I finished my Greek paper today, even going so far as to print off the handout and copy it. Now I am committed. I will be arguing that the historical present is better understood as non-prototypical or “marked” usage, not prototypical. Changing this presupposition has a huge impact on the overall distribution of the verbal system. I am going to let the paper steep another day or two, make a final pass and then post it to the web. I will let you know when it is up.

Speaking of “Up”, we rented it tonight and it was great! Do not miss it, especially if you have a dog. Our spaniel obsesses over squirrels, so it was particularly funny to us. Hope to see some of you at the conferences. And as for the rest of you…

What I am most excited about are the tools for teachers. Logos 4 is not just for personal study or prep for teaching, but for presentation. F8 allows you to play John Madden and mark up an window that is open, whether in Logos 4.0 or not. You can also float windows, which allows you to work across multiple monitors or onto a projector instead of being restricted to one. The autosizing of the windows makes organization a snap, and the app maintains snapshots of your latest layouts, eliminating the need for saving workspaces.

The library menu is completely customizable, allowing greater ease in finding what you want. Rule-driven features allow you to create a collection like “grammars” that will continue to build based on the metadata of new resources you add. No more going back and updating collections you have created.  It also seamlessly links to a new I-phone app that was released this weekend. Check out Logos 4.

When I said the 4.0 is a brand new build, I meant it. Logos 3 will still run independently, the resources being shared. I shifted over about a month ago and am loving it.

There are reviews available from Mike Aubrey, Ricoblog, and Reuben Gomez. More to come I am sure.

The second paper considers the implications of the first. If the HP is best understood as marked, non-prototypical usage, then what are the ramifications for the overall aspectual picture? Those advocating the absence of tense in the Greek verbal system have used the distributional criteria as the primary motivation for proposing an alternative framework. The present has been the poster child tense-form for arguing against the presence of any tense, since it is found in past, present, future and atemporal contexts. The ramifications of considering the the HP to be marked rather than prototypical are huge, greatly impacting the distributional data which lead to the need for an alternative. In reading the dead grammarians, it is interesting that most patently claim that Koine is a mixed system, grammaticalizing both tense and kind-of-action. Winer notes that it is not the grammarians who have generally misunderstood the system as much as the commentators, with the latter making excessive claims. I expect the same is true today, with some exegetes making claims from Porter’s model that he would likely not support. At any rate, I will be reconsidering the distributional data from Decker’s work in Mark to illustrate the implications and explanatory power of this seemingly minor change regarding the HP.

I finally began my Hebrew paper on Saturday in response to increasing occurrence of panic attacks. I have been conceptualizing it for some time, collecting the needed examples. I began section two of three yesterday, so hopefully I can have the draft completed next week in time to set it aside and let it percolate.

I leave for the conferences a few days early in order to attend a colloquium on using electronic resources for teaching biblical languages at Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids. I will be presenting the suite of NT discourse materials, illustrating how the annotated database and discourse grammar can be used to introduce students to discourse principles far earlier and more effectively than is currently possible. Both Levinsohn and I have found that few either have the aptitude or time to thoroughly learn how to analyze discourse, especially when it comes to information structure.  In teaching first year Greek I found that the discourse explanation of things like conjunctions and verbs better enabled students to understand what a constituent was doing even if they could not find a suitable gloss or translation. I will be giving this same presentation at SBL on Sunday afternoon at an additional meeting.

Well, my daughter is up, so time to go.

Last week in church we sang a classic hymn in preparation for communion. I grew up in  a liturgical church, not understanding much of the archaically-phrased content. Hymns were included in this. It was not until joining Evangelical Free Church that I began to understand the beauty and richness of the traditional content that I had rejected. There was a worship pastor that took a bit of time most weeks to explain things, to discuss the meaning behind the symbols on his stole, the phrasing of the hymn.

