Re: PEIRAZW and PEIRAW
Carlton Winbery (winberyc@alex1.linknet.net)
Sun, 3 Nov 1996 14:08:23 +0400
Jeffrey Gibson wrote;
>(This is a modified version of a querry I sent two weeks ago, and to which
>I have had no response. Perhaps it did not reach the list - at least I
>hope that is why I have had no answers).
>
>I am writing to inquire how one might distinguish when a given pre-
>3rd cent. C.E. author is using PEIRAZW as opposed to PEIRAW. There are
>times when the forms of these verbs overlap. How then can we tell in
>these instances which verb the author is employing?
>
>I would be grateful for any help in this matter.
>
LSJ makes the point that PEIRAZW was used by early authors only in the
present and imperfect. The other tenses for this verb were supplied by the
forms of PEIRAW. Seemingly LSJ considers that there was no real difference
in meaning between the two verb forms. When one compares the two words in
LSJ, that appears to be the case, so what difference would it make if you
could distinguish the forms of the tenses other than the present and
imperfect?
Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
Fax (318) 442-4996
Phone (318) 487-7241