From: George Blaisdell (maqhth@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat May 29 1999 - 11:36:23 EDT
<x-flowed>
>From: "clayton stirling bartholomew"
>Cindy wrote:
> > There are quite a few
> > other occurances of FEUGW in the aorist indicative.
But NONE in the aorist imperative...
>I took a look at 16* occurrences of FEUGW in the aorist (any aorist).
>And they all seemed to describe a process. I would suggest that "+ process"
>is simply a semantic feature of the lexeme FEUGW. If this
>is the case then all the argumentation about FEUGW in the aorist, does it
>or does it not mean a process can simply be factored out. The
>tense/aspect issue appears to have no impact on when FEUGW includes the
>the semantic feature "+process."
>This highlights one of the major weaknesses in most of the tense/aspect
>discussion. Everyone on all sides of the issue seem Hades bent on
>loading up the tense/aspect morphological markings with more meaning than
>they can bear.
>The example of FEUGW should demonstrate one thing... You
>need take into account of how word meaning impacts to your testing model.
>Otherwise you will run the risk of assigning semantic properties to the
>tense aspect morphological markings which are really semantic
>properties of the lexeme. This kind of error leads to lots of confusion.
Clay ~
So if there is no aorist imperative of FEUGW to be found in the NT, and
where the aorist indicative usages all seem to describe a process of
activity [imperfective aspect, ie ongoingness], then in this pericope are
you proposing that the present imperative of FEUGW is not 'marked' [ie
emphasized]? And this because 'fleeing' is just one of those Greek verbs
whose lexemic nature is inherently an ongoing process? And then are we left
with the real 'marking' of the present imperative of 'be travelling' alone?
Cindy's original take on this was that both were 'marked' [emphasized] due
to their present morphology, and if I am understanding you correctly, you
are saying that this is not the case, or possibly that it IS marked, but
that its 'markedness' in morphology is but a by-product of its lexemic
nature. [ie that fleeing is not something that in Greek CAN (or at least
DOES, in the NT) have perfective aspect.]
I've got to admit that I am greatly puzzled that no aorist imperatives of
FEUGW are to be found ~ Probably due to my English sense of the imperative
"Flee!" meaning "Git!! [outa here!], which is very 'perfective' indeed...
I hope that I have not muddied things up here ~ But I am indeed a child of
confusion on this issue.... Because:
If the present imperative of FEUGW is the ONLY imperative available to the
writer, then its present morphology would seem to have no significance
whatsoever in this passage...
And THAT very well might could be... Yet the aorist-then-present imperative
construction IS repeated...
And you were, after all, speaking to tense-aspect theoreticians at the
theoretical level of models, which might as well account for my
bepuzzlement.
Thanks ~
George Blaisdell
Roslyn, WA
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:28 EDT