Although Greek and English are very different, functional discourse grammar allows me to appropriately compare languages devices based on what they accomplish. Below is an analysis of the words, describing the discourse task the phrase or wording accomplishes, embedded in footnotes. If you are using an RSS reader, you will want to read directly from the site to utilize the pop-up feature of the footnotes.

If you want to learn more about the concepts discussed besides the brief definition I provide, see the Glossary on the publications page. It provides an expansion and an example. The Discourse Grammar does this to an even greater extent, with a minimum of 10 examples discussed for each concept. There is an excerpt of the draft available here.

O¹ sacred Head,² now wounded
With grief and shame weighed down
Now³ scornfully surounded
With thorns, Thine only crown⁴
How art Thou pale with anguish
With⁵ sore abuse and scorn!
How does that visage languish
Which once was bright as morn!
What Thou, my Lord,⁶ has suffered
Was all for sinners’⁷ gain
Mine was the transgression
But Thine the deadly pain
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!⁸
‘Tis I⁹ deserve Thy place
Look on me with Thy favor
Vouch safe to me Thy grace

Sacred Head now wounded
Sacred Head with shame weighed down¹⁰

What language shall I borrow
To thank Thee, dearest Friend¹¹
For this¹² Thy dying sorrow
Thy pity without end?¹³
O¹⁴ make me Thine forever!
And should I fainting be¹⁵

How does that visage languish
Which once was bright as morn!

Hope this was helpful. Next time you sing a hymn, take the time to think about what you are singing. There is great richness in words, especially if they are used well. Discourse grammar does not breathe life into what is analyzed, the life was there all along. The same holds for the Greek NT. We simply need to take the time and develop the skills needed to read well. Leave a comment if this was helpful, or if there are other things to point out.

