142 Francis G. H. Pang 3. Aspectuality and the Future form If the debate on verbal aspect is like a tempest, the discussion of the aspectuality of the Future form is one of the centers of the storm66. The place of the Future form in the Greek verbal system is always a matter of contention among scholars. Some argue that the Future form is purely perfective; others claim that it is capable of expressing both perfective and imperfective aspects. This aspectual ambiguity prompted some scholars to conclude that the form is non-aspectual or aspectually unmarked. The lack of an obvious aspectual choice for an author to establish the constituency of a process prompted others to conclude that it is not fully aspectual. The following is an attempt to synthesize the current debate on the aspectuality of the Future. The goal is to provide a summary of various approaches and critique their various assumptions and methodology. We will first examine the validity of the models that champion a perfective aspect (Wallace, O’Brien and Campbell) and then move on to the non- aspectual approaches (Olsen and Fanning) and finally investigate the approaches that treat the Future with unique semantic feature (McKay and Porter). 3.1 Perfective Aspect and Abductive Reasoning Wallace considers a perfective aspect for the Future form solely on a morphological basis. He argues that the Future is morphologically linked with the Aorist Indicative. The shared sigma tense formative is then taken as an indication that the Aorist Indicative is a “morphological ancestor” to the Future. Thus the Future is likely to be aspectual and expresses the same aspectual choice. In other words, the Future, like the Aorist, grammaticalizes perfective aspect67. However, grammarians usually posit that the forms of the Aorist Subjunctive came together with the Future Indicative during the Hellenistic period68. Even purely 66 The other is the Perfect form where it attracts most discussions. The opinion on aspect encoded by the other tense-forms (Aorist, Present and Imperfect) is relatively more uniform among the scholars. For the discussion on the Perfect form, see for example, Camp- bell, Verbal Aspect, 161-211. 67 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 566-7 n.1. 68 Papanastassiou states that the identical pronunciation of <ει> and <ῃ> in the Hel- lenistic period resulted in certain forms of falling together phonetically, which contributed to the coming together of the aorist subjunctive and the future indicative. G.C. Papanastas- siou, “Morphology: From Classical to the Koine”, A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity (ed. A.-F. CHRISTIDIS) (Cambridge 2007) 616-7 and F.T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Milano 1976) ii.358-9.