From: Mark Wilson (emory2oo2@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 25 2001 - 16:32:53 EDT
<x-flowed>
Rob:
It looks like you are asking two people two questions. If
I am one of those (question 1) then here is how I would respond.
The other questions seems directed toward Alan.
You asked:
>1) Are you saying that the present imperative from the NOW aspect can
>imply BEGIN TO ACT and that the aorist, from its undefined aspect,
>implies an "AS A RULE" command? On the surface this makes sense, but it
>is opposite to what I was taught, i.e. the aggressive aorist is BEGIN TO
>ACT and the present is "customary-habitual".
What I was asking myself is whether anyone would object to understanding
the Present Imp. as a command that should be heeded NOW. To me, the Present
tense Imp. does NOT convey the idea of CONTINUOUS, ON-GOING action. It
simply commands one to behave a certain way at that very moment.
I did not quite understand why I thought that until I read Alan's reply. He
puts the continuous, on-going aspect, not at the tense level, but at the
context/lexical levels. That makes sense to me!
In the archives, notice Dr. Wheeler's words:
"We've gotten rid of the "once for all, point action" Aorist; might I humbly
suggest that we similarly dispense with the "progressive/linear" Present?"
Hope that helps clarify my previous email.
Mark Wilson
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
---
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 - 15:37:02 EDT