The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR
Additional services for The Classical Review:
Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here
German Opinion on Greek Jussives
J. Donovan
The Classical Review / Volume 9 / Issue 06 / July 1895, pp 289 - 293 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00202084, Published online: 27 October 2009
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00202084
How to cite this article: J. Donovan (1895). German Opinion on Greek Jussives. The Classical Review, 9, pp 289-293 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00202084
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 150.216.68.200 on 20 Apr 2015 The Classical Review
JULY 1895.
GERMAN OPINION ON GREEK JUSSIVES.
BEPOKE entering on a task which amounts insertion here, as it tends to clearness in to nothing short of a critique on the most discussing those further questions which vexed questions of Tempuslehre I must are moot points among the various schools. disclaim all pretence to anything like com- 1. German Grammarians, who are nothing pleteness. The literature which has if not philosophical, tell us that two appeared in Germany bearing directly or elements enter into the constitution of indirectly on this subject is so vast that grammatical tense, viz.: (a) the time of the one might put together a large volume by action (Zeitstufe or order in time), (b) its merely compiling synopses of the various •nature, quality or character (Actionsart or monographs, magazine articles and books Zeitart). specially devoted to this important branch 2. The time, as is known, is either abso- of Grammar. Any one in the least familiar lute—if reckoned from the point of view of with the far-famed deutsche Grundlichkeit the speaker, i.e. from the moment of utter- must know that it cannot fail to have ance—or relative when measured, not from left its mark on a subject which has been the speaker's standpoint, but from some keenly debated since the beginning of this other action or moment explicitly or century. For the purposes of the present implicitly alluded to by him. The use of paper it will suffice if we deal only with relative time is seen to advantage in Latin such theories as have found their way into where it has almost a monopoly of two the school-grammars of the best recognized tenses, namely the future perfect and plu- authors, with the addition of one or two perfect, Greek having recourse under similar more noteworthy contributions to German circumstances to the aorist. Relative time philological journals. It will, however, be with its connotation of simultaneity, necessary to approach the matter from a priority, futurity, has no special forms, broader point of view than was requisite in exclusively its own, in Greek, nor indeed, my previous paper. There being no differ- it would seem, in any Indo-European ence between present and aorist imperatives languages. other than that which prevails between 3. All present, aorist and perfect stems present and aorist stems, one is absolutely are per se zeitlos, i.e. do not express order compelled to resume the discussion under in time. It is only in the indicative mood this wider aspect. that we find tenses directly expressing the In so doing it will be advisable to start time of an action (Zeitstufe). Past time, with a brief statement of the general for instance, is formally expressed by the principles of Tempuslehre on which augment ; present time, as such, is marked German scholars are agreed. Readers by no specific word-formation. already familiar with these will pardon the 4. The tenses of all moods other than NO. LXXX. VOL. IX. 290 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. the indicative, the participle included, do ductory principles of his Tempuslehre, not express a time-difference; they merely opens with the ' dreifache Beschaffenheit der serve to denote the quality of the action Handlung' with regard to the character of (Actionsart). the action expressed by the three primary All German scholars are practically tenses (pres. aor. perf.).2 unanimous in regarding the foregoing The various systems put forward by principles as axiomatic in any system of German scholars to set forth the nature of Tempuslehre.1 the action {Actionsart) expressed by the In confirmation of what has been said, it three primary stems, pres. aor. and perfect, may be well to cite authorities. Delbriick may be conveniently grouped under three in his Syntalitische Forschungen (iv. page 80) heads. writes confidently as follows :— Under the first may be placed that of Hermann, Kiihner and the two Buttmanns Dass die Stamme des Praesens, des as representing the earliest attempts at a Aorists, des