152 Francis G. H. Pang Future is criticized for its radical direction in denying the relevance of time126, but at the same time most critics see his approach to the aspect of the Future being the same as those proposed by Fanning and Olsen, that the Future is non-aspectual. However, before we move on to talk about his approach, a word in response to the last criticism is essential. In contrary to Fanning and Olsen, Porter’s conclusion of the aspect of the Future has nothing to do with Aktionsart or the alleged interpretive flexibility (durative or punctiliar) of the Future. In fact, not one time does he label the Future non-aspectual in his work, but he rather uses phrases like “not fully aspectual” or aspectually vague127. 3.4 Non-Aspectual vs. Not Fully Aspectual It is important for the discussion at this point to turn to explicate the nuance of the notion of aspectual vagueness or partial aspectuality. Claiming the Future as aspectually vague or more accurately not fully aspectual is not the same as saying that it carries no aspectual value. The distinction is subtle but essential. In Porter’s model, the reason for the Future being regarded as aspectually vague is not, as alleged by his critics, due to the dictation of his systemic framework. The point of departure of his study is not the lack of binary opposition but rather the lack of a complete paradigmatic edifice and the functional overlapping of the Future with the non-Indicative Mood. The fact that the Future does not have a complete paradigm like the other tense-forms in and of itself warrants close scrutiny, not only for the sake of determining its aspect, but also for the purpose of getting a better understanding of the form and its place in the verbal system. The Future has only one set of forms, apart from the Indicative; it has Participle and a very rare Infinitive form128. The lack of a complete paradigm that covers the set of Moods means that it is impossible to enter into a meaningful comparison with the other tense-forms. This paradigmatic deficiency also made it difficult to categorize the Future in the verbal network. It lacks a contrast with the non-indicative (Subjunctive, Imperative, 126 Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 152-3 and Evans, Verbal Syntax, 38. 127 Porter, Verbal Aspect, 95, 403, 438-9; Porter, Idioms, 43. 128 The Future Infinitive is very rare in the NT. There are only five instances in the entire NT; four of them appear in Acts (Future Infinitive of εἰμί in 11:28, 23:20, 24:15, 27:10) and one in Hebrews (εἰσέρχομαι in Heb. 3:18). Although in classical Greek the Infinitive was more frequent than the Participle, both cease to exist in Hellenistic Greek. For a detail discussion of Future Participle and Infinitive, see Porter, Verbal Aspect, 417-9.