available. However, for recent texts that is very seldom the case. There are generally missing pages at random intervals, and they may contain context that is necessary to completely follow the text we can see, or more nuanced descriptions. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a confusion here, and I'm not sure even 69.3 has it right. "Looking it up in reliable sources" is what we do to determine the correct title of a page before any disambiguating parentheses. Determining the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, on the other hand, is not an exercise in determining the structure of knowledge in any discipline, but simply of deciding whether prevalent usage of a term favors a single usage enough for it to be the WP:PT. So it is not as simple as an analysis in terms of general/specific, either (and, if we have agreed on nothing else, surely we all appreciate by now how the Greek/IE morphological "tense" is not subsumed in a species-genus relationship under the linguistic notion of aspect).

So, while the complaints about hasty unilateralism may have something to them, I think we need to consider the reasons for having Aorist as a disambiguation page more seriously, apart from our feelings about Septentrionalis' move, and certainly apart from that editor's other words and actions.

To my mind, it's a pretty mild compromise: there is a case to be made for the Greek/IE aorist as the primary topic (we can look at only usage in scholarly journals, apart from the Google Books doubts, and see similar results), so we should accept compromise where it is available. There is nothing false or unencyclopedic or disorienting to the reader who seeks treatment of the topic "aorist" about having that disambiguation page. Maybe I am naively optimistic about the possibility of any consensus here, but I think that the dab at aorist is a good idea. Wareh (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming, just for the sake of the discussion, that most readers want Aorist (Greek), they must make two clicks to get to a dab page and then on to Aorist (Greek). If we use Aorist as it is now, a general page on the term cross-linguistically (which makes logical sense structurally), and place a hatnote to Aorist (Greek) at the very top, then the reader looking for Aorist (Greek) still only has two clicks to get to Aorist and then on to Aorist (Greek). So the dab page solution doesn't make the Aorist (Greek) reader's life any easier or his navigation through Wikipedia any shorter. I also personally think that a dab page just for two or three entries is not good structure. --Taivo (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You have just recapitulated the argument on whether or not to have disambiguation pages. The disadvantage is to the mass of readers who are looking for the aorist tense, in the traditional sense; the most common use of aorist. They are seriously inconvenienced by coming to this bizarre page, which tells them what they are looking for does not exist - although any of several thousand current publications has told them it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Please leave your catastrophism elsewhere, PMAnderson. Your comment makes no sense whatsoever since the reader looking for aorist in Greek is clearly directed there with the hatnote. --Taivo (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Please leave your POV edits elsewhere. Calling this narrow and rare definition "the" aorist is an abuse of the English language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

POV tags

I removed one as two are not required, i could remove both as the editor who tagged the article has not opened a section to discuss the POV issues he feels are in the article. [1] this revert by PMA removed a perfectly good reference which replaced the one which he says failed verification. This revert [2] by Taivo removed the same ref. You guys need to look before reverting and calm down mark nutley (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This reference is a set of class notes. It does not support the article for two reasons:
(ec)My removal of your reference was unintentional because we were reverting at nearly the same time and so the information got caught. Sorry. But your reference is incomplete. The citation to "Perfective tenses" needs to be filled out (author, title, publisher, page, etc.) before it will stand up to WP:V. Just posting a PDF of a few pages without the critical citation information doesn't pass muster as a WP:RS. It's an appropriate reference, mind you, but we need the full citation. --Taivo (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The true situation could be sourced from Shopen: not that the aorist is the perfective aspect, but that Greek (and Sanskrit) use aorist-stem forms to express the perfective aspect - and for other purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I am unsure were you get that we require author for wp:rs to be fulfilled. It is published by The University of Edinburgh and is fine as cited. mark nutley (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)On second reading, I agree with PMAnderson that this reference, while clearly calling aorist an aspect, distinguishes it from perfective. It also confuses "perfect" and "perfective". While it might be from a publication, its brevity seems to indicate that it might be a very nicely printed set of class notes. Without a complete citation it's impossible to tell its provenance. While it supports the use of the term "aspect" for aorist, it doesn't support the use of the term "perfective", especially since it confuses perfective with "perfect". --Taivo (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Comrie, while deploring this terminology, notes that it is not uncommon. It's not a confusion, simply yet another (perhaps undesirable) set of terms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Requiring author and publication data for a proper verifiable citation is Research Paper Writing 101. --Taivo (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not a research paper :) and not everything need by given to full-fillwp:v just that what is being cited is verifiable, but i added another ref which i believe does the trick mark nutley (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
"Verifiability" is not just "I can click on a link". Verifiability means being able to evaluate the quality of a source and understand the history of the material. That means following the standard and time-tested practices of writing a research paper--identifying authors, titles, dates, publishers, etc. as much as possible. Posting on the University of Edinburgh website does not constitute "publishing" or provide any measure of reliability or verifiability. --Taivo (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that we are finally converging. The page from Dahl is here; +T = transformativity, which would appear to be the inceptive and ingressive aorist; Dahl speaks much of Aktionsart.
If this is to be the predominant article, it should at some point explain that "tense" has two meanings, and which one it has chosen; so I approve of the addition of aorist tense to the lead.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Article contradicting sources, and other problems

