150 Francis G. H. Pang In this Olsen, and Fanning to a lesser extent, indirectly categorizes aspect into pragmatics instead of semantics by making aspect a function of Aktionsart. However, similar to the methodological shortcomings of the model proposed by Campbell and O’Brien, nowhere is the classification criteria of the telic verbs clearly spelled out in her approach. Although Olsen does include a definition of the telic verbs as those that “always denote situation with an inherent end” (such as the verbs of accomplishments, verbs of achievements and verbs of stages-level states), she does not provide the detailed and formal criteria of inclusion and exclusion of the verbs116. Thus as shown above, even when a similar approach is employed, Olsen’s analysis produces contrary result when compared to O’Brien and Campbell. Thus conflating aspect and Aktionsart categories in the analysis add little to the understanding of the aspect of the Future. It is also worth pointing out that even though most of the scholars insist on articulating a clear distinction between semantics and pragmatics categories and a clear distinction between aspect and Aktionsart, such insistences break down when the tense-form under investigation lacks a clear expression of aspect. A brief summary statement is vital before moving on in the discussion. The uniqueness of the Future in the discussion of the Greek verbal system is apparent. As mentioned above, some have tried to explicate the aspect of the Future using the alleged underlying relationship with Aktionsart. Others have treated it as an absolute tense-form that primarily expresses time but resulted with a category that “must be qualified so radically, with such labels as the gnomic future and relative future, that the category becomes vacuous”117. However, the result of those scholars who seek to frame the discussion with already-established categories are usually not wholly satisfactory. Whether one regards the Future purely as a tense, a mood or an aspect, one has to confront a long list of exceptions118. 3.3 The Fourth Aspect The present study places the models of McKay and Porter in the same group not because their conclusion is the same, but because both analyses 116 Olsen, Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, 206. 117 Like the BDF for example, more will be said regarding the temporality of the Future in the next section. Porter, Idioms, 43. See also BDF, 348. 118 Wallace has labels like predictive future, imperatival future, deliberative future, gnomic future and other miscellaneous subjunctive equivalents. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 568-71.