(a) I think there's a questionable perspective here that may be based upon
English usage and the relative importance of adjectives in English
expression (in Greek the verb is unquestionably the heavyweight--why, if it
weren't for the verb, Greek would hardly be at all difficult!
(b) While I am really uncomfortable opining impressionistically as I am at
this point, I am inclined to think that an important factor in the
increasing use of the periphrastic perfect just MAY be the fact that the
perfect tense is losing its distinctive perfect-tense meaning in the KoinŽ
and becoming equivalent to the aorist--in some, but certainly not in all,
writers and levels of writing.
(c) Despite what I have noted in (b), however, it would appear that John
the evangelist exploited the inherent power of the perfect tense
exceptionally. Can you imagine that TETELESTAI in Jn 19:30 would be more
forceful as TETELESMENON ESTIN? or that hO GEGRAFA GEGRAFA in Jn 19:22
would be more forceful as hO GEGRAFWS EIMI GEGRAFWS EIMI?
>Is this assumption (i.e., that periphrastic participles can purposely
>convey a more adjectival sense than their indicative equivalents) a
>valid assumption? If so, is it valid in these verses? And if a
>periphrastic CAN (but need not) convey a more adjectival sense than the
>indicative equivalent, is there a rule or methodology for determining
>when an author is trying to emphasize the adjectival rather than the
>verbal sense?
I really don't think so, but I'd like to hear other opinions on this one.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/