Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 brill.

nl/jgl

Exploring Aktionsart in Corpora:

A Case Study of Koine Greek Erchomai and
Eiserchomai*

Rachel Shain
shain.6@osu.edu

Abstract
Presented here is an analysis of the effect of the Koine Greek preverb eis- on the lexical
aspect of the Koine verb erchomai ‘go/come’. To determine the effect of eis-, I demonstrate
the lexical aspect of the simplex erchomai and its prefixed form eis-erchomai by annotating
all instances of both verbs in the Greek New Testament. Methodology for determining the
lexical aspect of the two verbs is adapted from methodology used for languages in which
native speaker intuitions are accessible. Applying some of these tests to the corpora, I con-
clude that erchomai is an activity verb and eiserchomai is a telic verb. This result confirms
Buist Fanning’s (1990) classification of the same verbs, though he used different methodol-
ogy to come to this conclusion. Additional ways of developing aktionsart tests for corpora
are suggested.

Keywords
Koine Greek, aktionsart, lexical aspect, telicity, motion verbs, preverbs

1 Introduction

Previous research on Koine Greek verbal aspect has noted that Greek preverbs
such as apo-, eis-, pros-, and ek- affect aspectual properties of the verbs to which
they attach, specifically the lexical aspect (Fanning 1990, Olsen 1997, Mateos
1977). For example, both Fanning and Olsen conclude that the lexical aspect
of the Koine Greek verb erchomai is atelic (i.e., it does not include a point of
culmination). They also conclude that it becomes telic (i.e., it does include a

* This paper is adapted from my master’s thesis Shain (2009). I owe many thanks to Brian
Joseph and Judith Tonhauser, who were my advisors and who provided helpful feedback for this
article. I am also indebted to the reviewers and editors for their advice. Full responsibility for any
remaining errors is, of course, my own.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI 10.1163/156658411X600016

222 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

culmination) when prefixed with the preverb eis-. Mateos, however, concludes
that the un-prefixed erchomai is telic. This difference in analysis shows that the
lexical aspect of these verbs in texts is not readily obvious, even to Greek lan-
guage scholars. These three scholars’ divergent conclusions point to a need: in
order to confidently assess the lexical aspect of verbs in texts, methodology for
determining lexical aspect in texts must be developed (Evans 2001: 20). Such
methodology already exists for languages where interaction with native speak-
ers is possible (Vendler 1967, Kenny 1963, Dowty 1979).
In this study, I present semantically motivated methodology for analyzing
lexical aspect in texts based on the criteria already in place in the semantic
literature for spoken language, and then I show the results from an exhaustive
quantitative study of the lexical aspect of the verb erchomai in the Koine New
Testament and the corresponding shift in lexical aspect when it is prefixed
with eis- in the verb eiserchomai. The results confirm the conclusions of
Fanning and Olsen for Greek as it is found in the New Testament, namely that
erchomai is atelic and eiserchomai is telic.
The two verbs analyzed in this study are erchomai and eiserchomai. The New
Testament Greek verb erchomai means both ‘go’ and ‘come’. Examples (1) and
(2) show an instance in which erchomai means ‘go’ and an instance in which
erchomai means ‘come’, respectively.1
(1) τότε ἔρχ-εται μετ’ αὐτῶν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς χωρίον λεγόμενον Γεθσημανί
tote erch-etai met’ autōn ho Iēsous eis chōrion legomenon Gethsēmani
then went-3s with them the Jesus into place called Gethsemane
“Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane” (Matt 26:36 English Standard
Version)2
(2) ἐν φυλακῇ ἤμην καὶ ἤλθ-ατε πρός με
en phulakēi ēmēn kai ēlth-ate pros me
in prison was.1s and came-2p to me
“I was in prison and you came to me.” (Matt 25:36 ESV)

1
In (2), erchomai appears in its aorist stem form e l̄ th-. I italicize erchomai in example sen-
tences throughout.
2
The first line of example sentences is written in Greek orthography. The second line is
transliterated. The third line is a word-by-word gloss. This includes information on number
and person agreement (i.e., 3p is third person plural, 2s is second person singular). Case is
represented in all caps with NOM for nominative, GEN for genitive, DAT for dative, and
ACC for accusative. PART signifies a participle. Tense/aspect forms are represented
by FUT (Future), AOR (Aorist), PLUPERF (Pluperfect), PERF (Perfect), IMPERF
(Imperfect), and PRES (Present). Nominal and participial agreement is marked with FEM
(feminine), MASC (masculine), PL (plural), and SING (singular). CONJ indicates a con-
junction. NEG indicates negation, and asterisks represent that the utterance is unaccept-
able. Hyphens indicate a morphological break, whereas periods do not.
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 223

Fillmore points out that English motion verbs go and come have different
goals of motion (Fillmore 1983: 221). If the speaker is not located at the goal
of motion when the sentence is uttered and will not be at the goal of motion
at the time of arrival, and if the hearer is not/will not be at the goal of the
motion, then go is used. However, if the speaker or hearer is at the goal of
motion at the time the sentence is uttered, or if the speaker or hearer will be
at the goal of motion when the party arrives, then come is used (Fillmore 1983:
221). In situations in which there is no conventional speaker or hearer, as in
third person narrative, the verb come is used to indicate “motion toward a
place taken as the subject of the narrative, toward the location of the central
character at reference time, or toward the place which is the central character’s
home base at reference time” (Fillmore 1997: 99). Unlike the English come
and go, the verb erchomai does not denote the direction of movement and can
be translated as either go or come.
In (1), the narration is centered on the character Jesus and describes his
movement toward a destination which was not the location at the reference
time and at which there was no competing central character. The result is the
translation go. In (2), Jesus is speaking of a future judgment of all people, and
in that future scenario a king is judging people, and the king identifies with
prisoners throughout history, saying what is in the gloss in (2). Here erchomai
occurs in aorist form ēlthate and is translated as come because the speaker (the
future king, in this case) is at the goal of motion at the time of arrival.
When erchomai occurs with a verbal prefix eis-, which means ‘into’, the
resulting compound verb is eiserchomai, which means ‘enter’ or ‘go into’ or
‘come into’. Example (3) illustrates the verbal prefix eis- in combination with
erchomai.
(3) …εἰσ-ῆλθ-εν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ…
…eis-ēlth-en eis ton oikon tou theou…
…EIS-went-3s EIS the house the.GEN God.GEN…
“…he entered the house of God…” (Matt 12:4 ESV)
In (3), eis- prefixes erchomai and together they express the combined meaning
‘enter’. Note that there is a second eis in (3) that is not prefixed to erchomai but
occurs after the verb. This is the preposition eis. Neither erchomai nor eisercho-
mai is transitive, so in situations like that in (3), in which the author wants to
specify the destination overtly, the preposition eis is still required.
In order to study the effects of eis- on the aspect of erchomai, I first discuss
aktionsart, lexical aspect, and my methods for determining these in corpora.
I then review previous research on aktionsart in Koine Greek. At that point,
I present my analysis of erchomai and eiserchomai arguing that, as Fanning and
Olsen have claimed, the prefixed verb is telic whereas the simplex verb is atelic.
224 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

I conclude with suggestions about what aktionsart tests could be further

developed for work with corpora.