Some of the recent edits, which border on WP:OR, have resulted in an article which completely contradicts its sources. For example, Mollin and Williamson say "When a verb denotes an action as a whole, without regard to the temporal progression of its parts, its aspect is said to be 'aorist.'" -- an opinion contrary to the one in the article ("the aorist conceives of an event or situation as bounded"), even though the article cites them at that point. The article cites Fanning at the same point, even though Fanning argues that the aorist "presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence." Similarly, the quote from Comrie ("In Ancient Greek, the Aorist is in the Indicative Mood primarily a past tense, although it does have some nonpast uses. In other moods and in nonfinite forms, the Aorist is purely aspectual, not an expression of tense.") seems unrelated to some sentences in the article which cite it.

It seems to me the article needs to be rewritten, probably starting with an older version which does not contradict its sources in this way.

I'm also uncomfortable in using books on NT Greek (especially unreliable older books) as sole evidence for the situation in Classical Greek, as is now done in places.

The edits to the tables also seem to me to be confusing: the table in what is now the "Usage in ancestral Indo-European" section was once a table of three morphological devices, with examples -- it's not quite so clear now what it's doing. The table in "Usage in Greek" used to summarise the previous examples; it no longer does so. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In regard to your NT point, it was suggested above that Homeric, Attic, and koine be distinguished in the Greek section. I agree that the article requires radical reorganization. It's one of the shortcomings of the WP method that restructuring an article is one of the hardest things to do. The lede needs to summarize the article's contents; it shouldn't be the first battleground, but the cleanup operation. However, this requires first generating an outline that would structure the article — a basic step in "pre-writing" for a composition, as even young students will tell you, and yet a step that the WP process doesn't account for. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Radagast, there is no contradiction at all in the descriptions of aorist as a bounded form among Mollin and Williamson, Fanning, and the current lead wording. All those descriptions are of a bounded aspect, just using different phrasing. They all say the same thing--that aorist aspect implies a bounded event, perceived as a single whole. --Taivo (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That's one quality of the aorist; but not all there is to it. A good generalization; but it does not cover the ingressive aorist, nor the aorist of impossible wishes, nor several others. Hence Rijksbaron's stress on anteriority; please stop trying to play Procrustes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read more carefully, PMAnderson, and you would see that I was not making a complete statement of all the uses of aorist (you also forgot the inceptive, which I have mentioned before and added to the article), but of the comments that Radagast thought were contradictory in describing aorist as primarily an aspect of boundedness. --Taivo (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that unadmitted retraction; but why should I read your posts at all? I only learn such claims as that I forgot the "inceptive" aorist - when I mentioned it. Or is it some more of Taivo's smoke and mirrors that the ingressive aorist has nothing to do with inception? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for another personal attack. Are you incapable of making a comment without a personal attack? There is no retraction of anything there. You are twisting words for your own POV. And you did not mention "inceptive", you mentioned "ingressive" which is something different. "Inception" is the beginning of an act, "ingressive" is the entering into of a state. Different things. --Taivo (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That was an attack, not on a person, but on a prospective post; when the post materialized, it justified the attack. Please try to be less predictable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


And on the point at issue: it is true that the aorist (in Greek) can mean that the action is confined to a certain time or stretch of time (the tragic aorist is an example; the thanks or whatever is confined to an instant). Nor is saying so necessarily a contradiction to the sources; it is possible to be bounded and without interior makeup; it is possible to be unbounded and without interior makeup. But it is not what they say - and so this faile verification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the quotation which allegedly supports the "inceptive aorist" says ingressive aorist. If there is a distinction, the text is unsupported; if there is not - and I see none - Taivo is disingenuous. At this point, I no longer care much which. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Rijksbaron

