Aspect, Aktionsart, and Abduction: Future Tense in the New Testament 147 in terms of “explanation and hypothesis,” “the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis”97. It differs from deductive and inductive reasoning as it is looking for a hypothesis as a best explanation, an intelligent or reasonable guess, given what is known and what is not known in the case98. An abductive analysis draws conclusions by working from the given data and then tries to explain these facts or evidences by suggesting an explanation99. Formally, a plausible hypothesis is formed with the available data. It is then “tested by further investigations, providing more data that could support or refute the hypothesis”100. It is a process of refinement of the hypothesis. The data and the hypothesis are in a reciprocal relationship shaping the other. It is thus fair to conclude that apart from some extreme cases where true deductive method is assumed, aspect theorists try to make the most intelligent guess (i.e. hypothesize) from the available data in constructing and proving their theory. Before moving on, a few remarks regarding the relationship between verb classes and aspect. First, aspect is arguably not a function of the lexical root but rather a function of the morphological form101. It is also yet to be shown how a certain class of verbs is classified. It is apparent that quite often when a certain set of verbs is said to be inherent with a certain kind of linguistic feature, Aktionsart in this case, the formal criteria to classify this set of verbs is not provided. In Campbell’s case, although he notices these various problems102, Campbell accepts O’Brien’s logic and argues for the perfective understanding of the Future by connecting the ingressive Aktionsart with the perfective aspect. However, as mentioned above and even well articulated in his own work103, Campbell considers Aktionsart to be a pragmatic category whereas aspect a semantic category. If Aktionsart is not grammaticalized by tense-form but by pragmatic shows his doubt on this and suggests that an article by Harman is also possibly responsible for introducing the notion of abduction to philosophy. D. Walton, Abductive Reasoning (Tuscaloosa, AL 2004) 3. 97 Walton, Abductive Reasoning, 8. 98 Walton, Abductive Reasoning, 11. 99 Walton, Abductive Reasoning, 17. 100 Walton, Abductive Reasoning, 5. 101 Porter argues that aspectuality and lexicogrammar is two different systems in the Greek verbal network and should not be treated as interrelated. Stanley E. Porter, “Verbal Aspect and Lexicography”, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography (Grand Rapids, MI 2004) 215-21. See also Henk J. Verkuyl, A Theory of Aspectuality, (Cambridge, UK 1993) 33-70. 102 He points to the fact that O’Brien does not clearly define the criteria to determine what verbs to include and exclude. However, likewise he does not give an account for his inclusion of the various verbs in his study. 103 Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 24-5.