144 Francis G. H. Pang are predictable77. O’Brien relies on this hypothesis in his work, seeking to “isolate any consistency in the verbal aspect of future forms”78. His logic is that from the known patterns between certain aspects and other contextual and lexical factors, one could examine the pattern of certain tense-form and work backward to determine its aspect79. Based on this premise, he argues that if he is able to demonstrate that the Future and the Aorist behave similarly when combined with certain lexical and contextual factors, then it is reasonable to conclude that the Future, like the Aorist, grammaticalize the same aspect, the perfective aspect80. To prove his thesis, O’Brien suggests that verbs that are claimed to be lexically stative when used to express perfective aspect (grammaticalized by a tense-form) will create an ingressive Aktionsart81. After examining certain stative verbs in the Future Indicative, he concludes that they behave in a manner similar to its Aorist counterpart. The stative verbs in the Future Indicative form imply the beginning or the inception of a state to be within view. Likewise, when verbs of accomplishment (i.e. verbs that express a sense of accomplishment in the lexical level) are used in the Future form, they will behave similarly to its Aorist use and demonstrate a stress on the consummation of the process82. One caveat regarding the above argument is worth mentioning before moving on to the discussion of Campbell’s method. First, although O’Brien points to ample instances in the NT to demonstrate the alleged ingressive expression in the use of the Future Indicative of selective class of verbs, not all of these examples are convincing83. He admits that for those examples that demonstrate non-ingressive uses, it can be explained on the basis of contextual intrusions84. This brings home the major weakness of his thesis, concerning the unanswered question of what constitutes the ingressive expression in these examples. If the non-ingressive uses of Future can be attributed to contextual intrusions, why is it then the ingressive readings are due to the lexical meaning of the verb but not the same contextual factors? More work has to be done to clearly explicate 77 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 49-50, 126-96. 78 O’Brien, “Future Tense”, 23. 79 O’Brien, “Future Tense”, 23-5. 80 However, he admits that this hypothesis is heavily depends on the premise suggested by Fanning. O’Brien, “Future Tense”, 25. 81 O’Brien, “Future Tense”, 24. 82 In his words, when verbs of accomplishment are used to express perfective aspect, they will stress “the sense of the action progressing and accomplishing its fulfillment, at which point the action ceases”. O’Brien, “Future Tense”, 41. 83 See also, Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 142. 84 As noted by Campbell, O’Brien does not indicate what these contextual intrusions might be. O’Brien, “Future Tense”, 40 and Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 142, n33.