<I originally wrote:
<<I asked if HN might carry an aorist flavor at times
<<(the omnitemporal type). Carl pointed out that EIMI in itself
has no
<<aorist nuances (i.e. he "zapped" me, twice mind you!). Someone
pointed
<<out in A.T. Robertson's Tome that EIMI can have aorist
implications at
<<times but that it is difficult to determine (if memory serves
me from
<<the non-archived post, Robertson suggested the John 1:1 HN as
an aorist
<<possibility). Rod said that A.T. Robertson can be wrong and I
left it
<<all at that and pondered some more and am still pondering a
year later!
You responded:
>Robertson defines aspect in terms of Aktionsart, so clearly
Carl and Ron
>are correct.
Thank you very much Rolf. This clarification of Robertson's
aspect makes good sense and it looks as though it is the piece I am
missing. Thanks for the "zap" of my thought and your contributions to
b-greek, along with Carl's and Rod's.
Sincerely,
Wes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rolf furuli [SMTP:furuli@online.no]
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 1997 2:21 PM
> To: b-greek@virginia.edu
> Subject: RE: EIMI and Time (for the second year)
>
> Dear Wes,
>
> <I asked if HN might carry an aorist flavor at times
> <(the omnitemporal type). Carl pointed out that EIMI in itself has no
> <aorist nuances (i.e. he "zapped" me, twice mind you!). Someone
> pointed
> <out in A.T. Robertson's Tome that EIMI can have aorist implications
> at
> <times but that it is difficult to determine (if memory serves me from
> <the non-archived post, Robertson suggested the John 1:1 HN as an
> aorist
> <possibility). Rod said that A.T. Robertson can be wrong and I left it
> <all at that and pondered some more and am still pondering a year
> later!
>
> Robertson defines aspect in terms of Aktionsart, so clearly Carl and
> Ron
> are correct.
>