Sep claims that Rijksbaron analyzes the aorist as having inherent tense, and gives an out-of-context citation that appears to support that. However, we also have quotes of Rijksbaron saying that is has no inherent tense, and two other scholars summarizing R's position as being exactly that. So, two Greek scholars summarizing R's views vs. Sep's analysis of R's views. Can we work out what's actually going on here, so we can operate at a higher level than edit warring? — kwami (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I observe - and quote Rijksbaron = that he denies that the aorist has only aspect. He would also deny that it has only temporality; although he says that the meaning of the aorist stem is anteriority, that doesn't have to mean that the forms always mean that. They don't.
This is Kwami's reading of a second-hand account of Rijksbaron's views - against what Rijksbaron actually says. That he denies both extreme views is not surprising; he is interested in describing Greek, not imposing an abstraction upon it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
In reading the relevant quote that PMAnderson provided in the article, Rijksbaron says that anteriority is an implicature. That's exactly what we have been saying all along--that aorist is an aspect and any tense function is only an implicature. --Taivo (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
He does not say that anteriority is an implicature; he says it is the meaning of the stem. Tmplicature is the wording of a source summarizing him, which I am taking on trust from Kwami. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The footnote in question is justifying Rijksbaron's decision to call it "the aorist tense-stem". He denies that the aorist is (by essence) an aspect as clearly as language can put such a thing; it often has an aspect, as with Bulgarian. . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This edit summary shows an inability to understand "neither A nor B" which is extremely frustrating. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Rijkbaron has also denied, elsewhere, that anteriority is a necessary part of the aorist tense in the language; it a strong [[implicature]". I can read. You don't get any more clear than that--"anteriority" (past) is not a necessary part of the aorist, it [is] a strong implicature". If "past/anteriority" is only implied, then aorist is an aspect with tense only implied. The language seems pretty clear to me. At the least, Rijksbaron is contradictory. --Taivo (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If "past/anteriority" is only implied, then aorist is an aspect with tense only implied is entirely Taivo's assumption; there is no such necessity. The aorist is (of necessity) neither a tense nor an aspect; it can be either, it tends to be both, as the narrative aorist is. Taivo's "logic" is incompatible with the fact that he calls the aorist stem "the aorist tense-stem" (since anteriority is the root meaning). Unsurprisingly, this position is supported by his detailed analysis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not my assumption at all, it is Rijksbaron's statement as quoted in your footnote: "R denied that anteriority is a necessary part of the aorist--it is a strong implicature". No assumption is required. That statement is as plain as day. If past (tense) is only implied, then aorist isn't a tense. I don't see how you can interpret that statement in any other way than the plain words that R wrote. And, by the way, you've just burned your third revert for the day. Admins are well aware of your edit warring here already. --Taivo (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean that Kwami is prepared to improperly block to defend the text he has already abused? Doubtless; if so, let him watch for his adminship. I have intentionally offered new and expanded text every time to replace the text the two of you have reverted.
The aorist isn't a "tense"; that does not require that it be an aspect. The stem, Rijksbaron expressly holds, is a tense-stem; this is not contradictory, merely complex. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This edit is more reversion; but -as far as I can tell - the edit summary is a deliberate falsehood. Where else does the lead say that the aorist can be a "tense"? Indeed for an article which cites Comrie's direct assertion on the subject so often, this text is remarkably coy on the whole subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, that's the reason I'd like to get more context for what R said. He isn't necessarily contradicting himself. He could have decided that his earlier take on the aorist was mistaken, in which case we should be able to find somewhere he says that, or perhaps by 'past' he means absolute past tense, and is claiming that the aorist isn't (absolute) past, but instead anterior (relative past). We current report that R contradicts himself; if he's that unreliable, we shouldn't quote him at all, but I suspect that the problem may be a lack of context. — kwami (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. With the evidence we have, Rijksbaron has written two contradictory things--"aorist isn't aspect" and "aorist isn't tense", so he shouldn't be quoted at all if that's the case and we have no further context. --Taivo (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
We have effectively universal agreement that the aorist is either an aspect or a tense-aspect, so I suspect that our take of R's former claim is a misunderstanding on our part. Since we have at least two other good sources citing R, it would seem that he is a notable scholar. Perhaps we could restrict ourselves to summaries of his positions from those other scholars? That would fit with our general preference for 2ary sources. — kwami (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Is Kwami capable of reporting a text accurately?
The aorist is a combination - or strictly a set of combinations - of "tense" and aspect; that does have universal agreement, because it is the case. These are regions in the plane spanned by "tense" as one axis and aspect as the other; if "tense-aspect" means no more than this - and that is little enough - it is more or less true; it leaves out the interaction with mood. Some sources, discussing the aorist cursorily, may oversimplify this; it is easy to do.
But the "reasoning" from this to "the aorist must be a (pure) tense or a (pure) mood" is as fallacious as it is unsupported. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Plain English

