From: Dan Parker (stoixein@sdf.lonestar.org)
Date: Mon Feb 26 2001 - 15:23:21 EST
Alan B. Thomas said:
> Conditional Imperatives
>
> Has anyone done studies on the Conditional Imperative to the extent
> that they might offer a more workable gloss (glosses) than the one
> suggested by Wallace?
>
> For example:
>
> Matt 7.7
> AITEITE KAI DOQHSETAI hUMIN
> Sincerely,
[snip]
>
> Alan B. Thomas
Alan, I don't have Wallace handy but I remember that he states that all
of the uncontested in this category follow the formula of an imperative
followed by a future verb, thus if the one who is commanded to do
something does it the action of the future verb will result.
This "Imperative + Future" is found in the example of Matt 7:7 as well
as the other ones you list at Matt 8:8, John 2:19, and James 4:7.
In addition he says that a conditional imperative is not followed by
a future, it can still be considered such so long as the apodosis is
future semanticly.
An example of this would be the imperative at John 15:4 which is
variously translated as:
* You must remain in union with me and I will remain in union
with you. (Charles B. Williams, A Translation in the Language
of the People)
* Remain united to me and I will remain united to you. (TEV)
* Remain in me, and I will remain in you. (NET)
Here we find that Jesus is telling the 11 remaining apostles that if
they remain in him (the condition of EN EMOI or being EN XRISTO as the
protasis) he will not leave them (apodosis).
Sincerely,
Dan Parker
---
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:51 EDT