--------------81C49DF0330EEABE90DE118B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry about spinning out the Silva thread but this message from last
week didn't get thru. Any idea why not? I'll try again.
The original message was received at Tue, 19 May 1998 20:46:25 +0200
from 05-01.devices.bus.at [194.152.179.69] ----- The following addresses
had permanent fatal errors ----- Mail Delivery Subsystem
schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting-MTA: dns; www
Arrival-Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 20:46:25 +0200
Final-Recipient: RFC822; b-greek@virginia.edu
Action: failed
Status: 4.4.7
Remote-MTA: DNS; mail.virginia.edu
Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 20:58:29 + 0200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Betreff: The Three Alphas
Datum: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:44:55 +0200
Von: Warren Fulton <inlingua@webpower.co.at>
Firma: internet.aktiv
An: b-greek@virginia.edu
In his comment on Silva's alleged downgrading of aspect in exegesis,Carl
Conrad cited Mk 8:34 as a test case, where Jesus' three alpha commands
(APARNHSASQW, ARATW, and AKOLOUQEITW) seem to demonstrate quite vividly
the contrast between aorist and present imperatives:
>I can't really believe that the fact that the first two >imperatives
are aorist and the last one progressive is a >negligible one for the
full understanding of what the Greek
>is saying.
Neither can I. Nor can I view this kind of shift in aspect a "subtlety"
without "implications" for the listener. As someone who has spent a lot
of time hanging out on Greek beaches listening to mamas issuing
imperatives to their young, I am convinced that every Modern Greek child
is acutely aware of the difference between these forms, a difference
which has persisted in the language until this day not because it is an
unmarked luxury but because it carries the basic distinction between
generality and specificity you get in the whole verb system. When I hear
my mama telling me PROSEXE the jellyfish, I know I have to react
immediately. When I hear PROSECE the jellyfish, I know its a general
warning.
This sensitivity to the imperative forms is reflected in the Modern
Greek translation of Mk 8:34 and the parallel version of the three alpha
commands in Lk 9:23. A comparison of these two versions is interesting
because Luke, while maintaining the verb forms and the shift to present
imperative with AKOLOUQEITW, inserts the marker KATH' hHMERAN in the
ARATW command: "Take up his cross daily." The generalizing force of
this "every day" seems to throw the modern ear out of the original
sequence aorist-aorist-present. Whereas the UBS Modern Greek NT
duplicates the tense pattern of the three alpha commands in Mark, when
it renders Luke, it switches to aorist-present-present. This
incompatiblity of habitual action with the aorist imperative for the
moderns was apparently sufficient grounds for today's UBS translators to
take tense marker over verb form in the rendering, something
English-language translators don't have to worry much about in this
passage. My question then to the Koine experts: Doesn't the every day +
aorist imperative combination ring a bit false to the first-century
Greek ear as well? Doesn't Luke's use of KATH' hHMERAN with ARATW
strain the aorist idea beyond its normal bounds? And for those who like
controversy: Could this example be used as ammunition for
aspect-minimalists? No, on second thought, forget that last part.
Warren Fulton
Inlingua School of Languages
Vienna
... Deferred: Connection reset by mail.virginia.edu. Message could not
be delivered for 5 days Message will be deleted from queue
--------------81C49DF0330EEABE90DE118B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry about spinning out the Silva thread but this message from last week didn't get thru. Any idea why not? I'll try again.
The original message was received at Tue, 19 May 1998 20:46:25 +0200
from 05-01.devices.bus.at [194.152.179.69] ----- The following addresses
had permanent fatal errors ----- Mail Delivery Subsystem schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting-MTA: dns; www
Arrival-Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 20:46:25 +0200
Final-Recipient: RFC822; b-greek@virginia.edu
Action: failed
Status: 4.4.7
Remote-MTA: DNS; mail.virginia.edu
Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 20:58:29 + 0200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Betreff: The Three Alphas
Datum: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:44:55 +0200
Von: Warren Fulton <inlingua@webpower.co.at>
Firma: internet.aktiv
An: b-greek@virginia.edu
In his comment on Silva's alleged downgrading of aspect in exegesis,Carl Conrad cited Mk 8:34 as a test case, where Jesus' three alpha commands (APARNHSASQW, ARATW, and AKOLOUQEITW) seem to demonstrate quite vividly the contrast between aorist and present imperatives:
>I can't really believe that the fact that the first two >imperatives
are aorist and the last one progressive is a >negligible one for the full
understanding of what the Greek
>is saying.
Neither can I. Nor can I view this kind of shift in aspect a "subtlety" without "implications" for the listener. As someone who has spent a lot of time hanging out on Greek beaches listening to mamas issuing imperatives to their young, I am convinced that every Modern Greek child is acutely aware of the difference between these forms, a difference which has persisted in the language until this day not because it is an unmarked luxury but because it carries the basic distinction between generality and specificity you get in the whole verb system. When I hear my mama telling me PROSEXE the jellyfish, I know I have to react immediately. When I hear PROSECE the jellyfish, I know its a general warning.
This sensitivity to the imperative forms is reflected in the Modern Greek translation of Mk 8:34 and the parallel version of the three alpha commands in Lk 9:23. A comparison of these two versions is interesting because Luke, while maintaining the verb forms and the shift to present imperative with AKOLOUQEITW, inserts the marker KATH' hHMERAN in the ARATW command: "Take up his cross daily." The generalizing force of this "every day" seems to throw the modern ear out of the original sequence aorist-aorist-present. Whereas the UBS Modern Greek NT duplicates the tense pattern of the three alpha commands in Mark, when it renders Luke, it switches to aorist-present-present. This incompatiblity of habitual action with the aorist imperative for the moderns was apparently sufficient grounds for today's UBS translators to take tense marker over verb form in the rendering, something English-language translators don't have to worry much about in this passage. My question then to the Koine experts: Doesn't the every day + aorist imperative combination ring a bit false to the first-century Greek ear as well? Doesn't Luke's use of KATH' hHMERAN with ARATW strain the aorist idea beyond its normal bounds? And for those who like controversy: Could this example be used as ammunition for aspect-minimalists? No, on second thought, forget that last part.
Warren Fulton
Inlingua School of Languages
Vienna
... Deferred: Connection reset by mail.virginia.edu. Message
could not be delivered for 5 days Message will be deleted from queue
--------------81C49DF0330EEABE90DE118B--
--------------6B6D0F3C075B3F0101AEC470
Content-Type: message/delivery-status; name="nsmailRQ.TMP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="nsmailRQ.TMP"
Reporting-MTA: dns; www
Arrival-Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 20:46:25 +0200
Final-Recipient: RFC822; b-greek@virginia.edu
Action: failed
Status: 4.4.7
Remote-MTA: DNS; mail.virginia.edu
Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 20:58:29 +0200
--------------6B6D0F3C075B3F0101AEC470
Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="nsmailI0.TMP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="nsmailI0.TMP"
Return-Path: