>Well, as Carl also pointed out, the only issue concerns the indicative. I
>don't think any of us (certainly not I) would try to put time in the other
>moods.
For aorist and present, this is true. For the other tenses, Mari does not
make an explicit statement, but as I read the papers, she implicitly implies
that imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and future are true tenses *regardless*
of mood. Maybe Mari can comment about whether I'm understanding her
correctly. (She needs a break from Prolog programming anyways...)
>>Her paper indicates that the augment probably had meaning as a past-time
>>indicator in all "tenses", but lost this meaning over time for the aorist.
>>She does not establish the period over which this occured.
>
>Again, this is at the core of the problem and it would be most helpful if
>Mari would clarify when and how she thinks this happened.
She argues that this *had* happened by the time of the GNT. If she were able
to prove this conclusively, it would be reasonable to leave this question up
to other researchers.
>>Mari seems to focus on the concept of "cancellability". By examining how the
>>"tenses" combine with other time indicators, we can determine which are the
>>true tenses, the ones which retain their time reference even contrary to
>>other indicators in the context. Consider the difference between these uses
>>of the Aorist and the Imperfect in combination with NUN:
>
>This is also at the core of the problem: the matter of whether our
>interpretation of the context legitimately allows us to redefine the
>essential meaning of the tense. Note that I previously remarked that Mari's
>approach will always be the easier way, in effect cutting the gordian knot.
>But the easiest approach is not necessarily correct. An analogous situation
>exists in textual criticism, where most scholars agree that the more
>difficult reading is probably correct.
Suppose that my NUN examples had been so clear cut that only an idiot could
believe that the aorist could possibly have a past reference when combined
with NUN in any New Testament text. If that were true, I would think that
this discussion would be over by now.
As it is, I think that Mari's explanation does a better job of covering the
examples found in the GNT than traditional explanations do (and I listed all
that I found using Gramcord).
>>I've argued in a separate message that the Aorist examples, taken in
>>context, do not refer to the past, but the imperfect clearly does. Why? Mari
>>says this is because the imperfect is a true tense, and the aorist is not.
>
>This is a matter of definition, not grammar. If by "tense" one exclusively
>means time (i.e. not aspect), then Mari is correct, but must we then say
>that the imperfect has (despite its name) no aspect? Obviously my view is
>that the indicative is the mood of time, and that the aorist examples may
>in fact essentially refer to the past, whether or not the context imposes
>other implications.
No, Mari says clearly that it has aspect.
>And BTW Jonathan, keep up the good work.
Thanks! I'm working on it. And thanks for your help along the way!
Jonathan
***************************************************************************
Jonathan Robie
POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703
Ph: 919.598.5728 Fax: 919.598.6728
email: jwrobie@mindspring.com, jonathan@poet.com
http://www.poet.com <--- shockwave enabled!
***************************************************************************