2 Semantic Methods Concerning Aktionsart

2.1 Aktionsart and Lexical Aspect

I focus here on the differences between erchomai and eiserchomai with regard
to their lexical aspect, i.e., the aspectual properties inherent in a given verb.
Conventionally there are four different categories of lexical aspect, originally
proposed by Zeno Vendler, who along with Anthony Kenny was one of the
first scholars to distinguish rigorously between the different classes of verbs,
using “grammatical and logical criteria” to do so (Dowty 1979: 53-54). These
categories are stative, activity, accomplishment, and achievement. Examples of
English stative verbs are know, be, and see. Activities, unlike statives, intui-
tively do not involve a state of being or perceiving. Activities are characterized
by motion, action, or intentionality. Examples of English activity verbs are
run, push, and skate. Accomplishment verbs also often involve motion, action,
or intentionality, but unlike activities, they are telic, i.e., they culminate with
respect to the action they denote. Examples of English accomplishment verbs
are build and bake. Achievement verbs are telic like accomplishments, but they
lack a ‘building up’ phase in which a process necessary for the culmination
must occur. Examples of achievement verbs in English are discover and notice.
Both activities and statives are considered atelic.
In English, one sees evidence of these categories of lexical aspect through
the inability of certain verbs to appear in the progressive.
(4) a. *Mark is resembling his father. (stative)
b. Mark is running. (activity)
c. Mark is building the house. (accomplishment)
d. *Mark is discovering the treasure. (achievement)
In example (4), the stative verb resemble and the achievement verb discover are
unacceptable in the progressive in English, while the activity verb run and the
accomplishment verb build are acceptable in the progressive.
It has also been observed that event realization is entailed for atelics (stative
and activity) in an imperfective aspect, whereas it is not entailed for telics
(accomplishment and achievement) in an imperfective aspect. This has been
called the imperfective paradox (Dowty 1979) and is illustrated in examples
(5) and (6).
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 225

(5) a. Mark is running.

b. Mark ran.
(6) a. Mark is building the house.
b. Mark built the house.
Example (5a) entails that a running event was realized. In other words, (5a)
entails (5b). Run is an atelic verb. Build, however, is telic--an edifice’s structure
has to be completely assembled before it has been built. Example (6a) does not
entail that a building event was realized: (6a) does not entail (6b).
There are many more tests in English which distinguish between classes of
verbs, as discussed in both Vendler (1967) and Kenny (1963). Dowty (1979)
contains a detailed summary of many of the tests in English.
While both Kenny and Vendler primarily presented their classification sys-
tem as one which distinguished different types of verbs, it is clear that a discus-
sion on the classification of verbs is not sufficient, because the same verb may
act differently with respect to the tests when in different environments.
Examples (7) and (8) illustrate this with the verb walk in English, using the
imperfective paradox.
(7) a. Mark is walking.
b. Mark walked.
(8) a. Mark is walking to his appointment.
b. Mark walked to his appointment.
In (7), the truth of the utterance Mark is walking in (7a), where walk is in the
imperfective English present progressive, entails the truth of the utterance
Mark walked in (7b). In other words, the realization of a walking event is
entailed in (7a). In example (8), however, this is not the case. The truth of (8a)
does not entail the truth of (8b). This shows that there is more behind Vendler
and Kenny’s observations than a verb classification system; sentential elements
other than the verb, such as the prepositional phrase to his appointment, can
affect how the utterance is classified. Properties of the subject, preverbs, the
grammatical aspect of the verb, and properties of the object of the verb have
all been shown to have an effect on the classification of the utterance by the
syntactic tests for aktionsart. Indeed, different interactions amongst all of
these elements plus the lexical aspect of the verb produce a proposition classi-
fied as a specific aktionsart. Aktionsarten, unlike lexical aspects, are classes of
propositions (Dowty 1987). Thus, the terminology of stative, activity, accom-
plishment, and achievement, and also that of atelic and telic, apply princi-
pally at the propositional level, not at the level of the verb. When I describe
a verb as “stative”, “activity”, “accomplishment”, “achievement”, “telic”, or
“atelic”, I am describing its lexical aspect, and this is out of recognition of the
226 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

fact that without the influence of the other sentential elements mentioned
above, the proposition will test according to the lexical aspect of the verb. In
other words, the verb walk is described as “activity” because without the influ-
ence of the PP to his appointment, or other sentential elements which are
known to affect aktionsart, the aktionsart of the proposition will test as
activity.3
This terminological distinction between the verb’s contribution to the clas-
sification of the utterance (lexical aspect) and the ultimate classification of the
utterance (aktionsart) is important because in texts one cannot presume to
know the lexical aspect of a verb just because the sentence in which it is found
can be shown to classify as a particular aktionsart. Ultimately the tests only
give us access to the aktionsart of the entire utterance, but one may deduce the
lexical aspect of a particular verb when that verb is shown to produce utter-
ances of a certain classification in the absence of sentential elements or context
which would otherwise affect the aktionsart. For example, without caution,
one may conclude from example (8) that walk is accomplishment, but this
conclusion is wrong. The PP to his appointment has made the aktionsart of the
utterance telic and accomplishment, but without the PP, as in (7), the utter-
ance would be activity or atelic.

2.2 Aktionsart tests in corpora

Much research on aktionsart in languages with access to native speakers has

produced a battery of tests for spoken languages (Dowty 1979). However, not
all of these tests are feasible for languages other than English, and others need
to be adapted to work in texts. In research with corpora, one cannot test the
grammaticality or felicity of a sentence by permuting its constituents or by
adding or deleting various sentential elements such as suspect PPs. The only
sentences which are available are those which are in the corpora. Without the
ability to test a verb for lexical aspect, one runs the risk of inaccurately classify-
ing it. This is already seen in by the fact that Fanning and Mateos came to
different conclusions about the lexical aspect of the verb erchomai.

3
I do not here choose a theory for formalizing aktionsart because my goal is not to analyze
the bearing that my analysis of erchomai and eiserchomai has on the competing theories for
aktionsart and telicity, but rather to use what is known about diagnosing telicity in spoken lan-
guages to bear on situations where native speaker intuitions are not accessible, i.e., in texts. My
conclusions should be compatible with competing theories of telicity. See Shain (2009) for an
example of how this data might be formalized using the Dowty (1979) interval semantics as a
formalization of telicity.
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 227

2.3 Aktionsart tests used in this study

In this study I primarily use the imperfective paradox, the interaction between
aktionsart and different aspects, and the existence of a goal (since the verb
being studied is a motion verb). I also look briefly at the difference
between erchomai and eiserchomai in their preference for different verbal
aspects.

2.3.1 The imperfective paradox applied to texts

The imperfective paradox, or the difference in entailment in imperfective and
perfective aspects as discussed in examples (5) and (6), is the most reliable
cross-linguistic test for determining whether a predicate is telic or atelic
(Bohnemeyer and Swift 2004).
As a result of this paradox, the discovery of an instance in a text in which
an event is ultimately unrealized and the predicate denoting it is in an imper-
fective aspect constitutes conclusive evidence of the telicity of that utterance.
However, it is always necessary to keep in mind the potential interference of
prepositional phrases and other sentential elements. Example (9) demon-
strates what this would look like in a text.
(9) οὗτοι ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι
houtoi anagkazousin humas peritemnesthai
those compel.PRES.3s you circumcise.PRES.PASS.INF
“those… would compel you to be circumcised” (Galatians 6:12 Revised Standard
Version) (Olsen 1997: 207)
Olsen claims that (9) shows a telic interpretation of the verb anagkazousin
‘compel’. The example shows a case in which an event (‘compelling’) is in an
imperfective aspect (the Present form) and has an incomplete interpretation—
the addressee was not circumcised in the end, so the compelling event was not
fulfilled. This indicates that the verb anagkazousin here is telic, because an
event denoted by an atelic predicate must be realized in both perfective and
imperfective aspects.

2.3.2 The Interaction between Aktionsarten and Different Aspects

Some have noted that some aktionsarten are typically interpreted a certain
way when they occur in a given aspect and that some aktionsarten never have
a particular interpretation in a given aspect. For instance, statives do not have
habitual interpretation in an imperfective aspect (Kenny 1963: 175). An
appropriate test for dynamicity, then, is whether a predicate can have a habit-
ual interpretation in an imperfective aspect: if it can, then it is not stative.
228 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

Another indicator of aktionsart involves typical interpretations of atelic

events in perfective aspects. If a predicate in a perfective aspect is interpreted
as having a start and stop time, without a culmination that completes the
event or without the stop time interrupting some stage in the event, the predi-
cate’s behavior is consistent with atelicity. Example (46) shows an English
example of a sentence with this interpretation with the activity verb meander.
(10) She meandered amongst the trees.