The argument isn't going anywhere. How about drafting in plain English a very short introduction aimed at a very simple level of meaning? Then you can develop the concepts separately in your own sections. e.g

Aorist is a grammatical term used for a unique form of the verb found in certain languages such as ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Bulgarian etc. The term comes from Ancient Greek [aóristos] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) meaning "without limits, undefined" and, as the name implies, it characterizes a form of the verb that is not subject to the usual constraints that apply to other forms of the verb such as the 'future tense' and 'past tense'. etc

You should be able to construct something like that in such a way as to get around your major differences and so as not to frighten off readers with a load of inscrutable jargon. McZeus (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That might be a nice start. The real problem, however, is that there is a single obstructionist editor who will edit war to get his way. --Taivo (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that observation won't help. I'm sure he doesn't want to spend any more time on this than you do. I'll copy the text below so you can start working on it. McZeus (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC) DRAFT

Aorist is a grammatical term used for related forms of the verb found in certain Indo-European languages such as ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Bulgarian etc. The term comes from Ancient Greek [aóristos] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) meaning "without limits, undefined" and, as the name implies, it characterizes a form of the verb that is not subject to the usual constraints that apply to other forms of the verb such as the 'future tense' and 'past tense'. By analogy, it also is applied to unrelated forms which perform functions similar to those of the Indo-European aorist.
The problem I have with that is, by attempting to water it down until it no longer offends Sep, there is no substance left. We should note right off that the aorist is a perfective and that it's aspectual. I also don't care for "unique"; we could accurately say that the English past tense is "unique", but we wouldn't actually be saying anything if we did so. And actually, if taken literally, it's false: the aorist in ancient Greek, modern Greek, Bulgarian, etc. are not the same thing; each is arguably "unique", but taken together they are not. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Then drop unique- since the aorist is not unique in any language which has both sigmatic and root-stem aorists. This is pointless quibbling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that it is just 'Sep' who is opposed to your edit. Numerous voices here have sought compromise but it still hasn't happened. Please try to think outside the box that you are in at the moment or we will be here forever. McZeus (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