Perfectums verschiedene true solution of this question. According Actionen bezeichnen (das Praesens etwa die to this school the radical idea inherent in dauernde, der Aorist die eintretende, das the three stems respectively is, for the Perfectum die vollendete Handlung), dass grammatical present, that of ' dauernde die bestimmte Action in jeder Form des Handlung,' for the aorist 'momentane Stammes, in den Modi so gut wie im Handlung,' and for the perfect ' vollendete Indicativ zur erscheinung kommt, dass Handlung.' It may be here observed once ferner die Zeitstufe nur in deni Augment and for all that divergence of opinion turns sichtbar bezeichnet ist—diese Wahrheiten, mainly on the function of present and um deren Gewinnung sich Georg Curtius aorist stems, the perfect being almost das grb'sste Verdienst erworben hat, sind universally admitted to express concluded wohl jetzt in das allgemeine Bewusstsein or completed action, the results remaining. iibergegangen.' Koch, in stating the intro- Philip Buttmann's terminology is not exactly that of scholars of the present day. 1 Owing to the fact that the aor. participle does He does not seem to have used the terms de facto most frequently refer to past time, exception Zeitstufe and Actionsart,z which apparently has been taken to the general rule, no. 4, stated above. See Fox's ' Rede fiir die Megalopoliten originated with G. Curtius. Nevertheless (page 66) : 'Das Part. Aor.' lehrt mitanderen Brug- his theory, in its general outlines, is sub- mann in seiner gr. Gramm. S. 10 ' hat nichts von stantially such ns we have described above, Vergangenheitsbedeutung an sich ; diese wird, wo as may be gathered from his own words. sie vorzuliegen scheiut, nur erst durch die bestimmte Verbindung erzeugt, ist also zufallig.' Thatsaehlich Speaking of the distinction between present bezeichnet das Part. Aor. in den allermeisten Fallen and aorist in the so-called subordinate eine Vergangenheit, freilich nicht allemal eine (nach moods, he writes: 'dass sie (die Griechische dem Zeitpunkte, welcher fiir den Sprechenden Sprache) sich der Modi des Praesens haupt- Gegenwart ist, zu bestimmende) absolute (wie in 6p£> rbv Troi-fiaavTa), sondern sehr hiiufig eine (nachsachlich bedient um eine dauernde, der Modi der durchs Hauptverbum hezeichneten Zeit zu des Aorist um eine momentane Handlung zu bestimmende) relative, so dass es bald einem bezeichnen.'4 Plusquamperf. entspricht. ...bald einem einfachen Praeteritum...bald einem Fut. exact...' The objec- It is not improbable that Buttmann tion here raised meets in my opinion with a satis- obtained his idea of ' momentane Handhing ' factory solution only on the hypothesis—which shall as attaching to the aorist stem from Her- be afterwards insisted on—that the radical idea in- herent in the aor. stem is that of ' concluded action.' mann. The latter seems to insinuate as Another objection which occurs to me is the some- what awkward presence of future infinitives active 2 Brngmann, from whom much of the foregoing middle and passive (formed from various stems) side summary is drawn, starts fiom exactly similar first by side with the present, perfect and aor. infinitives. principles, as do also Curtius-Hartel, Kaegi and Grammarians seem to confine their attention to the others. Kriiger, who is known to have worked out latter. To me such forms as iroi^o-eiy, Auflrfffecrflai, his theories independently not only of G. Curtius' €lpr' THE CLASSIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. IN a friendly review of Mr. Sonnen- (ii) by fulfilment, (iii) by form. The first is schein's Greek Syntax, which recently ap- the system of Prof. Goodwin, the second is peared in these pages, the critic devoted proposed by Mr Donovan when he says that more space to the treatment of conditional ' recourse should at once be had to the universal sentences than to any other portion of the canon of fulfilment or non-fulfilment '(p. 64a) book, because, as he says, the method adopted and the third that of Mr Sonnenschein. in it ' is but a poor makeshift' or ' positively The first method produces what even Prof. erroneous.' It is described as misleading in Goodwin himself (M. T. § 397) admits to practice and unscientific in theory. Yet a be the astonishing spectacle of two sentences careful consideration of the question tends to coinciding in external form entirely divorced convince the student that after all it is Mr from one another, viz. ' the more vivid future ' Sonnenschein who is right. and ' the present general.' And further, by There are three possible ways of classify- uniting the Present with the Past, and ing conditional sentences, viz. (i) by time, separating the Present from the Future, it