In (10) the event is of an aimless walking. There is no goal, and after the
event, no new condition is true of the subject, other than the fact that she is
probably in a different location (but not necessarily). The judgments involved
here are subtle and require the reader be able to interpret whether the start and
stop time of an event is arbitrary or whether they correspond to a stage in the
realization of an event.

2.3.3 The existence of a goal

Telic verbs have been described as “bounded”, “terminative”, or “culminating”
(Fanning 1990: 128, Olsen 1997: 32). In motion verbs, a goal or destination
serves to provide this required boundary or culmination. One piece of evi-
dence for a telic motion verb would be the presence of a goal or destination.
This goal or destination could be explicit, as when a prepositional phrase
denotes a goal or destination, or it could be contextually denoted, in which
the context makes clear that there is a goal for the motion.
If erchomai were atelic and eiserchomai were telic, for example, one would
expect erchomai to sometimes occur without a goal or destination and possess
a ‘just walking/traveling’ or even a ‘meandering’ meaning, whereas eiserchomai
would always have a goal or destination. This goal could be made evident from
a PP denoting a destination or from context which indicates a goal or destina-
tion to the motion.

2.4 Greek tense/aspect forms and their relation to aktionsart

Because some of the tests, especially the imperfective paradox, rely on the cor-
rect discernment of the grammatical aspects of perfective and imperfective, it
is necessary to correctly identify which Greek verb forms designate perfective
and which designate imperfective aspects. In other words, the correct identifi-
cation of Greek grammatical aspects must precede the application of tests like
the imperfective paradox.
I use the term grammatical aspect here to indicate non-deictic temporal
meaning that is not inherent in the meaning of a given verb. Grammatical
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 229

aspect is distinct from tense, which is deictic, as well as from lexical aspect,
which is inherent in the meaning of the verb. Grammatical aspect is morpho-
syntactically expressed via markers which are affixed to verbs in order to spec-
ify the “internal temporal constituency of a situation” (Comrie 1976: 5).
While grammatical aspect and tense are distinct, many of the morphosyntac-
tic markers in Greek designate both a grammatical aspect and a tense.
There are six Koine Greek tense/aspect forms: the Present, the Aorist, the
Perfect, the Imperfect, the Pluperfect, and the Future. Which tenses and/or
aspects are designated by these forms is the subject of discussion in the litera-
ture (Fanning 1990, Olsen 1997, Porter 1989, Blass and Debrunner 1961).
An analysis of the Present and Imperfect forms as imperfective and the Aorist
as perfective seems to be conventional for Koine (Porter 1989, Fanning 1990,
Olsen 1997). Fanning and Olsen both analyze the Future as nonaspectual.
Olsen includes the Perfect and Pluperfect as perfective forms, like the aorist,
and while Fanning also claims that their grammatical aspect is perfective, he
analyzes them as also containing the aktionsart property of stativity in that
they emphasize a state resulting from an anterior action.4 He also claims they
have tense because they denote an event before a reference point and a state
resulting from the event that exists at the reference point. The only difference
between the Pluperfect and the Perfect for Fanning is that a resulting state
denoted by a verb overlaps with the reference point in the past if it is the
Pluperfect and with the reference point at speech time if it is the Perfect
(Fanning 1990: 112-120, 290, 305). Porter labels both the Perfect and
Pluperfect as having stative aspect, reasoning that perfects emphasize the
resultant state after the realized event from any verb (Porter 1989).
I agree with Olsen, Fanning, and Porter in analyzing the Present and
Imperfect forms as imperfective and the Aorist as perfective. I also adopt
Fanning and Olsen’s analysis of the Future as unmarked aspectually.5 While
the details of scholars’ analysis of the Koine Greek Perfect and Pluperfect
forms varies, both forms are considered perfective by both Olsen and Fanning,
which is the most important detail for my purposes. For the imperfective
paradox, the Aorist, Perfect, and Pluperfect forms entail event realization
for both atelics and telics, but the Present and Imperfective are imperfective

4
Note that in my use of the terminology, it is not possible for a grammatical aspect to have
aktionsart.
5
One might in principal argue that the Future form is biaspectual, as opposed to
unmarked aspectually. Regardless, the Future does not count as either a perfective or an
imperfective form for the purposes of discovering how often erchomai and eiserchomai pat-
tern aspectually, so the aspect of the Future is not crucial here.
230 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

grammatical aspects and only entail event realization for atelics, not for telics.
Therefore, if an event is described using the Present or Imperfect forms and is
not entailed, then the aktionsart must be telic.

3 Previous Research

Several Greek scholars recognize that preverbs play an important role in deter-
mining the aktionsart of the proposition (Evans 2001: 20-22, Olsen 1997:
208, Fanning 1990: 150-151). Fanning has substantially contributed to the
study of aktionsart in Koine by applying Vendlerian-type aktionsart to the
study of Koine Greek and studying the interaction between lexical and gram-
matical aspect in Koine Greek (Vendler 1967, Fanning 1990). Mateos and
Olsen are two other scholars who have studied Koine Greek aktionsart (Olsen
1997, Mateos 1977). Fanning and Mateos classify a number of verbs into a
Vendlerian system, while noting the role of the preverb in some cases in chang-
ing the lexical aspect of the verb.
Notably, Mateos categorizes both erchomai and eiserchomai differently than
Fanning. Fanning lists erchomai as an activity verb and eiserchomai as an
accomplishment, indicating a number of other activity movement verbs which
become accomplishments when prefixed with a preverb that denotes source,
destination, or extent (Fanning 1990: 144, 151). Mateos lists erchomai as an
accomplishment and eiserchomai as an achievement (Mateos 1977: 85, 97).
Olsen adopts Fanning’s classification of a number of verbs, including erchomai
and eiserchomai. However, it has been pointed out that the methodology in
studies of Vendlerian aktionsart in ancient Greek is seriously lacking (Evans
2001: 20).
With regard to the classification of the two verbs, I agree with Fanning
and Olsen that erchomai is activity and eiserchomai is telic, but I evidence this
classification with more rigorous methodology by applying established tests
for aktionsart to the data in the corpus.6 I do not differentiate between the two

6
Fanning discusses the tests and criteria for different verb classes in English but concludes
that many of these tests are not useful for Greek (e.g., statives can occur in the imperative in
Greek, with their stative meaning preserved, but they cannot in English) (Fanning 1990: 133).
For statives, Fanning concludes that the distinction between statives and dynamics “must
be discerned from estimating the meaning of the verb, rather than from syntactically based
tests” (ibid). For activities, Fanning also claims that classification is “ultimately a matter of esti-
mating its meaning,” though criteria such as the imperfective entailing the perfective and the
acceptability of for-adverbials can corroborate the “estimation” of its meaning (ibid: 143).
Accomplishments are also determined using the “estimation” method, but Fanning notes that
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 231

