> You should realize that the Perseus parser automatically considers all
> possibilities of an ending with the assumption that a verb actually has
> every morphological slot filled; the first one listed (pres ind mp 2nd sg)
> is what you came in with the first time you discussed this verse--the
> problem is that this verb, AKOLOUQEW, never appears in the NT in the middle
> or passive--so that possibility is obviated; for the others there are some
> significant differences of vowel-length and accentuation that don't show up
> in this very simple transliteration. In effect, therefore, the present
> active 2nd person sg. imperative is the only thing that will go with the SU.
>
> Probably the Perseus parser has more value for a beginning Greek student or
> teacher who wants to envision all the possibilities that a given spelling
> of a verb form may include. But when it comes down to analysis of specific
> verbs in a given literary (or non-literary) context, there is no substitute
> for knowing the language itself--and for verbs, that's means knowing their
> idiosyncracies--knowing them the way you know persons as individuals, which
> is something very different from knowing the morphological rules, although
> one must come to know them as well.
Thanks, Carl ~
And that settles that!! It's an imperative and ONLY an imperative.
The present force aspect remains, but the indicative mood does NOT!
I'll be more cautious with Perseus in the future ~ Thanks again...
George Blaisdell
George