From: Mark Wilson (emory2002@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 27 2000 - 13:03:30 EDT
<x-flowed>
How can this happen?
Wallace/Manning seem to see the Aorist Tense in a way radically different
that Porter.
It seems to me that Wallace sees the Aorist Tense as the Past Tense,
conceding that other “intrusions” can alter its fundamental, inherent “past
tense” meaning.
But Porter does not seem to see the Aorist Tense as a “past tense.” He
seems to argue that it requires grammatical “intrusions” to indicate Past
tense, as if “past tense” is not its fundamental sense.
Do I understand this debate correctly?
If so, what can I state “for sure” about the Aorist Tense?
Thank you,
Mark Wilson
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:34 EDT