subcategories of telic aktionsart—accomplishment and achievement—for this

study, instead opting for the supercategory of telic.7

4 Analysis

In order to study the Koine use of eis- and erchomai, I have collected all
instances of the verbs erchomai and eiserchomai in the New Testament using
the Novum Testamentum Graece of Nestle-Aland, 26th edition, and the Greek
New Testament, 3rd edition. Verses which only appear in the critical apparatus
are included (Institute for New Testament Textual Research and the Computer
Center of Münster University 1985). English translations in examples mostly
come from the English Standard Version, with a few from the New International
Version (ESV 2001, NIV 1984).
Erchomai is an appropriate verb for this study because it occurs prolifically
in the New Testament, with 636 instances. Erchomai also occurs frequently in
a variety of tense/aspects and moods and denotes events in a variety of times,
ensuring that instances of the verb could be found in all tense/aspects.
Additionally, erchomai can be equivalent to the English go and come (see (1)
and (2)), and because of this vague directionality, erchomai provides an impor-
tant opportunity to see the effects of directionality on aktionsart classification
of propositions.
Likewise, the preverb eis- in combination with erchomai provides the
opportunity for a substantial amount of data (194 instances). The preverb eis-
has relatively transparent meaning in its combination with erchomai. The
vast majority of the time eiserchomai means ‘go into’, ‘come into’, or ‘enter’,
which would be the predicted outcome for the morphological combination
of a particle meaning ‘into’ and a verb meaning ‘go/come’. Thus, the meaning
of erchomai is compositional with the meaning of eis-. This compositionality
is not the case for other preverb-verb combinations. For example, the prefixed
form diaballō ‘slander’ is not compositional with dia and ballō, which iso-
lated mean ‘through’ and ‘throw’, respectively (Liddell & Scott). While the

in- and at-adverbials could be useful in diagnosing the aktionsart of a verb. However, he does not
attempt to use them, since he has not examined temporal phrases in the New Testament (ibid:
150). A major limitation of his methods is the substantial use of non-native speaker intuitions
to classify the verbs. Mateos does not describe methodology for his classification.
7
This is precedented, and Dowty (1986) includes both accomplishments and achieve-
ments in his interval semantic definition of telicity.
232 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

compositionality of the preverb and verb is not necessarily connected to the

contribution of the preverb to the verb’s aktionsart, it seemed appropriate to
begin such a study with a preverb that is more consistent in what it contrib-
utes than with one that is not.

4.1 The Lexical Aspect of Erchomai and Eiserchomai

I first analyze the lexical aspect of erchomai and eiserchomai by exclusion

method (by excluding lexical aspects the two verbs could not have), using the
imperfective paradox and tests resulting from the interaction between gram-
matical aspect and lexical aspect. I do not use the test “existence of a goal” in
this section but address this further below where I discuss overall patterns in
the data.

4.1.1 Dynamicity of Erchomai and Eiserchomai

Kenny observes that statives cannot have a habitual interpretation in
an imperfective aspect. Predicates with a habitual interpretation in an imper-
fective aspect must be dynamic (Kenny 1963: 175). Both erchomai and
eiserchomai occur with habitual interpretations in an imperfective aspect.
Example (11) provides an instance in which erchomai has a habitual
interpretation.
(11) χήρα ἦν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ και ἤρχ-ετο πρὸς αὐτὸν
chēra ēn en tēi polei ekeinēi kai er̄ch-eto pros auton
widow was in the.DAT city.DAT that.DAT and come.IMPERF-3s to him
“there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him” (Luke 18:3 ESV)

The text clearly indicates that the widow was coming to the person multiple
times, on a habitual basis. From this one can conclude that erchomai is not
stative. Example (12) below is a clear example of eiserchomai in an imperfec-
tive aspect with a habitual interpretation.
(12) … ὥσπερ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰσ-έρχ-εται εἰς τὰ ἅγια κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ…
…hōsper ho archiereus eis-erch-etai eis ta hagia kat’ eniauton en haimati allotriōi…
…just.as the high.priest EIS-go.PRES-3s into the holy with each.year in blood another…
“…as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own…”
(Hebrews 9:25 ESV)

The writer of (12) is discussing the difference between the priestly duty of
Jesus and the priestly duty of the typical high priest, who enters on a yearly
basis with an animal’s blood. The entering of the high priest recurs on a yearly
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 233

basis. Because the interpretation is habitual, eiserchomai cannot be stative.

From here I conclude that both the aktionsart of the sentence in (12) and the
lexical aspect of eiserchomai is not stative. Given that erchomai and eiserchomai
are not stative, we can conclude that they are dynamic (activity, accomplish-
ment, or achievement).

4.1.2 Atelicity of erchomai

The atelicity of erchomai can be determined based on observation of how the
verb interacts with different grammatical aspects. First it is important to
understand that not every sentence with the verb erchomai is an activity sen-
tence. I argue here that the verb’s lexical aspect is activity, but this does not
mean that every sentence in which erchomai appears should also be an activity
sentence. Erchomai in fact often appears with a locative or a contextually
defined destination. Both of these things, in combination with activity verb
erchomai, produce an accomplishment. I deal with these situations in 4.1.3
below.
Below (13) is an example in which erchomai occurs in a perfective
aspect (the Aorist) in the absence of a PP or a contextually defined desti-
nation. There is no end-point specified in the context. In the narrative,
Jesus’ family has visited Jerusalem and has begun to travel away from the city,
unknowingly leaving him in Jerusalem. The family goes for a day’s journey
before they realize he is not with them. The word used to describe their jour-
neying in the example is ēlthon, the Aorist third person plural of erchomai.
(13) νομίσαντες δὲ αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐν τῇ συνοδίᾳ ἦλθ-ον ἡμέρας
nomisantes de auton einai en tēi sunodiai ēlth-on hēmeras
think.PART.AOR but he.ACC be.INF in the group go.AOR-3p day.GEN
ὁδὸν καὶ ἀνεζήτουν αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς γνωστοῖς
hodon kai anezētoun auton en tois suggeneusin kai tois gnōstois
road.ACC and search.for.IMPERF him in the relatives and the acquaintances
“But supposing him to be in the group they went a day’s journey, but then they began to
search for him among their relatives and acquaintances” (Luke 2:44 ESV)

This example shows that erchomai acts just as an activity verb would in a per-
fective aspect. In other words, there is an arbitrary stop and start time during
which the party is going and after which the party stops going. The sentence
does not express that some end-point is completed or that a culmination of an
event has occurred, as a telic sentence would.
Example (14) likewise demonstrates an instance in which erchomai occurs
in the aorist without a goal. In this example, while the reader is aware of the
234 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

ultimate destination of the subject, the action being described is the act of
going and seems to not include the act of arriving, as that is separately
described in the ensuing phrase (also shown in 14).
(14) εἶπεν δὲ τὸ πνεῦμά μοι συν-ελθ-εῖν αὐτοῖς μηδὲν διακρίν-αντα.
eipen de to pneuma moi sun-elth-ein autois mēden diakrin-anta.
say.AOR but the spirit 1s.DAT with-go.AOR-INF 3p.DAT NEG distinguish.PART.
AOR.ACC
ἦλθ-ον δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ καὶ οἱ ἓξ ἀδελφοὶ οὗτοι καὶ
ēlth-on de sun emoi kai hoi hex adelphoi houtoi kai
go.AOR-3p but with 1s.DAT even the six brothers these and
εἰσ-ήλθ-ομεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀνδρός
eis-ēlth-omen eis ton oikon tou Andros
EIS-go.AOR-1p EIS the house the.GEN man.GEN
“And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also
accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house.” (Acts 11:12 ESV)

Erchomai here appears in three instances, all of them in the aorist with the
stem elth-, two of them as a prefixed form. In the first instance, erchomai
appears with the preverb sun-, commonly translated as ‘with’. The second
instance involves the simplex form ēlthon. At this point in the narrative the
narrator does not know where the party is headed and is simply following a
party of men who came to get him. In the third instance, the prefixed form of
eiserchomai is used to denote the entrance of the party into the house, which
was their destination. Here the reading of erchomai in the simplex form is
consistent with an atelic interpretation, and the translation recognizes this by
using accompany in place of the usual go or come. The fact that the narrator
appends his description of going with the six brothers with a phrase that indi-
cates that they entered the house, thus reaching their ultimate destination,
lends the phrase to an interpretation in which the action denoted by erchomai
does not include their arrival at the destination. At the very least, the fact that
the reader cannot pinpoint whether erchomai includes the party’s arrival is in
stark contrast with readings of eiserchomai, where the destination is always
salient.
In (15) erchomai again occurs without a goal, and like in (14), the party’s
arrival is specified in the following phrase.

