From: Polycarp66@aol.com
Date: Sat Apr 15 2000 - 02:22:07 EDT
<x-charset UTF-8>In a message dated 4/14/2000 11:02:44 PM Central Standard Time,
JFantin@aol.com writes:
<<
2. On the surface I agree with the Stein quote mentioned: "An imperative is
an imperative, is an imperative." However, it is easy to confuse
"imperative" with "command." Some of the problem with imperative analysis
is
the terminology. I share gfsomsel's frustration with the term "permission"
as
a label for a usage of the imperative. My research of the imperative has
caused me to conclude that the essence of the mood is volitional (and to
some
extent 'directive' using a term from speech act theory--using the term with
its primary meaning within the theory without full acceptance of the
theory).
>>
No, an imperative is not simply a command. It can be used in a slightly
different sense as well. Cf. the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary entry
s.v. "imperative."
im*per*a*tive [1] (adjective)
[Middle English imperatyf, from Late Latin imperativus, from Latin imperatus,
past participle of imperare to command -- more at EMPEROR]
First appeared 15th Century
1 a : of, relating to, or constituting the grammatical mood that expresses
the will to influence the behavior of another
b : expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation
So an imperative could signify an entreaty or exhortation as well as command
-- but it is not "permissive" (He even feels the need to say that it has a
little more force than saying "It's OK."). Wallace also speaks of a
"permissive middle." There I think he is on firmer ground. He states
426
’Ä¢ The permissive middle has a certain affinity with the direct middle in
that with both the subject is the receiver of the action. But whereas with
the direct middle the subject is also the actor, with the permissive middle
the subject does not perform the action.
’Ä¢ The permissive middle is also like a passive in that the subject is the
receiver of the action, but it is unlike the passive in that the middle
always implies acknowledgment, consent, toleration, or permission of the
action of the verb. The passive normally implies no such cognition.
An exception to this principle is the permissive passive. It is important to
note that although both categories are rare (some grammarians even dispute
the legitimacy of the permissive passive), the volitional element is almost
always a part of the middle voice while it is almost always lacking in the
passive.
Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of
the New Testament, (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software) 1999, c1996.‰í
Note, however, that the concept of "permission" here is derived from the fact
that the subject of the verb is the recipient, but not the initiator, of the
action. This may carry over somewhat in the imperative of 1 Cor. 7.15
EI DE hO APISTOS XWRIZETAI, XWRIZESQW
Here the subject is permitting something to happen ("Let him leave"). It is
needlessly confusing, however, to speek of a "permissive" imperative. The
imperative gives a command, entreaty or exhortation. That the command (etc.)
is to allow something to happen does not make it permissive.
It is even more apparent that Eph 4.26 cannot be "permissive."
ORGIZESQE KAI MH hAMARTANETE
This is not allowing something to happen. The subject addressed by the
imperative also effects the act. "Be angry and/but do not sin." This is not
"It's OK to be angry", but "Go ahead, do it."
gfsomsel
--- 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-charset>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:05 EDT