Re: The augment

From: RobertBrin@aol.com
Date: Tue Apr 08 1997 - 18:17:50 EDT

• Next message: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: The augment"
• Previous message: Don Wilkins: "Re: The augment"
• Maybe in reply to: Rod Decker: "The augment"
• Next in thread: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: The augment"
• Reply: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: The augment"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Don Wilkins wrote:

>I might argue that the argument is strictly
>a morphological marker for secondary endings. The evidence is voluminous...

I am likely overlooking something very simple. If your argument is correct,
why is there no augment in non-indicative forms?

Robert Brindle
M.Div. Student
Instructor of NT Greek
Nazarene Theological Seminary
Kansas City, MO

• Next message: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: The augment"
• Previous message: Don Wilkins: "Re: The augment"
• Maybe in reply to: Rod Decker: "The augment"
• Next in thread: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: The augment"
• Reply: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: The augment"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:11 EDT