`I think that draft an improvement over the present text, although I hope McZeus will consider whether we have, in the course of improving accuracy over the last 24 hours, also improved clarity. I would prefer something a little more technical and concise than McZeus' draft, but it is closer to what we should be saying in a lead than paragraphs about "perfective aspect". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well this sounds positive. Can you show us how you would edit my little piece? Personally I thinks it's best to come up with something very simple first and then add to it little by little as good faith is built up. What else would you add/change? McZeus (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have performed this edit already. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say by "not subject to the usual constraints that apply to other forms of the verb such as the 'future tense' and 'past tense'." That has no linguistic meaning. --Taivo (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
He means, and is attempting to put in plain English, that the aorist does not "express temporality" as the past and future would. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That's your reading, but there are other possibilities and I'd like confirmation from Amphitryoniades/McZeus before proposing a different wording. --Taivo (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Then go ahead and express any one of them more clearly and in plain English; it is a sound test of genuine understanding whether one can express an idea without the scaffolding of technical language. If it's the wrong one, I'm sure McZeus will let us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, the meaning doesn't have to be specified - especially since it's the specific meanings that are the source of the disputes here. Meanings can be developed in the later sections of the article. So if you think the wording can support your interpretation, why not leave it as it is? If you feel a real need to change it, please use plain English and aim for generalities. McZeus (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Amphitryoniades/McZeus, the problem is that I don't know what you intended by that sentence--it's meaningless in a linguistic sense. I'd be happy to work on your plain English idea as long as accuracy is not sacrificed, but the sentence in question has no linguistic meaning. What was your thinking? --Taivo (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
IMO the lede of an article should explain what the article is about. It's fine to use some jargon with a note that it will be explained in the text for those unfamiliar with it, or give a parenthetical explaining that X is basically a Y, but IMO we shouldn't just say that the article is about a 'thing', and that the reader will have to read the rest of the article to figure out what that thing is. That's more appropriate to a forum like Wikibooks. An article on chemistry or biology will use a minimal amount of jargon in the lede, linked to the appropriate articles, and sometimes explain that jargon in the text if it's particularly difficult. — kwami (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict resolution typically requires the opposing parties to agree to some general propositions and then try to work out something more detailed from there, or at least agree to disagree. A lede is a general overview of the subject. So there is plenty of scope for conflict resolution there. But your heart has to be in it. McZeus (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem for me is understanding what the conflict is about. The issue seems to have shifted dramatically from one complaint to another, so I've rather given up trying to please Sep. I do, however, agree that the lede should use as little jargon as possible while accurately summarizing the article. — kwami (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This response sounds more promising. All academic disciplines have to interface with the general community, if only to justify the research grants they receive, and you should see this as good practice. The conflict here is over the perception that this article is written almost entirely from a Linguist's point of view. You might think the classicists here are out of date but many of the voices here belong to practising teachers. They think your approach is too exclusive and it conflicts with the messages they are trying to get across to their students. The article has to be shared between disciplines. That means sticking to generalities wherever there is some issue that you can't agree on. That's why I think the lede offers the best opportunity for some progress here. McZeus (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thus my approach in just calling it the "aorist". However, we have multiple classicist sources which note that it's not a tense at the same time they call it a tense. That may be fine for their students, but would be confusing for a more general audience. IMO we should note what people agree it is (an aspect, with debatable elements of tense), that it's called a 'tense' in much of the traditional lit, and then just call it the 'aorist' in the text without appending either 'tense' or 'aspect'. — kwami (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this approach. --Taivo (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with this approach. The question of polyvalent vocabulary is best met head-on; but that could be dealt with by a simple paragraph explaining the problem. But the belief that the aorist is "an aspect with debateable elements of case" is a falsehood; the claim that it is generally agreed is an unsourced lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course you will disagree with anything that isn't in your POV. A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1934, Broadman Press) (pg. 343): "The term tense...is from the French word temps, 'time', and is a misnomer and a hindrance to the understanding of this aspect of the verb-form." (Translation--what is called "tense" in Greek isn't related to time.) "Indeed it cannot be shown of any verb-form that it had originally any reference to time. We must therefore dismiss time from our minds in the study of the forms of the tenses as well as in the matter of syntax." (Translation--forget "tense/time" in discussing the Greek verb-forms.) Robertson wrote before the separate linguistic terminologies of "aspect" and "tense" had come into use, but his message is crystal clear--Greek verb-forms primarily mark aspect rather than tense and tense is only a late addition to some forms. --Taivo (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That's one side; that would appear to be the view that Rijksbaron calls unsound, in the quotation already cited. That there are cranks on the matter we already know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued misuse of tags

PMAnderson continues to throw misleading and false tags around in pursuit of his obstructive edit warring against this article. These two tags are especially laughable. In case your dictionary isn't available, PMAnderson, "punctiliar" means "single event" and "inceptive" means "an action which is to be commenced". Just file them in your word-a-day rolodex so that you can practice them tomorrow. --Taivo (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's lacking in productive civility and beneath Taivo's customary dignity. And also inadvertently funny, as anyone familiar with PMA's vocabulary knows. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I let the humor and irony of PMAnderson's needless tagging of that get the better of me. But what is truly unproductive is his continued use of unnecessary tags as an argumentative device. --Taivo (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

edits to lede

Made a few edits to Sep's version of the lede, which overall I find acceptable. Given the cantankerous nature of this discussion so far, I figured I'd better explain myself with more than an edit summary. (I'm not going to get into his misstatements above; they can speak for themselves.)

  • AFAIK, the Bulgarian aorist is not cognate with the Greek or Sanskrit. (That at least is what I took "related" to mean.)
  • the PFV meaning isn't "often" there; we have multiple refs that it's inherent.
  • it's not PFV in the 'grammatical tradition' of Greek, but in Greek.
  • This statement was false:
Within theoretical linguistics, the difference in terminology between calling this an aspect or a tense hinges on whether aorist is primarily a marker of completion or manner of performance ("aspect"), or of time ("tense"), or both.
People don't call it a tense because they think it's not aspectual; they call it a tense because the term is traditional. Also, the line misdefines both 'aspect' and 'tense'.
  • both tense and aspect encode time
  • this note was ridiculous:
this last claim is disputed explicitly by Albert Rijksbaron, The syntax and semantics of the verb in classical Greek : an introduction §1, n.6: he chooses to call the Greek verb-stems (including the aorist stem) tense-stems, explaining that "it is often stated that Greek had no proper means of expressing relative time and that the stems are really aspect stems [Example omitted] In general, this position is untenable"; however, Rijkbaron has also denied, elsewhere, that anteriority is a necessary part of the aorist tense in the language; it is a strong implicature.
We shouldn't be making Rijksbaron look ridiculous. If he's credible, we're probably misunderstanding him; if he's not, we shouldn't be citing him.

