Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell 20 calculations were done, that such was not entirely realistic, language being what it is. We will draw attention to any systems that reveal distributions that do not fall within the parameters that Halliday has outlined. For the sake of our discussion we consider any ratio of greater than 0.7/0.3 to be skewed, and any ratio less than that to be equiprobable. In other words, for a distribution to be skewed, it must be a significantly higher distribu- tion than simply a slight numerical advantage of one term over another. There is, as a result, a significant possibility of a distribution that is close to this dividing line, rendering judgments as to markedness on the basis of distribution alone tentative. 4. Predicted and Actual Results a. Predicted Results The chart in Appendix A shows the revised system network, with the predictions for each system indicated. Here we summarize how we ar- rived at these predictions, drawing upon information already discussed in Porter’s Verbal Aspect and Idioms of the Greek New Testament. System 1: In the ASPECTUALITY system, the +expectational/+aspectual opposition is realized in the formal choices between future forms and other verbal tense-forms (e.g. aorist, present and perfect). The future form is mor- phologically restricted in its forms, but is morphologically and seman- tically, as well as syntactically (e.g. conditional statements), closely rela- ted to non-indicative forms, as well as having syntactical and functional relations to the indicative forms. Rather than place it in the category of the already-established indicative or non-indicative forms, that is, as a tense-form or as a mood, or even as an aspect, it is better considered a part of the Greek verbal system but is not fully aspectual (that is, no paradigmatic choice is offered). On this basis, we predicted that the future form, realizing the semantic feature of +expectational, would have a skewed distribution in relation to the +aspectual forms 69. System 2: In the ASPECT1 system, the ±perfective opposition, realized in aorist and non-aorist (i.e. present [imperfect] and perfect [pluperfect]) tense- forms, was predicted to be equiprobable, on the basis of distributional figures and other criteria, such as semantics, already known from pre- vious study 70. System 3: In the ASPECT2 system, the +imperfective/+sta- tive opposition, realized in present (imperfect) and perfect (pluperfect) tense-forms, was predicted to be skewed, with the +imperfective term to 69 Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 94-95, 97, 404-16. 70 Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 89-90 (where the opposition is labelled equipollent), pp. 178-81.