Re: Matthew 23.2: EKAQISAN
James H. Vellenga (jhv0@mailhost.viewlogic.com)
Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:19:36 -0500 (EST)
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:47:59 +0100 (MET)
> From: Rolf Furuli <furuli@online.no>
>
(In response to Cindy Westfall)
> <snip>
>
> Stativity is defined as a state which continues without any input of
> energy. Any moment of the state is similar to any other moment or to the
> whole state. Thus there are no processes going on inside a state. If we
> wiew KAQIZW as only stative, both an ingressive and a constative
> interpretation of the aorist would mean exactly the same, only the stress
> being different. We can illustrate this with BASILEUW. In Rom 5:14 the
> aorist clearly is constative while it is ingressive in 1 Cor 4:8 and Rev
> 11:17. In each case the meaning is similar, it/they/he - rule (stative),
> but in the last two cases the entrance into the state is stressed. To enter
> into a state is hardly viewed as a process but rather as something
> instantaneous, and once sombody is inside, the state holds. If KAQIZW is
> used to signal the action of taking one`s seat, we may speak of a process
> in which the person is, as you do. So the first question we have to ask
> when analyzing a verb is: "Is it stative or fientive?"
>
Rolf,
But is the usage in Rom 5:14 necessarily constative rather than
ingressive? Is it possible that Paul is thinking about the
beginning point of the reigning in connection with the about-
to-be-mentioned "transgression of Adam" (THS PARABASEWS ADAM)?
It seems like the "coming to be reigning" really starts with
Adam, and then continues on through Moses, so it may be that
Paul is focusing on the beginning of the whole business.
I appreciate that context adds so much to how we convert "aspect"
into real "Aktonsart" (if I understand what you have been teaching
us so far), but it surely would be nice if the decisions could
depend a little less on context and more on form.
Regards,
Jim Vellenga