The Greek Verbal Network Viewed from a Probabilistic Standpoint 19 tested these predictions by actually counting the occurrences of each of the forms that realize the features of the systems. For instance, we have predicted that, in the REMOTENESS system (system 4), there will be a skewed probability that the form that realizes the semantic feature of –remote will be far more frequent than the form that realizes the semantic feature of +remote. To test this prediction, we have counted the number of present and perfect indicatives (–remote) and the number of imperfect and pluperfect indicatives (+remote) in the Greek New Testament. From our calculations these figures are 11138 and 1245 occurrences, respectively. This results in probabilities of: 11138/12383 = 0.899 for –remote and 1245/12383 = 0.101 for +remote 68. The prediction that the form that realized the semantic feature of +remote (imperfect and pluperfect tense- forms) would be more frequent than that realizing the semantic feature of –remote (present and perfect tense-forms) has been proved correct, and the semantic feature of +remote, realized by the imperfect and pluperfect tense-forms, is the marked member of the opposition. Halliday’s typology of probabilities works with the simple set of calcu- lations in which distributions are either equiprobable (0.5/0.5) or skewed (0.9/0.1). Before beginning the calculations, it was optimistic to think that every opposition would fall to either of these results. However, it soon became obvious, both after further reflection and after a few of the Linguistics, 75; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994); C. Bache, The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action: Towards a Theory of the Semantics of Grammatical Categories (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995); R. Bartsch, Situations, Tense, and Aspect: Dynamic Discourse Ontology and the Semantic Flexibility of Temporal System in German and English (Groningen- Amsterdam Studies in Semantics; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995); Y. Tobin, Aspect in the English Verb (LLL; London: Longman, 1994); C.M.J. Sicking and P. Stork, Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek (Mnemosyne, 160; Leiden: Brill, 1996), esp. pp. 3-118; N. Bermel, Context and the Lexicon in the Development of Russian Aspect (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 129; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997); M.J.A. Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect (New York: Garland, 1997); L.A. Michaelis, Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time Reference (Routledge Studies in Germanic Linguistics; London: Routledge, 1998); R.J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect (SBG, 10; New York: Peter Lang, 2001). 68 These figures have been calculated from the Analytical Greek New Testament prepared by Timothy and Barbara Friberg. It is a grammatically annotated text of the UBS 4th Edition Greek New Testament. The figures were calculated by a number of specially writ- ten scripts and may show certain discrepancies from searches carried out using search programs such as acCordance and BibleWorks. Given the scope of this article, we has discounted all occurrences of aspectually vague verbs (eijmiv/ei\mi [and prefixed forms], hmai [prefixed forms], kei'mai and fhmiv; on aspectual vagueness, see Porter, Verbal \ Aspect, pp. 442-47). We have checked many of our figures using these programs and though there is slight variation for some counts this does not affect the systemic classifi- cation used (skewed/equiprobable) for any of the systems studied. The variations are par- tially due to the searching method used, but primarily a result of the different machine- readable texts and annotation schemes they utilize. For a discussion of existing machine- readable texts of the Greek New Testament with warnings of potential pitfalls of their use, see O’Donnell, «The Use of Annotated Corpora», pp. 93-95.