(15) καὶ ἦλθ-αν σπεύσαντες καὶ ἀνεῦραν τήν τε Μαριὰμ καὶ τὸν
kai ēlth-an speusantes kai aneuran tēn te Mariam kai ton
and go.AOR-3p hasten.PART.NOM.3p and found the CONJ Mary and the
Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὸ βρέφος
Iōsēph kai to brephos
Joseph and the baby
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 235

“And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a
manger.” (Luke 2:16 ESV)

In the example the party being described (‘they’) leaves quickly with the pur-
pose of finding Mary, Joseph, and the baby. The verb erchomai–here in the
form ēlthan–describes how they went, occurring with the participle speusantes
‘to hasten’, indicating that they are going with haste. In the following phrase
their intention of reaching Mary, Joseph, and the baby is depicted as fulfilled
with the verb aneuran ‘find’. That ēlthan speusantes is followed with a phrase
that specifically describes their arrival and the fulfillment of their purpose sug-
gests that in this instance erchomai is not telic, under similar reasoning to that
discussed with respect to (14).
In (16) below erchomai is in the Aorist in simplex form.
(16) ἦλθ-εν κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν εἰς ὅλην τὴν
ēlth-en kēruss-ōn eis tas sunagōgas autōn eis holēn tēn
go.AOR-3s preach.PRES-PART.NOM to the synagogues their to all the
Γαλιλαίαν καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλων
Galilaian kai ta daimonia ekballōn
Galilee and the demons cast.out.PRES-PART.NOM
“he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out
demons.” (Mark 1:39 NIV)

The sentence in (16) is slightly different from (13)-(15) because the PP eis
holēn tēn Galilaian ‘to the whole Galilee’ is probably associated with the main
verb erchomai, so it theoretically would provide a destination. However, it
does not do this because the object of the preposition eis is the entire region of
Galilee (hence the use of ‘throughout’ in the translation). The phrase holēn tēn
Galilaian indicates more the location of Jesus’ preaching activity than Jesus’
destination. As a result, the interpretation of the sentence is that Jesus is going
to various local synagogues in the region of Galilee, not in a specific sequence
of synagogues. Additionally, the two participles kērussōn and ekballōn are in
the imperfective Present form, so the events they denote occur simultaneously
with the event denoted by ēlthen. This shows that the Aorist ēlthen is denoting
an event of Jesus’ going about, during which he is also preaching and casting
out demons. This is consistent with an activity predicate, because there is no
obvious culmination or end-point. Instead, a period of going, preaching, and
casting out is denoted.

4.1.3 Telic Sentences Containing Erchomai

While I argue immediately above that erchomai has the lexical aspect of
activity, and thus is atelic, it nonetheless frequently occurs in telic sentences.
236 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

This occurs as the result of a goal-denoting PP in the sentence or a contex-

tually defined destination which defines an end point to the action of
the verb—an end point which must be reached in order for the action
to be complete. Example (17) contains erchomai in an imperfective aspect,
and the event is not yet realized at this point in the story. In the narrative
a woman named Mary hears that Jesus is coming towards her town and
gets up to go find him. This act of going is described with erchomai
in the Imperfect form ērcheto. Mary does not get to Jesus until several verses
later.
(17) ἐκείνη… ἠγέρθη ταχὺ καὶ ἤρχ-ετο πρὸς αὐτόν
ekeinē… ēgerth-ē tachu kai er̄ch-eto pros auton
that.FEM… be.raised.AOR-3s quickly and go.IMPERF-3s to 3s.MASC.ACC
“She…rose quickly and went to him.” (John 11:29 ESV)

It is in John 11:32, seen below in (18), that Mary finally gets to Jesus. In
(18) erchomai is in the Aorist, a perfective aspect, and the event of her reach-
ing Jesus is clearly realized. Perhaps went in (17) would be better translated
as was going, since she does not reach Jesus until later, as demonstrated
by (18).
(18) ἡ οὖν Μαριὰμ ὡς ἦλθ-εν ὅπου ἦν Ἰησοῦς
hē oun Mariam hōs ēlth-en hopou ēn Iēsous
the therefore Mary when come.AOR-3s where was Jesus
ἰδοῦσα αὐτὸν ἔπεσεν αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς πόδας…
id-ousa auton epes-en autou pros tous podas…
see-PART.FEM.NOM 3s.ACC fall.AOR-3s 3s.GEN at the feet
“Now when Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet…”
(John 11:32 ESV)
This sequence in the narrative of the Gospel According to John from 11:29 to
11:32 is particularly revealing because the same event—Mary’s traveling
towards Jesus—is denoted with the same verb (erchomai) but in different
aspects. When Mary’s going to Jesus is denoted with an imperfective aspect, it
is incomplete because at this point in the narrative she has not yet reached
Jesus. When it is denoted with a perfective aspect it is complete—i.e., she
reaches Jesus. The fact that the event is unrealized in the Imperfect and real-
ized in the Aorist tells us that both predicates containing erchomai in this
sequence are telic. Both contain phrases that denote an end-point. The first
sentence has pros auton, ‘to him’, and the second has a relative phrase begun
with hopou, ‘where’. These phrases make the predicate telic despite the fact
that the verb erchomai is an activity verb.
In some instances, the end-point can be provided by contextual informa-
tion, as opposed to a PP or relative clause. Often this means that the direction
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 237

of motion indicated by the verb is towards the speaker or hearer or the locus of
the narrative. In these situations, erchomai is often translated as ‘come’ instead
of ‘go’, and despite there being no overt PPs or relative clauses that mark for
destination, the predicate is still telic. Example sentence (19) demonstrates
this. A woman is talking about her understanding of the messiah. She first
claims that she knows the messiah is coming, and then she talks about what
he will do when he comes (‘he will tell us all things’). The second descriptor
of the messiah (what he will do when he comes) contains erchomai in a perfec-
tive aspect (the subjunctive Aorist) and describes hypothetically what will
happen after the messiah has arrived on the geographical scene. In other
words, the messiah-coming event has been realized in this hypothetical des-
cription. This second descriptor makes it apparent that the first descriptor
(‘messiah is coming’) does not describe a messiah who has already come but
one who will be coming sometime in the future. The first descriptor of the
messiah is in an imperfective aspect, and in this real-world description the
messiah-coming event has not yet been realized according to the woman’s
description.
(19) οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχ-εται… ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος ἀναγγελεῖ
oida hoti Messias erch-etai… hotan elth-ēi ekeinos anaggelei
know.1s that Messiah come.PRES-3s… when come.AOR-3s he tell.FUT
ἡμῖν ἅπαντα
hēmin apanta
us everything
“I know that Messiah is coming… When he comes, he will tell us all things.” (John 4:25
ESV)

Two observations can be drawn from this passage. The first is that it is another,
albeit more complicated, instance of the imperfective paradox in a text. An
event is viewed as unrealized in an imperfective aspect and realized in a perfec-
tive aspect. The second is that the sentence must be telic for these sentences
to be interpreted this way in the imperfective paradox. Neither instance of
erchomai in these sentences in (19) contains a PP or relative clause or any
other overt syntactic or lexical indication of a destination. However, it was a
cultural expectation that a messiah would arrive onto the geographic scene
of Israel. In this sense, the messiah ‘comes’ because the locus of the narrative
is Israel itself. Therefore, the destination that serves as an endpoint is pragmati-
cally implicit in the context. No PP or relative clause is needed to give
the destination because the context of the phrase is so rich. The fact that ercho-
mai subsumes meanings of both the English words ‘come’ and ‘go’ explains
the instances in which erchomai lacks a PP or relative clause and yet still is
telic.
238 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

Below (20) illustrates the same key points as (19).

