From: Clayton Bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Wed Oct 15 1997 - 07:03:26 EDT
RE: Permissive Subj. in Acts 7:34B
Carl, Carlton and Jonathan:
I took a look in the LXX using the rather imperfect data in the
UPenn LXX. I found a host of first person singular subjunctives
(over 500) so I did a proximity search on *DEURO + first
person singular subjunctive* which resulted with four
matches: Gen. 37:13, Ex. 3:10, Num. 23:27, Sam. 16:1.
Gen 37:13 DEURO APOSTEILW SE PROS AUTOUS
EX 3:10 KAI NUN DEURO APOSTEILW SE PROS PHARAW
NUM 23:27 DEURO PARALABW SE EIS TOPON ALLON
1SAM 16:1 DEURO APOSTEILW SE PROS IESSAI
If you take a look at these four examples in their context I
think you will see that they all translate nicely as declarative
futures. The imperatival tone is supplied by DEURO, but the
following subjunctive can be read as simply a statement about
what the speaker intends to do in the immediate future.
I am still wondering about subjunctives and future time. Is it
possible that we don't have a morphological future in the
subjunctive simply because it would be redundant
information? I know that subjunctives can be used in a
historical narrative. But isn't the subjunctive always future
relative to the person or persons who are caught up in the
action specified in the verb?
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:33 EDT