— kwami (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a ref for that? I don't have access to my library, but I remember reading conflicting claims on that. — kwami (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Why, yes, Comrie and Corbett, Slavonic languages, the section on Bulgarian. Such disputes are commonplace over Indo-European verbs, all of which have been regrouped at some point since PIE; they are usually purely verbal arguments on where the line between "descent with some analogical reformulation" and "new formation" lies. Since both qualify as related, the details here - whatever they may be - belong in the article body, not the lead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I took the opposite conclusion from those words: Proto-Slavonic had three different aorist formations. Two of them, the root (or simple) and sigmatic aorists, were relics inherited from Proto-Indo-European. The third type appeared alongside and eventually replaced the two older types, thus becoming the only productive aorist formation in Slavonic. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
These have been good edits to the lead. As with all collaborative effots, especially contentious ones, garbage had accumulated like tree rings. --Taivo (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
this piece of revert-warring is peculiar. First Kwami edits, and comments here in approval; then he reverts, on the basis of his understanding of a book he hasn't seen. I am restoring - and will consider asking that Kwami be banned from this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you should be banned. I should be banned. Taivo should be banned. We should all get permission from you before editing, or be banned.
No, just one of the two of you. Without your tag-teaming, the other will actually have to come up with novel wording - or convince somebody but his partner; either would be an improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The aorist is a "pure grammatical tense"? This is simple obstruction. You can either accept a reasonable version of your mostly reasonable lede to the article, or we can revert back to where we started. Your choice.
The Rijksbaron footnote is ridiculous. There is no need to introduce "tense-stem" in the lede (I though you wanted to clean up the jargon?); we then say that R both asserts and denies a point which has nothing to do with the point being cited. Yes I'll delete it. You're also edit warring to introduce other falsehoods which have been debunked on this Talk page. Come up with something rational. You might want to also clean up the mess that you left. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
You have debunked nothing; declamation about books you haven't read adds buncombe. I would take out the whole sentence about tense v. aspect; the whole thing amounts to "doctors disagree" - but I am waiting to see if McZeus finds it helpful.
I do thank Kwami for seeing an omitted "not", now inserted. As for "tense stem"; it's what Rijksbaron expressly calls them. Kwami may find this ridiculous; the proper venue for that, if he has a proof, is a journal article; if not, write Rijksbaron, not Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
By that argument, we should restore all of the linguistic jargon that you object to, and if you don't like it, you can write to the authors. Come on, we're pretending to be rational beings here. I don't find the term ridiculous, I just think it's ridiculous to further confuse matters by putting it in the lede when it serves no purpose as part of the lede. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The entire sentence serves little purpose. But if it is to be included, it should represent all sides of this verbal war: those who regard the aorist as being an aspect or nearly so; those who regard it as a mixture; and those who regard it as a tense, largely a tense, or often a tense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The disputed sentence follows.