1. English does not really mark cases, but the use of “O” in King Jamesish language typically signals that what follows is a vocative of address. Such expressions identify the intended addressee of a speech, e.g. “Hey Joe, where you going…” Joe is not the grammatical subject, but a separate expression identifying the intended referent of “you.” You will find “O” frequently used in conjunction with commas to mark expressions in the English Bible as vocatives.
2. The “sacred Head” is actually Jesus, as most would discern readily. The “changed reference” to a thematically loaded expression introduces the possibility of confusion, but it is outweighed by the thematic benefit of being able to (re-)characterize Jesus in a particular way in particular context for a particular thematic purpose. John the baptist referring to the Pharisees as “You brood of vipers” or Jesus the temple as “my Father’s house” are other examples. Changing from the preferred referring expression represents the writer’s choice to highlight something, typically for thematic reasons.
3. The repetition of “now” is not to update the time, but is more likely “resumptive,” indicating that what follows is concurrent with whatever was going on in the last mention. This technique is often found in the OT, e.g. Gen 39:1 repeating the content from the end of Gen 37 about Joseph’s situation following the story of Judah and Tamar. I call it “Meanwhile, back at the ranch…”
4. All of what precedes is a description of the intended addressee, Jesus. The main clause about this addressee begins with “How art…” The writer has gone to great lengths to characterize Jesus in a particular way in this particular context, based on his intended goals for the hymn.
5. Again we see the repetition used to indicate a parallelism, that “with sore abuse…” connects to “with anguish”. The same task could have been accomplished stating “with anguish, sore abuse and scorn.” Repeating “with” explicitly creates two parallel but distinct pieces rather than a list of three items.
6. Here is another changed reference, a vocative expression set off by commas rather than “O”. It identifies the referent of “Thou,” providing a more expected reference compared to the thematically loaded one from the first lines above. However, it still calls the reader to think about Jesus as “Lord,” to consider this aspect about him.
7. Probably another thematically-loaded reference, in that “our” could probably have been used, just as “mine” is in the next line. Referring to “sinners,” however, highlights the need we have for a savior, the need we have for an atoning sacrifice. Note the change to “Savior” from “Lord” in the next vocative. It all works toward a unified thematic goal.
8. Another changed reference accomplished using a vocative, set off by commas. We started with Jesus characterized as the “sacred Head”, shifted to “Lord,” and now to “Savior” based on the thematic importance his death has in addressing the problem of sin.
9. Here is an example of where the rigid ordering of English syntax bends to needs of information structure. Emphasis–taking what was already the most important part of an utterance, and adding extra prominence to it–is normally accomplished in English using intonation, primary stress in the clause. This is not possible in written discourse. English, French and many other rigid languages use what is called an It-cleft construction to set the emphasized element apart. The same is found in Eph 5:8, “It is by grace you have been saved” instead of ” You have been saved by grace.” The sentence should read, “I deserve Thy place,” but this could lead us to view “I” simply as the subject, without any emphasis. By placing it in the cleft construction, the writer explicitly indicates what would otherwise only have been implicit: that “I” is the most important information in the clause. E.g., in answer to “Who killed the maid?” one might say “It was the butler who killer her” instead of “The butler killed her.” More often though we elide the answer to “It was the butler” or simply “The butler.” For King James or Shakespeare, “Twas the butler” would provide the right tense. The same goes for the French C’est moi, it is a cleft construction used for emphasis. Most cleft constructions you find serve to emphasize the clefted element, to place it in marked focus.
10. The repetition of the refrain or chorus between verses serves to segment the song into verses, and to highlight thematic information. The same technique can be used in instrumental music, repeating a theme as in Beethoven’s Fifth. Martin Luther King’s repetition of “I have a dream” marks the end of a unit. Whether it begins or ends it, it still marks the boundary of the two units, explicitly segmenting one thing into smaller units. Without the repetition of a refrain/chorus, the singer would have to judge based on either the content or the music as to where the transition from one verse to the next is to be found. Since the music itself often repeats the same basic theme during the verse, the lack of an explicit marker would have made this task very difficult. It could have seemed like one long verse without the repetition to explicitly segment the text.
11. Another changed reference using another thematically loaded vocative, set off by the comma and identifying the antecedent of “thee.” An implicit consequence of the atoning sacrifice of our Lord is the relationship that it brings about, that we can call him friend.
12. Forward-pointing reference using “this” to attract extra attention to the target: “Thy dying sorrow.” He could have more simply said “For Thy dying sorrow,” omitting “this.” The forward-pointing reference highlights the thing for which the writer is giving thanks, the thing for which there is no language to borrow.
13. Rhetorical question, with the expected answer that there is no language, there are no words capable of expressing the thanks.
14. Not sure on this one, but I think that the “O” here strengthens the sense of the imperative verb, essentially adding emphasis to the whole clause.
15. I believe that “fainting” is fronted within the verb clause for emphasis’ sake, compared to “should I be fainting.”
    Lord, let me never, never ((Here the repetition is for emphasis’ sake, like the way my daughters used to multiply “really” to strengthen a request.
    Outlive my love to Thee!

    Sacred Head now wounded
    Sacred Head with shame weighed down

    O sacred Head, now wounded
    With grief and shame weighed down
    Now scornfully surounded
    With thorns, Thine only crown
    How art Thou pale with anguish
    With sore abuse and scorn!
    How does that visage languish
    Which once was bright as morn! ((The verbatim repetition of the entire first verse accomplishes a very significant thematic task in the hymn. There is a tendency to forget the huge sacrifice that was made on our behalf as soon as we begin to revel in the glorious state of affairs that it has brought about.  Verse two describes this glorious state, but the writer’s intention is not to make us happy, but to cause us to reflect on what a great price was paid. The repetition is the return to reality after the celebration, the reminder that although grace is free, it came at great cost. The hymn writer heeds the words of Eccl. 7:1-4 regarding the sobering, balancing role played by sorrow. Ending on a downer note in the hymn challenges us to more carefully consider our response to the great gift we have received.

