From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sat Oct 07 1995 - 16:37:51 EDT
James Clardy wrote,
> Are you and some of the others saying that there is really, in >the final
analysis, no such thing as an aorist if understood as >"completed action in
past time?"
Certainly not, but that this has to be determined by context. the aorist is
often used almost as the perfect that emphasizes the completed action. But
the aorist as unmarked (undefined) presents the action as "happened" or in
some instances "happening at any time."
Carlton Winbery
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:29 EDT