However, it is not a pure[this is misleading] grammatical tense in the linguistic sense of the word (marking a position in time) but is either aspectual<:ref>Andrew L. Sihler, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Oxford University Press, 1995, ISBN 0195083458, p. 445: "the aorist ... not a tense, but so called"</ref><:ref>Zerwick, 1963, Biblical Greek : "the word « tenses » is put in inverted commas because the forms to be treated are but inaccurately called « tenses ». [None of the] « tenses » express the notion of time"</ref> or a combination of tense and aspect,<:ref name="Comrie12"/>[10][11]<:ref>Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, 1965, The Language of the New Testament, p 75: "In traditional grammatical terminology the imperfect and aorist are called tenses; they are actually sets of forms each of which (in the indicative mood) expresses (1) past time and (2) the particular aspect proper to the set."</ref> or the developments of a tense-stem.[clarification needed]<:ref> Albert Rijksbaron, The syntax and semantics of the verb in classical Greek : an introduction §1, n.6: he chooses to call the Greek verb-stems (including the aorist stem) tense-stems, explaining that "it is often stated that Greek had no proper means of expressing relative time and that the stems are really aspect stems [Example omitted] In general, this position is untenable"; however, Rijkbaron has also denied, elsewhere, that anteriority is a necessary part of the aorist tense in the language; it is a strong implicature.</ref><:ref>Heerak Kim, 2008, Intricately Connected: Biblical Studies, Intertextuality, and Literary Genre : "there is really no sense of tense but only of aspect which distinguishes the present from the aorist"</ref> In some treatments, the aorist in general is called an aspect, but the aorist in the indicative mood is called a tense;<:ref name="Beetham362"/>
As for the first tag, we can either say "it's not a tense", which is true according to all of our sources, or we can say "it is not a pure tense or even a tense at all". However, saying "it's not a pure tense" suggests that it's partially a tense, and many of our sources deny that.
Also, the aorist isn't either PFV or punctiliar or inceptive as distinct aspects. An 'aspect' is a distinct grammatical form. It's a single aspect, which may have those readings. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't aggravate revert-warring by lying; there are sources which speak of the aorist as a tense - in both senses of that much-abused word - and there are sources which deny it. The proper response is to describe both.
Kwami's last sentence is incredible: it appears to define the aorist aspect as "whatever the aorist may happen to do". This makes "the aorist is an aspect" an unfalsifiable sentence - the hallmark of pseudo-science wherever found. It will take more than Kwami's word to make me believe that linguistics has become a pseudo-science. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've asked this before, and you've failed to respond. I'll try again: please supply a single source that describes the aorist as a tense. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I respond - as I respond every time: Comrie and Rijksbaron. Neither calls it an unalloyed tense; but nobody giving more than a sentence to the question describes it as an unalloyed aspect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you purposefully misunderstanding me? I've noted multiple times that 'past perfective' is a common description of the aorist. We even have that in the lede. But you've been arguing that it's only a tense, and that is unsourced. If you don't actually disagree, what in the world are you arguing about? — kwami (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
PMAnderson, A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1934, Broadman Press), which I have cited in the article, talks in great detail and at length about how aorist is not related to time, therefore is not a tense. His sections on aorist are pp. 345-350 and pp. 831-877. --Taivo (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
That's one point of view, certainly - from 75 years ago. I'm sure it's one of the books Rijksbaron has in mind when he calls that view unsound. That's no justification for asserting that Dahl says so - when he does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A few other refs that the aorist is a perfective aspect. (I was going to replace Sep's dickish tag with this before the article was protected.) Egbert Bakker, 1997, Grammar as interpretation: Greek literature in its linguistic contexts‎, p 21; Constantine Campbell, 2007, Verbal aspect, the indicative mood, and narrative: soundings in the Greek of the New Testament, chapter 4; Martin Haspelmath, ed., 2001, Typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques, 1:779; Donald Mastronarde, 1993, Introduction to Attic Greek; Buist Fanning, 1990, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek; Heerak Kim, 2008, Intricately Connected: : Biblical Studies, Intertextuality, and Literary Genre; Maria Napoli, 2006, Aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek; Brook Pearson, 2001, Corresponding Sense: Paul, Dialectic, and Gadamer, p 75; Stanley Porter, 1992, Idioms of the Greek New Testament; Roger Woodward, "Attic Greek", in The Ancient Languages of Europe, p 33; Max Zerwick, 1963, Biblical Greek. — kwami (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

another source

I think this is an example of a clearer definition that is legible to lay readers: David Crystal: Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. "Aorist. A term used in the grammatical description of some languages, referring to a form of a verb with distinctive past tense or aspectual functions, especially expressing the lack of any particular completion, duration or repetition. For example in ancient Greek, the aorist is chiefly a past tense in the indicative mood, but expresses aspectual meanings in other moods. In the traditional grammar of some modern languages (e.g. Bulgarian) it is restricted to perfectivity in the past tense. The term aoristic is sometimes used in place of 'perfective' as part of the cross-linguistic discussion of aspect."·Maunus·ƛ· 18:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite reasonable. The Greek aorist can have aspect in the indicative, but this does not deny that; the phrasing for other moods is sensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of how to avoid the aspect/tense issue in the definition, its from the Merriam-Webster: " an inflectional form of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness, duration, or repetition "·Maunus·ƛ· 13:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In "Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture by J. P. Mallory,Douglas Q. Adams" - the Greek aorist is definitely described as an aspect. (pp 243 & 466 )

In "Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world by Keith Brown,Sarah Ogilvie" Aorist is described as aspect in Berber (p 154, 156, 157), Romani (p. 899), PIE (p. 463) Ewe (p. 409) and as Aspect in Macedonian p. 664 but as tense on p. 977, as tense in Nenets (p. 762) as tense-aspect in Indo-Iranian (p. 533) ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Since K and T can't let anybody else edit the lead without revert-warring - I believe they are each about 6RR for now - I have removed everything but the simple version. It may at least be consensus.