What ended up coming out of all of this research was really three different papers, each with a slightly different focus. One was the expanded description of the pragmatic effects achieved by the HP. The second is the paper I will actually be presenting in the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics section, addressing the thorny issue of the aspect of the HP. The third paper is one that I was completely unprepared to stumble across, it just happened in my research. The further I read, the more confirmation I found for the ideas, regardless of what I wanted to find. I wrote up a 12 page summary of what I found, and will set it aside until the New Year. It will probably be the most significant paper I have written to date, but there is little joy in it.

My verbal aspect paper continued to grow as well, based on the amount of attention the topic had received and based on the significance of the HP to the overall tense-aspect debate. It now weighs in a 30 pages, and still needs a bit more content added to one section. The content is written, I set it aside yesterday to begin work (finally) on my other paper for the Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew section. I began shifting gears yesterday from Greek to Hebrew, trying to figure out how I would tackle this paper. The folks in the Hebrew section scare me. They don’t just use linguistics, they are linguists, and from some of the top universities around the world. They shred poorly formulated ideas so fast that it makes your head spin, I have seen it. The last time I presented a paper there was 2005, my very first SBL paper.

Like I said, I set the Greek paper aside yesterday, and planned on beginning work on the Hebrew one. As is my habit, I read the literature with a basic idea of the direction I will go until things come together. I did a post earlier this summer about waking up and “seeing” the HP paper in my head—the whole thing—I just needed to write it down. It just happened to happen on vacation, and my wife wasn’t well pleased that I got up at 3:00 am to write. Neither was my nephew sleeping on the couch in the living room. Well, it happened again, last night about 2:00 am.

Psalm 127

1     Unless the Lord builds the house,

They labor in vain who build it;

Unless the Lord guards the city,

The watchman keeps awake in vain.

2     It is vain for you to rise up early,

To retire late,

To eat the bread of painful labors;

For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep. (NASB)

I will not go so far as to say that the Lord has given me my paper, though I will gladly give Him credit for whatever good comes out of it. All I know is that I end up having most of my problems solved as I sleep. I “saw” the flow and outline of the Hebrew paper two hours ago. I saw what examples to use, what order to put them in, what anecdotes to use in the introduction. Now I just need to write it, and pray that I will not hit the kinds of snags I found in my last literature survey. I am running out of time. While my wife might affirm the truthiness of v. 2a, I love getting up early and reading. If I have learned or found something new in a day, it has been a good day despite whatever other things may have happened.

I have been fretting about getting started on my other paper. This increased with each passing week that my Greek paper drug on past Labor day. This experience reminds me again that my scholarly journey has really been more of a spiritual one. I am not talking about a path to enlightenment or something, but more an ongoing dependence on God to direct my path. I could recount bunches of times where I would hit a wall, not understand something, need access to a book, need a mentor that could teach me about some aspect of some obscure thing. Sometimes I would beat my head against a wall trying to do it on my own. Other times I moved straight to prayer about it, skipping the “striving” and “beating” part. Sure enough, there would be the improbable Google hit, the find in the used book store, the scholar that was willing to respond to my emailed question and devote some time to mentoring me. It has been a spiritual adventure, complete with discipline and pruning of things like, oh say pride and self-confidence. There have also been times of great blessing, like seeing someone use what you wrote to edify and build up others in the Church, or to solve some problem in their research or Bible translation.

My anxiety about my Hebrew paper has been dispelled. I still have a lot let (like the whole thing), but this morning was a great reminder that solving problems is really a pretty simple thing for the Lord, and He is far better at it than I am. My wife has been on vacation for a week now, returning from touring the fall color in New England Saturday morning. I have been writing like a fiend since she left, typically rising by 4 am so as not to squander my morning. I have played with my kids, made sure they were fed, kept the house fairly clean, and tried to balance scholarship with being a good dad and housekeeper. I find it a very hard thing to do, being very drawn to one extreme or the other. But the glimpse I saw this morning of the paper just saved me who knows how many hours brainstorming, writing and deleting. God is so very good to us, and honors efforts to seek Him. I do not completely understand why, but I am very thankful that He does this. Gott go, time to get this paper out of my head.