(20) τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου ὃ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι
touto estin to tou antichristou ho akēkoate hoti
this is the.NOM the.GEN antichrist.GEN which hear.PERF-2p that
ἔρχ-εται καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἤδη
erch-etai kai nun en tōi kosmōi estin ēdē
come.PRES-3s and now in the.DAT world.DAT is already
“This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the
world already.” (1 John 4:3 ESV)
The author is discussing different types of spirits, one of which is the spirit of
the antichrist. In describing this ‘spirit of the antichrist’, he first says that it is
rumored to be coming and second that it is already in the world. These two
statements are in contrast to one another in the sense that the first addresses
the theology of the spirit of the antichrist–that it will come to the human
scene, so to speak–and the second addresses the fact that it is already on the
human scene. The event of the spirit of the antichrist coming is denoted by
erchomai in an imperfective aspect. This coming event is interpreted as unreal-
ized until the writer modifies it by the second description which points out
that it is already on the scene. If it were interpreted as realized in the first
description—hoti erchetai—then there would be no need for the second
description—nun en tōi kosmōi estin ēdē ‘now is already in the world’. As in
(19), the context is enough to understand that the destination is ‘here’ (what
I am calling ‘the human scene’). Therefore, the predicate denoting the coming
event in (20) is telic, and we can see this by the fact that it is interpreted as
unrealized in an imperfective aspect.
That erchomai occurs in telic predicates is in no way contradictory to my
labeling it an activity verb. It is not surprising that such a common word—
there are 636 instances of it in the New Testament alone (Institute for New
Testament Textual Research and the Computer Center of Münster University
1985)—would often occur with modifying phrases or contextually defined
destinations. This does not therefore undermine my analysis of erchomai as an
activity verb.

4.1.4 Telicity of Eiserchomai

Example (21) shows how eiserchomai behaves with respect to the imperfective
paradox. The example contains three instances of eiserchomai. The first two are
in the Present in an imperfective aspect (with stem eiserch-), and the third is in
the Aorist (eiselth-), a perfective aspect. The context of (21) is Jesus arguing
with a group of religious leaders about how they teach. He is accusing them of
not entering the kingdom of heaven themselves, and, in addition, not allow-
ing entrance to those who are attempting to enter.
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 239

(21) ὑμεῖς γὰρ οὐκ εἰσ-έρχ-εσθε οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσ-ερχ-ομένους

humeis gar ouk eis-erch-esthe oude tous eis-erch-omenous
2p.NOM for NEG EIS-go.PRES-2p neither the.PL EIS-go.PRES-PART.ACC.PL
ἀφίετε εἰσ-ελθ-εῖν
aphiete eis-elth-ein
allow.2p EIS-go.AOR-INF
“For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”
(Matthew 23:13 ESV)

A more literal translation than the one above is “for you do not enter nor do
you allow those entering to enter”, with ‘enter’ being my translation for eiser-
chomai. In the first two instances, where eiserchomai occurs in the imperfective
form eiserch-, the event of entering is not realized. The group of religious lead-
ers does not enter, obviously, as indicated by the negation. But the group of
people—those entering—is trying to enter and does not succeed. The entering
event for them is also not realized. The word eiserchomenous denoting this
event is in an imperfective aspect. So we see that eiserchomai in an imperfective
aspect does not entail event realization. It is obvious that event realization is
not entailed because in the broader sentence itself these people who are trying
to enter are prevented by the other group of people who do not enter. Due to
the fact that for eiserchomai event realization in an imperfective is not entailed,
it can be concluded that eiserchomai is telic. This example is the only one in
which eiserchomai has a continuous interpretation and the event it denotes was
not completed. Nevertheless, as I discuss above, one instance of an incomplete
event denoted by a verb in an imperfective aspect is sufficient to establish the
telicity of that verb, and below in 4.2 I discuss additional reasons to conclude
that eiserchomai is telic.
There are typically two lexical aspect categories within the overarching ‘telic’
classification of lexical aspect: accomplishment and achievement. Accomplish-
ment verbs denote events with subevents that are essential for their realization.
Achievement verbs, on the other hand, denote events which lack any subev-
ents. The question remains as to whether eiserchomai is an accomplishment
verb or an achievement verb.
One indication that eiserchomai might be an accomplishment is that it can
occur in an imperfective aspect, as shown by (21). Since achievements in
English do not occur in the progressive, this could be evidence that achieve-
ments are generally incompatible with imperfective aspects. It would make
sense that achievements, which do not denote events with subevents, could not
have a continuous interpretation. It can be tentatively concluded, therefore,
that eiserchomai is an accomplishment verb, but without researching whether
the English progressive test applies to Greek, we cannot know for sure.
240 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

4.1.5 Summary
I argue that neither erchomai nor eiserchomai is stative because they can both
have a habitual interpretation in an imperfective aspect. Several examples of
erchomai showed that the verb’s behavior is consistent with expectations for an
activity verb when it lacks a PP or contextually defined destination. When
erchomai occurs in telic sentences, it is the result of a syntactically present PP
or relative clause or a contextually defined destination which denotes a goal.
Eiserchomai, on the other hand, is a telic verb.

4.2 Additional Confirmations of the Lexical Aspect of Erchomai and

Eiserchomai

The conclusions from 4.1 are corroborated by the test from 2.3.3 involving
“the existence of a goal”, which predicts that if a motion verb requires a goal,
it is telic. To test this claim, I annotated all instances of erchomai and eisercho-
mai in the New Testament. For each instance I recorded the stem-form, the
mood, information about the subject and complements, specific information
about PPs, the presence of negation, the presence of a contextually defined
destination, the direction of motion (to or from speaker or hearer), and ele-
ments of overlap or sequencing with other events in the narrative. For some
tense/aspect-stems I also looked at the temporal reference and the ‘interpreta-
tion’ of the action of the verb (perfective, continuous, habitual, and generic).
Inasmuch as the goal test requires looking at statistical information about
the entire data set (as opposed to a sentence or two), a discussion of some
general information about the corpus data is warranted before I discuss its
application. Table 1 shows the number of instances of erchomai and eisercho-
mai for different moods (indicative, subjunctive, and imperative) as well as for
participles and infinitives.

Table 1. Number of Moods, Participles, and Infinitives for Erchomai and

Eiserchomai
erchomai eiserchomai
number percentage number Percentage
Indicative 367 57.7% 74 38.1%
Participle 155 24.4% 49 25.3%
Infinitive 50 7.9% 37 19.1%
Subjunctive 44 6.9% 27 13.9%
Imperative 20 3.1% 7 3.6%
TOTAL 636 100.0% 194 100.0%
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 241

Most of the data is indicative (57.7% erchomai and 38.1% eiserchomai), fol-
lowed by participles (24.4% and 25.3%) and infinitives (7.9% and 19.1%),
with a handful of subjunctives (6.9% and 13.9%) and a few imperatives
(3.1% and 3.6%).