If they will leave this alone, we can build up from there: they can start by providing evidence that the "punctiliar" and the ingressive aorist are the same thing. Ou peithomai One is a undivided single action, the other is a change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


Actually, you'll have to take issue with Perfective aspect as well. There the punctual (called "momentary") and inceptive (described as the beginning of an action), as well as the resultative (defined as the end of an action) are described as variations on the same aspect. — Eru·tuon 22:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Not surprising, considering who's been editing it; one reason Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But one swamp at a time, as Hercules said at Hydra. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Man, you can't say two words without a personal attack, can you? The description of PFV comes largely from Comrie, who solidified modern aspectual terminology. Those are all different roles that a perfective aspect may play. Some languages have distinct punctual, inceptive, and resultative aspects, but many more subsume those roles under a single aspect, which is what we call PFV. Remember, an aspect is a grammatical form, not a semantic role. (Though it's not uncommon for writers to get sloppy about that, just as they commonly call <k> a 'velar stop' when what they really mean is that it's the letter for the velar stop [k].) It would be helpful if you actually read some of the lit before you started objecting to 'bias'. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

reversions

Taivo:


Kwami:

This list includes only the reversions; a similar list for me would have two entries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday you made the claim that your reverts don't count since you always changed or added something. Another example of hypocrisy, PMAnderson. If you agree with an edit, it's not edit warring, but if you don't.... You will also notice that I have not reverted the same thing each time. If you would stop pushing your singular and unsupported POV and actually discuss on the Talk Page rather than engage in incivility or personal attacks, then you might find a willing ear (or more than one). As it is, you don't listen to anyone else unless they are parroting your POV. --Taivo (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Look at the history of this talk page - and say that with a straight face; I have discussed more even than either of the two of you.
Yes, you have reverted any effort to improve or tag the page. That's what WP:3RR intends to make impossible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I listen to Cynwolfe, Akhilleus, Wareh, Erutonon, McZeus, and Radagast; I've replied even to you and Kwami - and thanked you when you had a point. That's an awful lot of parrots; closer to consensus against you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


Both of these opinionated editors have now exceeded four reversions; I don't think I have, but neutral eyes may see differently. In any case, if they are warned off, I intend to take 24 hours away from the article; my intention and interest has always been to see what would happen without these revert warriors. Radagast was perfectly happy to work on this article before they hijacked it; I encourage him to try again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For those who are interested, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kwamikagami_and_User:Taivo. Comments are welcome; those who are drawn here by claims of abuse should note that this page is full of such self-pity - for example, the assault on Wareh, a couple sections up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There was no "assault on Wareh". Perhaps you can read more carefully? --Taivo (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
He thinks otherwise; it is less than a day than he objected to Taivo's treatement of him; then again Taivo's first reply to Wareh's learned and intelligent comments was that he failed to understand the fundamental linguistics of the issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Beetham116 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Matthew 6:11, KJV. In Greek: Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον.
  3. ^ Luke 11:3, KJV. In Greek: τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ' ἡμέραν.
  4. ^ F. Kinchin Smith and T.W. Melluish, Teach Yourself Greek, Hodder and Stoughton, 1968, p. 94.
  5. ^ Beetham, p. 87: "The Perfect Tense describes an action which has occurred in the past the present effects of which are still evident."
  6. ^ John 19:22, KJV.
  7. ^ C. A. E. Luschnig, An Introduction to Ancient Greek: A literary approach, 2nd ed., Hackett Publishing, 2007, ISBN 0872208893, p. 271: "The perfect imperative expresses a command that is meant to be decisive or permanent. (It is very rare.)"
  8. ^ Mark 4:39, KJV.
  9. ^ Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights Into the New Testament, Continuum, 2004, ISBN 0567081982, p. 42.
  10. ^ Mastronarde, p. 192.
  11. ^ Jeremy Duff and David Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0521755514, p. 68.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aorist/Archive_3&oldid=1073870857"