Below are some representative examples of the apparent change that I am talking about, depending on how you handle the synoptic issues. Matthew’s version has some differences, but follows the mood and tense of Mark. Luke’s version uses the imperfect indicative to express the infinitival action.

This next example illustrates again Luke’s use of the imperfect in the same context that Mark uses the infinitival construction. It really doesn’t matter whether Luke “changed” his version or composed it. The point is he chose the imperfect for the comparable discourse context. Matthew goes his own way, using an indicative instead of the infinitive construction, but opts for aorist.

The final example is taken from the rejection of Jesus in Nazareth, his home town. The focus is on verse 2 of Mark 6, but v. 1 is supplied for context. There really is no specific counterpart in Luke, but Matthew’s version sports an imperfect.

And about the time you think there may be an pattern emerging, reality strikes. In the section that Luke adds which includes the OT quotation, he uses the same infinitival construction found in Mark to introduce Jesus speech, for which there is no synoptic parallel.

Luke 4:21  ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν.

If anyone is looking for a research topic, here you go. I would suggest taking Luke’s usage as expressing the preferred one, and try to contrast it with the places in Mark that it is changed. There may be some mitigating constraint that makes Mark’s usage dispreferred, “What not to do” as it were, but this is just a hunch. One would also want to look for comparable usage by Koine writers to test the hypothesis.

Most treatments of discourse will use a binary contrast to describe the advancement of the plot. The mainline of the story is advanced with perfective action, whereas the details that are needed to flesh out the story are generally in the imperfective aspect. This imperfective action usually will not advance the plot, but either establishes introductory states of affairs or creates a pause in the midst of the story to add descriptive detail.

One of the important presuppositions I have stressed here is the principle of choice implying meaning. In other words it is not just the content that is important, but how the content is portrayed and conveyed. Background information can be placed almost anywhere in a story, but the placement of it will have different implications. For instance, we are told that Sarah and Rebekah are beautiful, that David is handsome, that Esau is hairy and that Jacob is smooth, at the very beginning of these stories from the Hebrew Bible. That is a choice made on the writer’s part, and creates the expectation that somehow this information will tie in at some point. Imagine me beginning a joke about a one-legged grammarian and coming to the end of the joke without the fact that she only has one leg being relevant. Sperber and Wilson have helpfully pointed out this expectation of relevance in communication. So one option is to disclose the needed background at the beginning of the story, and in the narrative.

Another way of revealing the background information is in dialogue. This is over-used in the Shepherd of Hermas, with Hermas asking questions that draw out the needed information, or vice versa. Rarely does one find a narrative description of what he sees, but the angel will ask him “What do you see?” You find the same thing in Jeremiah.

There is another use of background information that I want to focus on: to highlight a climax by delaying it. I have been reading The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and been wonderfully surprised by what I see. Lewis took the time to write well. It is not just the content that is compelling, but the delivery as well. I wanted to give you some excerpts that illustrate the point. I trust that you will have enough of the general plot to follow what, um, follows. These are mostly taken from the chapter where Aslan lays down his life in the place of Edmund to pay the penalty for his traitorous behavior in serving the White Witch.

The following excerpt comes where the Witch is trying to force Aslan to hand Edmund over to her, just after Aslan’s forces have finished rescuing him. She grounds her claim on the “Deep Magic,” a concept has not previously been explained or even mentioned. Yet understanding the Deep Magic is the key to understanding the events that follow. The disclosure of this needed background information comes in the midst of the story rather than the beginning, at the point that it is relevant. It also comes in the midst of dialogue, rather than a narrative aside like (i.e., “Now the Deep Magic was…”) What is noteworthy is how the Witch’s use of unnecessary repetition delays the disclosure of the needed information. The pragmatic effect of this repetition is to create suspense and build to the climax. Background information is often used in the NT to build suspense, but calling something “background” makes it sound like it is unimportant. I thought I would use Lewis instead to illustrate the principle. You should be able to hover on the footnotes to see my comments.

“Have you forgotten the Deep Magic?” asked the Witch.

