[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Aorist presents and imperial attire

Jonathan Robie wrote:
> 
> Hi, friends,
> 
> I'm finding lots of examples of present tense where there doesn't seem to be
> any imperfective force. Here are a few examples (lots more are available
> upon request):
> 
> Luke 7:8 POREUQHTI, KAI *POREUETAI* - ERXOU, KAI *ERXETAI* - POIHSON, KAI
> *POIEI*
> Matt 26:63 (GNT) KAI hO ARCIEREUS EIPEN AUTW: *EXORKIZW* SE KATA TOU QEOU
> TOU ZWNTOS hINA hHMIN EIPHS EI SU EI hO CRISTOS hO UIOS TOU QEOU.
> Acts 8:23 (GNT) EIS GAR COLHN PIKRIAS KAI SUNDESMON ADIKIAS *ORW* SE ONTA.
> Matt 5:22 (GNT) EGW DE *LEGW*
> 
> Most grammars I've read say that the present tense describes "linear
> action", also known as "imperfective aspect". However, the "aorist present",
> a category in both Smyth and Robertson, is "punctiliar". Robertson (p. 864
> ff) does not see this as one category of usage, but as a whole class of
> usage - he says that the present tense does not distinguish between "linear
> and punctiliar action" (imperfective and perfective aspect, for you moderns)
> since there are not two separate tenses such as the aorist and imperfect for
> past action. Further, he says that modern Greek has developed forms which
> *do* distinguish the two kinds of action; e.g., PAGAINW is imperfective and
> means "I am going", PAGW is perfective and means "I go".
> 
> This worries me, because if present isn't really a tense (as the aspect
> people argue convincingly), and it doesn't clearly identify aspect (as
> Robertson argues), then I don't know what it is!
> 
> Fanning does talk about the "instantaneous present" (p. 202), where the act,
> by nature of the verb, takes place in an instant, and present used for acts
> of speaking which focus on the current moment, but I don't understand how
> the present itself can be construed to have imperfective force for these
> uses. For instance, if I say EGW DE LEGW, and LEGW were imperfective, I
> would think it would mean "But I am saying", not "but I say". I don't see
> that Fanning has anything at all useful to say about passages like Luke 7:8.
> I also couldn't find anything helpful on this in Porter's Verbal Aspect,
> though I have a hard time finding things in it (it does not have an index).
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> ***************************************************************************
> Jonathan Robie   jwrobie@mindspring.com  http://www.mindspring.com/~jwrobie
> POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703    http://www.poet.com
> ***************************************************************************
Jonathon,


	This is what I was trying to say earlier in  a previous post concerning
Roberston?  I have been reading agood bi  from him lately and would wish
to know if the copulative verbs are Aoristic.  I am hoping that most
cases of Aoristc Presents can be determined either from root meaning of
the verb or from context, I.E. "I say, I speak, etc."  I haven't found a
easily impelented principle for  determining this however.  Robertson
say later in his grammar that a good portion of Present Indicatives are
Aoristc, but doesn't give any illustration on how to determine such, and
usesonly one example, the EIMI in John 10:11.

Larry A. Hartman
Defense Language Institute Alumnus
Department of Arabic Studies
References: