Here is a chart to summarize the discussion of the regarding the what is marked by the various forms of the Greek verb. The next step will be to start drilling down on the distribution of the present forms themselves.
| Verb form | Imperfective Aspect | Remoteness | Proximity |
| Aorist |
Ø |
Ø |
Ø |
| Imperfect |
+ |
+ |
– |
| Present |
+ |
– |
+ |
Recall that according to Decker’s stats on the present usage in Mark, the historical (134x) rivals the present/proximate/non-remote (152x). This means that we have an overlap in the distribution of what is expected, with the present being used for in both “+ remote” and ” – remote” contexts. If the core meaning of the present is – remoteness/+ Proximate, then what is marked by the non-default usage? This anomaly in the data will be the focus of our attention in the coming days, so stay tuned. Thanks to Mike Aubrey for suggesting that I use charts to summarize.
| Verb form | + Remoteness | – Remoteness |
| Present | 134x | 152x |
You may have noticed the omission of the perfect form from the first chart. Leave a comment if you have a proposal about how it should be described, and whether another constraint needs to be added.
Another constraint will definitely be needed for the perfect, but I’m not entirely sure what it should be. Honestly, I’m inclined to make the same division that Porter does – simply because its one of the few places where he (whether knowingly or not) shows continuity with the old grammars: Porter, Robertson & Systemic Networks.
> This means that we have an overlap in the distribution of what is expected, with the present being used for both “+ remote” and ” – remote.”
– – –
But you are assuming in advance that the “historical present” is “- remote.” What if the present, when used in past time contexts, is *not* remote?
Rod, I do not own any of the aspect volumes, but my understanding is that Porter and Fanning both differentiate the present from the imperfect on the basis of remoteness and distance, respectively. Again, my understanding is that Campbell makes a similar distinction on the basis of proximity. I am rereading his chapter presently for clarification. If I have misunderstood, let me know. Your chart on page 107 seemed pretty clear, but I am a simple construction worker, given to mistakes. 🙂
What is the meaningful distinction that you see between the imperfect and present forms? What would your chart look like? Do you see that core semantic meaning of the form inherently changing in a certain context?
I’m not challenging the distinction between present and imperfect; I agree with the basic position you’ve described in that regard. It’s making the present *both* remote *and* non-remote that I’m wondering about.
Rod, that will be the next thing that will be unpacked. I will not argue that the core meaning changes. It is the fact there there is a mismatch in the expected usage that makes the historical present stand out as marked usage. See the statement I cite from Randall Buth.
I am not making the present both remote and non-remote, I am pointing out that it is found in both contexts. The question is why, to what end?
I will argue that the exceptional usage is intended to make it stand out. If it were not exceptional, breaking the expected pattern, it would not be able to mark anything special, but would be accomplishing its expected semantic function.
Then I guess it’s a matter of clarity. When you say “the present being used for both “+ remote” and ” – remote” ” I would assume you mean that it can grammaticalize either feature.
Have you interacted with Con Campbell at all? He has a book on verbal aspect and narrative that is somewhat convincing. In it, he describes the present as proximate/imperfective and the imperfect as its remote/imperfective counterpart. The historical present, then, is a discourse-prominence marker that heightens certain points of the narrative for whatever reason the author chooses. The present can be used in remote contexts, but it is not therefore remote–it keeps its proximate character to heighten the narrative.
Dr. Decker,
I have a question for clarity here.
Do you consider the contexts where HP’s occur to be places where we should expect both +perfective as well as +remoteness?
Or do you view such contexts as only expecting +perfective, but not remoteness?
Hmm, in seeking clarity, I hope my question is clear enough…
I have interacted with Con a bit, and plan on doing so in the blogs. He has a copy of my chapter on the topic. What I want to focus in on is what specifically is signaled by the HP, and why does this effect come about. There are anomalies that have been left unexplained so far, as evidenced in the latest issue of JETS. This is what I want to focus in on.