|
|
I'm using the aorist as a shorthand here for "single action in the past", which, as you say, is aspective of the perfect in English (I think - is that how you would put it? Because the perfect is completed action in the past, whereas aorists do not consider duration or completion, yes?). So, in the very specific example that Ignatius attempted to correct, "is wrong" and "were wrong", or later "Haus says" and "Haus said".
Option one of those is using it iteratively - so, Taplin says that the Iliad was read dramatically over three days. Because every time that you open the book in which Taplin says that, he is still saying it. Conversely, "Taplin said that blah blah Iliadcakes, but his beliefs were superceded in 2083 by the Waffelhauser Contention", because at that point Taplin's saying of this is located in the past relative *to* the Waffelhauser Contention. Alternatively, "Taplin said", because he did it in 1984, and the action of Taplin saying has been concluded, if you get my meaning. Either is good (can't believe I'm arguing the case for grammatical flexibility), but in this case reading can rerender the act into the present.
So, say, "Grant is correct in saying that the distinction of 'that' and 'which' is an absolute bastard", because, upon revisiting the act of Grant saying through the process of reading, we find that he *is* right. Alternatively, "Grant was right when he said that....", where Grant's action of saying is placed in a temporally relative position. Because in part reading creates a continuous, breathless present, in what the present act of reading reimbues the scene with immediacy - iterative because the process contained within the text is ongoing when scrutinised. Recorded action as virus, coming into life in contact with a "living organism", in this case the reader. So, a) and b) sort of slide into each other, but the specific case of (a) would be when something written is being discussed as something with a continued process of communication. So, not quite the same as past historic and past continuous, insofar as my imperfect understanding goes, but certainly related.
But anyway, you know more about grammar than I do...
Ignatius' contention was first one of grammar, and when that seemed unprofitable the field was apparently moved to one of taste. |
|
|