There is effectively no debate about the definition of aspect in Greek. There is also effectively no debate about the definitions of the imperfective and perfective aspects, two categories we discussed in Part I. This is true whether you’re reading Fanning (1990), Decker (2007), Campbell (2007), any of the contributors to Runge & Fresch (2016), or anyone else.
Stanley Porter
A critique of pedagogical Greek grammar.
A new monograph on the Greek perfect in the Peter Lang is coming at the end of this […]
“Verbal Aspect Theory” and its companion “Aktionsart Theory” are both phrases that need to be reconsidered. The way it gets used by NT grammarians is anachronistic and leads to misreadings of the grammatical literature.
But there’s a far simpler explanation of the data that does not need Porter’s overwrought prominence model.
How can there be any substantive discussion about language data or linguistic method if we cannot even agree on the history of research? New Testament Greek grammar is simply broken. And nobody seems interested in trying to fix it. So where do we go from here?
Last year I reviewed Porter’s collection of essays: Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, […]
While working on editing the three parts of my review into a cohesive whole document to make available […]
Porter, Stanley. 2015. Linguistic analysis of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. This review is […]
Porter, Stanley. 2015. Linguistic analysis of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. This review is […]
Koine-Greek 