> And the more I think about this, the more I wonder about the
> morphological implications of the Greek perfect. Does it indeed imply
> 'possession' through its form, as in the English 'has' risen, and is
> it thereby really a present stative 'tense'? How DOES that morphology
> work anyhows???
And the more I think about this [and I apologise for this very
segmented presentation], the more it seems that the Greek has TWO
systems of [indicative] past, present and future: one progressive [or
ongoing], and one stative. Each complete in terms of time.
And then there is the augmented aorist, hanging out there all by
itself... Doing what??
Carrying narration forward, to be sure, yet rooted in the past, with
forward movement, neither progressive nor stative, as these two are
already handled separately by the present and perfect 'systems'...
Does it combine the two?? Or ignore them?
And I am off topic... This is about English and Greek perfects...
Sorry!
George