4.2.1 Goals and Erchomai and Eiserchomai

It was discussed in 2.3.3 that the existence of a goal should be a good indica-
tion of telicity in motion verbs if that goal serves to delineate an end point
which must be achieved for the event to be realized. One would expect the
telic eiserchomai to always have a goal, whereas erchomai would sometimes lack
a goal. In the case of erchomai and eiserchomai the goal is almost always a loca-
tion, but it is occasionally abstract. Example (22) shows an overt locative goal,
example (23) shows a contextually provided goal, and example (24) shows an
abstract goal (joy).
(22) εἰσ-ῆλθ-εν εἰς τὴν πόλιν
eis-ēlth-en eis tēn polin
EIS-go.AOR-3s EIS the city
“He… entered the city.” (Acts 14:20 ESV)
(23) εἰσ-ελθ-ούσης τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος καὶ
eis-elth-ousēs tēs thugatros autou Hērōidiados kai
EIS-go.AOR-PART.FEM.GEN the.GEN daughter.GEN that Herodias and
ὀρχησαμένης ἤρεσ-εν τῷ Ἡρῴδῃ καὶ τοῖς
orchēsamenēs ēres-en tōi Hērōidēi kai tois
dance.AOR-PART.FEM.GEN pleased-3s to.the Herod and to.the
συνανακειμένοις
sunanakeimenois
reclining.with.him
“For when Herodias’s daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his
guests.” (Mark 6:22 ESV)
(24) εἴσ-ελθ-ε εἰς τὴν χαρὰν τοῦ κυρίου σου
eis-elth-e eis tēn charan tou kuriou sou
EIS-go.AOR-IMPER.2s EIS the joy of.the master your
“Come and share your master’s happiness!” (Matt 25:23, NIV)
Literally: “Enter into the joy of your master.” (Matt 25:23, ESV)

In example (22) there is an overt locative goal denoted by the PP eis tēn polin
‘into the city’. In example (23) the context defines the goal. Herodias’ daugh-
ter is entering into a banquet area that is the locus of the narrative. This ban-
quet scene is not described directly in the sentence in (23), but because it is
the locus of the narrative and it is where Herod and his guests are seated,
Herodias’s daughter is interpreted as entering into this banquet scene. In
example (24) the goal, joy, is abstract.
242 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

Table 2 shows how many instances of each verb have a goal versus how
many do not have a goal, in addition to information about how goals are
expressed. The most obvious result in this table is that eiserchomai always has
a goal, whereas 7.9% of instances of erchomai have no goal. Application of a
chi-square test is not appropriate here since there is a zero value in the data
(zero instances of no-goals for eiserchomai), and thus the data shows a categori-
cal distinction between goals and no goals for erchomai. The mere fact that
eiserchomai never occurs without a goal indicates a fundamental difference
from erchomai, which does occur without a goal. Furthermore, four-fifths of
eiserchomai’s goals are overtly expressed via a PP or some other syntactic ele-
ment (as in (23)), and only about a fifth of eiserchomai’s goals are contextually
provided (and are not present via a syntactic or lexical element—see (24)). Of
the 584 instances of a goal in predicates with erchomai, however, slightly less
than half (43.7% of 91.8%) were overtly expressed via a syntactic or lexical
element, and slightly more than half (48.1% of 91.8%) were contextually
provided. Of all 584 goal instances of erchomai, 438 involved motion toward
a speaker, hearer, or narrative center in such a way that served to contextually
provide a destination. In other words, 438 of the 584 instances with a goal for
erchomai would typically be translated ‘come’ and not ‘go’ in English.

Table 2. Presence of a Goal

erchomai eiserchomai
number percentage number percentage
goal 584 91.8% 194 100.0%
adverbial phrase denoting 278 43.7% 156 80.4%
destination
contextual goal 306 48.1% 38 19.6%
directionality is a factor (of 584) 438 75.0% n/a n/a
no goal 50 7.9% 0 0
TOTAL 6348 99.7% 194 100.0%

Three reasonable conclusions and one observation can be drawn from this
table. The observation is merely that erchomai more often occurs with a
contextually provided destination, whereas eiserchomai prefers syntactic or
lexical elements which denote the destination. I draw no conclusion from this

8
I have left two instances out of this table because they were indeterminate with regard to
having a goal.
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 243

observation, given that how a goal is expressed does not necessarily mean
anything about the verb’s basic aktionsart. The first conclusion is that eisercho-
mai requires a goal, whereas erchomai does not. Since a semantic goal is the
way in which the telic sentences with erchomai and eiserchomai delineate an
end-point, the presence of a goal is a good indication that a sentence with one
of these two verbs is telic. The data strongly suggests therefore that the lexical
aspect of eiserchomai is telic, whereas the lexical aspect of erchomai is not, since
some sentences containing erchomai do not have a goal. The second conclu-
sion is that directionality (towards a speaker or hearer or narrative center) is a
key factor in the telicity of sentences containing erchomai. When erchomai acts
as the equivalent to the English ‘come’, it is likely telic. The third conclusion
is that the preverb eis- somehow contributes to the difference between these
two verbs.

4.2.2 (Eis)erchomai and patterns of occurrence with grammatical aspect

Table 3 displays the number of instances of erchomai and eiserchomai in differ-
ent verb stem forms. Recall that the Present and Imperfect are imperfective;
the Aorist is perfective; the Perfect and Pluperfect are perfects; and the Future
is unmarked aspectually.
Eiserchomai, the verb which I have concluded is telic, occurs more often in

Table 3. Instances of Erchomai and Eiserchomai in Different Tense/Aspect Stems

erchomai eiserchomai
number percentage number percentage
Present form 217 34.1% 14 7.2%
Imperfect form 11 1.7% 0 0
Aorist form 358 56.3% 168 86.6%
Perfect form 21 3.3% 2 1.0%
Pluperfect form 7 1.1% 0 0
Future form 22 3.5% 10 5.2%
TOTAL 636 100.0% 194 100%

perfective/perfect aspects than imperfective aspects, at a ratio of 87.6 (Aorist

and Perfect combined) to 7.2 (Present). Erchomai, on the other hand, occurs
more often in the Aorist than the Present, but to a far lesser degree than
eiserchomai does. A total of 59.6% of the 636 instances of erchomai are in
perfective-perfect aspects and 35.8% (Present and Imperfect) are in imperfec-
tive aspects. Application of a chi-square test reveals a statistically significant
difference between the proportions in which erchomai and eiserchomai occur
244 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

in the different tense/aspect stems.9 The point here is that the contribution of
eis- affects how often erchomai occurs in certain verb forms, and it does so in
such a way that the prefixed verb, which is telic (eiserchomai), occurs more
often with perfective aspects than the atelic verb (erchomai).
There is a potential concern, given that I have indiscriminately included
the data for indicative instances and participial instances in Table 3, that
instances of participles could contribute disproportionally to the percentages
of total instances of each verb in different tense/aspect-stem forms.
Tables 4 and 5 show that this is not an issue. Table 4 gives how often indica-
tive verbs occur in each of the tense/aspect stems and Table 5 gives how often
participles occur in each of the tense/aspect stems. One can see that the figures
are comparable for the major tense/aspect stems (the Present, Aorist, and
Perfect), and in the tense/aspect stems for which the participle does not have
a separate form (the Imperfect and the Pluperfect) there is also a very low
number of occurrences for indicative verbs. Participles do not contribute to
the data in any substantially disproportionate way.
Application of a chi-square test to the perfective/perfect-imperfective ratios
between the two verbs in Table 4 and Table 5 indicates that erchomai and
eiserchomai in the indicative mood and in participial form also occur in statis-
tically significant proportions in the different tense/aspect stems.10 Regardless
of whether all the data is considered, the data only for the indicative mood is
considered, or the data only for participles is considered, eiserchomai patterns
more with the perfective/perfect aspects in a statistically significant way.
This pattern is interesting because it corresponds to Bohnemeyer and Swift’s
observations about aspectual reference and telicity (Bohnemeyer and Swift
2004). Bohnemeyer and Swift argue that in German, Russian, and Inuktitut
that there is a “preferred correlation” between telicity and perfective/imperfec-
tive viewpoints. This is shown in (25), taken from Bohnemeyer and Swift
(2004: 265).
(25) Preferred correlation between telicity and viewpoint selection
Event predicate Viewpoint
Telic ~ Perfective
Atelic ~ Imperfective

9
The P value yielded was less than 0.0001, with 1 degree of freedom and a chi-square value
of 58.408. Assuming an alpha value of 0.05, this indicates statistical significance.
10
The P value yielded for the chi-square test for Table 4 was less than 0.0001, with 1
degree of freedom and a chi-square value of 32.363. The P value for Table 5 yielded 0.0133,
with 1 degree of freedom and a chi-square value of 6.127. Assuming an alpha value of 0.05,
both tests indicate statistical significance.
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 245