“Let us say I have forgotten it,”¹ answered Aslan gravely. “Tell us of this Deep Magic.”

“Tell you?” said the Witch, her voice growing suddenly shriller. “Tell you what is written on that very Table of Stone which stands beside us? Tell you what is written in letters deep as a spear is long on the fire-stones on the Secret Hill? Tell you² what is engraved on the scepter of the Emperor-beyond-the-Sea? You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill.”³

“Oh,” said Mr. Beaver. “So that’s how you came to imagine yourself a queen–because you were the Emperor’s hangman. I see.”⁴

“Peace, Beaver,” said Aslan, with a very low growl.⁵

“And so,” continued the Witch,⁶ “that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property.”

“Come and take it then,” said the Bull with the man’s head in a great bellowing voice.⁷

“Fool,” said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl,⁸ “do you really thing your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.”⁹

“It is very true,” said Aslan, “I do not deny it.”¹⁰

“Oh, Aslan!” whispered Susan in the Lion’s ear, “can’t we–I mean, you won’t, will you? Can’t we do something about the Deep Magic? Isn’t there something you can work against it?”¹¹

“Work against the Emperor’s magic?” said Aslan, turning to her with something like a frown on his face. And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again.¹²

Edmund was on the other side of Aslan, looking all the time as Aslan’s face. He felt a choking feeling and wondered if he ought to say something; but a moment later he felt that he was not expected to do anything except to wait, and do what he was told.¹³

“Fall back, all of you,” said Aslan, “and I will talk to the Witch alone.”¹⁴

They all obeyed. It was a terrible time this¹⁵ –waiting and wondering while the Lion and the Witch talked earnestly together in low voices. Lucy said, “Oh, Edmund!” and began to cry. Peter stood with his back to the others looking out at the distant sea. The Beavers stood holding each other’s paws with their heads bowed. The centaurs stamped uneasily with their hoofs.¹⁶ But everyone became perfectly still in the end so that you noticed even small sounds like a bumble-bee flying past, or the birds in the forest down below them, or the wind rustling the leaves.¹⁷ And still the talk between Aslan and the White Witch went on.¹⁸

At last they heard Aslan’s voice, “You can all come back,” he said. “I have settled the matter. She had renounced the claim to your brother’s blood.”¹⁹ All over the hill there was a noise as if everyone had been holding their breath and had now begun breathing again, and then a murmur of talk.²⁰

The Witch was just turning away with a look of fierce joy on her face when she stopped and said, “But how will I know this promise will be kept?”²¹

“Haa-a-arrh!” roared Aslan, rising half from his throne; and his great mouth opened wider and wider and the roar grew louder and louder, and the Witch, after staring for a moment with her lips wide apart, picked up her skirts and fairly ran for her life.

C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (New York: Scholastic Inc., 1995), 142-44.

An so ends Chapter 14, without knowing the details of the promise Aslan has made with the Witch. It is not until near the end of the next chapter that we learn the nature of the sacrifice that Aslan makes, and only in the chapter after that do we find that there is even a Deeper Magic that not even the Witch knows about.

Do you see the impact here of delaying progress? There is the macro-level delay whereby we do not learn what the promise is until the next chapter. There is the pericope-level delay where we get told what everyone is doing when we really want to learn what Aslan is going to do. There is also the sentence-level delay, where quotative frames and vocatives interrupt the flow and cause delay. Not all background information has the effect of creating suspense or building to a climax. It is the insertion of things that are not semantically required that brings this about. I will be discussing this more in my SBL paper, but no using Lewis.

Getting from A to B as quickly as possible can be highly over-rated. The most pertinent portions of this excerpt could have been condensed into probably little more than a paragraph of cliff notes. However, doing so would be a tragic mistake. I illustrate these principles here because they are used throughout the biblical text, in both testaments. Slow down, stop de-coding and read thoughtfully. Think about how the text is structure. Consider the consequences of alternative formulations. Mostly, have fun reading.

