> Present imperative with MH is, I think, the standard injunction not to do
> something: e.g. John 20:17, where Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, MH MOU
> hAPTOU (about which we have had much conversation, as I recall). The aorist
> subjunctive with MH is much more emphatic. If Jesus says to Mary, "Don't be
> clinging to me," in the above cited verse, but a TAUTA MH POIHSHiS is more
> like, "Don't EVER do that!"--for those with Latin, it's the equivalent of a
> Latin perfect 2 sg. subjunctive, one of my favorite examples of which is
> from an ode of Horace: TU NE QUAESIERIS, "You must not ever ask ..."
>
Carl,
If this is the case, and I don't question that it is, then Porter's comment
seems a little wide of the mark.
>
>Porter (p 221, bottom) says "In most contexts , translations of of negated
>imperatives and negated subjunctives used as prohibitions can be virtually
>identical."
Sometimes I think that the folks who spend their time spinning grand theories
are apt to lose their way when dealing with significant details like this one.
It is a case of not being able to see the trees because of their preoccupation
with the forest.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062