Table 4. Indicative Mood Instances of Erchomai and Eiserchomai in Different Tense/

Aspect Stems
erchomai eiserchomai
number percentage number percentage
Present form 132 36.0% 3 4.1%
Imperfect form 11 3.0% 0 0
Aorist form 178 48.5% 60 81.1%
Perfect form 17 4.6% 2 2.7%
Pluperfect form 7 1.9% 0 0
Future form 22 6.0% 9 12.2%
TOTAL 367 100.0% 74 100.1%

Table 5. Participial Instances of Erchomai and Eiserchomai in Different Tense/Aspect

Stems
erchomai eiserchomai
number percentage number percentage
Present form 58 37.4% 9 18.4%
Imperfect form 0 0 0 0
Aorist form 93 60.0% 40 81.6%
Perfect form 4 2.6% 0 0
Pluperfect form 0 0 0 0
Future form 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 155 100% 49 100%

The schema in (25) above applies when the verb is not overtly marked with a
grammatical aspect, in which case the default reading of telic verbs is perfec-
tive and atelic verbs is imperfective. The patterns of occurrence for erchomai
and eiserchomai reflect the correlation in (25), even though Greek tense/
aspects are not unmarked for aspect (with the exception of the Future).

4.2.3 Summary of Data

The “presence of a goal” test further supports the classification of erchomai as
an activity verb and eiserchomai as a telic verb. A comparison of the instances
of a goal in sentences with these two motion verbs reveals that eiserchomai
requires a semantic goal, but erchomai does not. This suggests that the lexical
aspect of erchomai is not telic but atelic.
That eiserchomai occurs far less in perfective aspects than in imperfective
ones and erchomai occurs more in imperfective aspects than eiserchomai is
246 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

interesting because it reflects Bohnemeyer and Swift’s observation of preferred

correlations between telicity and aspect in several languages. It reflects this
correlation despite the fact that Greek overtly marks for grammatical aspect,
and Bohnemeyer and Swift predict the correlation for unmarked aspect.
Both of these patterns confirm the evidence shown in 4.1 and inform our
understanding of aktionsart classification in texts by (1) showing the validity
of the goal-based test from 2.3.3 in light of established aktionsart and (2)
showing that Bohnemeyer and Swift’s preferred correlation might have some
merit even when a verb is marked for aspect.

5 Additional possibilities for testing aktionsart in texts

The potential exists to develop many more text-based aktionsart tests for New
Testament Greek than those employed here. I have not used such tests in this
study because they were either inapplicable due to properties of the verb ercho-
mai, or because they would require substantial amounts of further research to
develop.
Adverbial phrases, particularly time phrases, are capable of diagnosing
aktionsart. Two basic categories of adverbials are “duration (for-type)” adver-
bials and “time frame (in-type)” adverbials (Bohnemeyer and Swift 2004:
264, Dowty 1979: 56, 58). Atelic predicates take duration adverbials, and
telic predicates take time-frame adverbials, although in English accomplish-
ments are marginally successful with duration adverbials. In Koine, two likely
candidates for aktionsart-determining adverbials are the “genitive of time
within which” construction and the “accusative of extent of time” construc-
tion. The genitive construction may be similar to time frame adverbials in
English, and the accusative construction to duration adverbials. Other adver-
bials could be useful for testing aktionsarten in Koine Greek or other non-
spoken languages. Perhaps some adverbials like tachu ‘soon’, tote ‘then’, euthus
‘immediately’, pollakis ‘many times’, ēdē ‘already’, or palin ‘again’ would prove
to have an interesting interaction with aktionsart. Some of these adverbials
could more naturally pattern with certain aktionsart in the same way that
English adverbs cautiously and obediently occur with activities and accomplish-
ments but not states or achievements. In order to use adverbial tests,
one would first have to develop a given adverb as a reliable criterion for aktion-
sart classification, which would involve confirming that the presence of the
adverbial in question ensures the identity of the aktionsart of the proposition.
This is no small task and would also involve ensuring that the presence of
 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248 247

prepositional phrases, grammatical aspect, and arguments of the verb do not

affect the diagnostic capabilities of the time adverbials; where they do, they
must be specified.
Furthermore, there are other predictable interpretations resulting from
the combination of a given aspect and a given aktionsart than what I have
employed above—statives do not have a habitual interpretation in an imper-
fective aspect (Kenny 1963: 175). In a more specific application of the imper-
fective paradox, Rijksbaron (2002) notes that predicates which take a
conative interpretation in the Imperfect or Present are typically telic. An inter-
pretation is conative if the “state of affairs did not get beyond the stage of
an attempt” (Rijksbaron 2002: 16-17). Rijksbaron also notes that predi-
cates which take an ingressive interpretation in the Aorist are typically stative
(ibid: 20).
Another potential way of finding clues as to a verb’s lexical aspect involves
looking at that verb’s stem forms. Sometimes a verb does not have a verb stem
for a particular form because it never occurs in the tense/aspect that is expressed
by that form. The Greek verb eimi ‘to be’, for example, has no form for the
Aorist or Perfect forms. The fact that it cannot occur in a perfective form
strongly indicates that it is atelic because if it were telic and did not have a verb
stem to express the Aorist or Perfect forms it could never entail event
realization.

6 Conclusion

Given the evidence shown by applying tests derived from the imperfective
paradox and predictable interactions between aktionsart and grammatical
aspect, I have concluded that erchomai tests as “activity” and eiserchomai as
“telic”. Furthermore, when the frequency with which the two verbs occur with
a goal is analyzed, it can be seen that it is possible for erchomai to lack a goal,
whereas eiserchomai always occurs with a goal. This supports the classification
of the two verbs, as a telic motion verb such as eiserchomai would be expected
to always have goal. On the contrary, an atelic motion verb like erchomai
would be expected to lack a goal on occasion, as is the case. In place of estimat-
ing the lexical aspect of the verbs via intuition, I have adopted methodology
which adapts standard tests for native speakers to texts. The findings corrobo-
rate Fanning and Olsen’s classification of the two verbs, but the methodology
provides us with knowledge as to why, beyond the personal opinion of the
researcher, these two verbs ought to be classified this way.
248 R. Shain / Journal of Greek Linguistics 11 (2011) 221–248

References

Blass, Friedrich and Albert, Debrunner. 1961. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen and Mary, Swift. 2004. Event Realization and Default Aspect. Linguistics
and Philosophy 27, 263–296.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, David R. 1987. Aspect and Aktionsart. Unpublished Ohio State University manuscript.
Dowty, David R. 1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse:
semantics or pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 37–61.
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing
Company.
Evans, Trevor V. 2001. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fanning, Buist M. 1990. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1983. How to Know Whether You’re Coming or Going. In Gisa Rauh (ed.),
Essays on Deixis, pp. 219–227. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Institute for New Testament Textual Research and the Computer Center of Münster University.
1985. Computer Concordance to the Novum Testamentum Graece. New York: Walter De
Gruyter.
Kenny, Anthony. 1963. States, Performances, and Activities. In Anthony Kenny, Action, Emotion,
and Will, pp. 171–186. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited.
Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. n.d. A Greek-English Lexicon. Retrieved April 23, 2011,
from Perseus Digital Library: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3ate
xt%3a1999.04.0057
Mateos, Juan. 1977. El Aspecto Verbal en El Nuevo Testamento. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad.
Olsen, Mari Broman. 1997. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect.
New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Porter, Stanley. 1989. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and
Mood. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Rijksbaron, Albert. 2002. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek. Amsterdam:
J.C. Gieben.
Shain, Rachel. 2009. The Preverb Eis- and Koine Greek Aktionsart. Master’s thesis, The Ohio State
University.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. 2001. Crossway Bibles.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. 1984. International Bible Society.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Verbs and Times. In Zeno Vendler, Linguistics in Philosophy, pp. 97–121.
Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.