1. What would have been the effect if Aslan said, “Yes, I know it, I must hand over Edmund or a substitute who is guiltless.”
2. What is the effect of repeating the “Tell you” statement regarding the structure? Look at how what follows is recharacterized to describe essentially the same thing. More information is learned about the Deep Magic by thematically recharacterizing it as engraved on the Stone Table, in the fire-stones of the Secret Hill, on the scepter of the Emporor–it must be some heavy duty stuff!
3. Italics are mine, this is the relevant part of the Deep Magic that we were waiting to hear.
4. Why do we need to hear from the Beaver? We want to know what Aslan’s response will be!
5. He quiets the beaver, but still gives us no indication of what will happen, how he will respond.
6. Notice the effect of the non-initial quotative frames, like the use non-initial use of φημι in Greek. Such non-initial placement of verbs of speaking, vocatives/nominatives of address, meta-comments, etc., will have two effects: separating two things of unequal importance, and delaying the introduction of the typically more-prominent second element. If the first happens to be more salient, then the interruption creates what Randall Buth calls a “dramatic pause.” See his article on Hebrew verbless clauses in Miller (1999).
7. Again, no response from Aslan. But the Bull expresses what the reader might be thinking: there is no way Aslan is going to hand over Edmund to be killed.
8. Another delay with non-initial quotative frame and a vocative. What follows is more salient. He could have more easily written, “The Witch retorted, ‘Do you really…’”
9. Another relevant portion of the Deep Magic is disclosed, again at the point it is salient. If she had included this with the portion about every traitor being hers, then there would have been no reason for the Bull to say what he did. The bull’s interaction with the Witch serves to delay learning what will become of Edmund.
10. Still no direct answer about how Aslan will respond. This reminds me a lot of the introduction of John the Baptist in John 1:20 where he is asked if he is the Christ: “And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “’I am not the Christ.’” (NASB). You have both a positive and negative statement of the same proposition, but still nothing about how he will respond.
11. Again, a character’s words are used to express (or prompt) the reader’s response to the situation.
12. Here we see there is no way out of the Deep Magic, as though the Witch will win.
13. What difference does it make where Edmund is and what he is feeling? For crying out loud, I want to know how Aslan will respond. What will he do?
14. The plot advances, but only by inches. We still do not know how Aslan will respond.
15. Nice forward-pointing reference here in the use of “this”, drawing attention to the state-of-affairs about to be described.
16. Again, who gives a rip what Lucy said, how Peter was standing, that the Beavers were holding paws, that the centaurs were stamping. I want to know what’s gonna happen, for crying out loud!
17. Who cares how still it was, get on with it already!
18. Repetition of the last event from the mainline, noting it still goes on. It is very difficult “make time pass” in a story. One way of making it more real is to throw in detail that is not needed to advance the plot as a means of slowing it down. This is exactly what we see here.
19. Note that he neglects to say how he has brought this about, exactly what kind of deal he has cut with the Witch.
20. Did Aslan get the Witch to just abandon her claim? Nothing is going to happen, no blood will be exchanged?
21. Ah, so now we know for sure that there is come catch, the Witch will not walk away empty handed. But what is the promise? We have to wait and keep reading. To some extent, we could construe “the promise” as a forward-pointing reference, since there is no explicit antecedent.

It is the commonest grammatical vice for one to make a conjectural translation into English and then to discuss the syntactical propriety of the Greek tense on the basis of this translation. Burton indeed justifies this method for the benefit of the English student of Greek. But I submit that the practice brings more confusion than help. “The Aorist for the English Perfect, and the Aorist for the English Pluperfect” Burton urges as “a pertinent illustration.” But that method keeps the student at the English standpoint, just the thing to be avoided. The Greek point of view affords the only sure basis of operation. Winer laments that “N. T. grammarians and expositors have been guilty of the greatest mistakes” here, though it cannot be said that Winer himself always lives up to his just ideal. Translation into English or German is the least point to note in judging a tense.