From: Rbsads@aol.com
Date: Mon Feb 04 2002 - 22:42:59 EST
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:17 EDT
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Different beginner Greek texts teach the tense and aspect of the aorist differently. I have read the aorist explained as past tense, punctiliar, undefined, and action viewed as a whole.
<BR>
<BR>I have been studying NT Greek for about 1 year, and so have limited experience, but the latter explanation has seemed the most satisfactory to my understanding. The verb tenses seem best explained as rendering aspect rather than time.
<BR>
<BR>Any comments would be appreciated, but my question is not primarily concerned with a discussion over aspect vs tense in verb form.
<BR>
<BR>My question is concerning the grammarians who interpret verb form as rendering aspect and not time. For these it seems that temporal indications are entirely contextual. How do these grammarians understand the significance of the tense augment for the aorist and imperfect? Most explanations indicate that the augment indicates past tense, which of course is not consistent with an understanding of verbal form as rendering aspect only.
<BR>
<BR>Another question, of course, might be the significance of the imperfect if it renders aspect but not past tense.
<BR>
<BR>And of course at bottom, my concern is to give appropriate balance to both form and context in my reading of the GNT.
<BR>
<BR>All help is appreciated. And if this question is not appropriate for the list discussion, I would be grateful for anyone who send their insights privately.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Thank you,
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Richard Smith
<BR>Chattanooga, TN</FONT>
---<BR>
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]<BR>
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>
<BR>
</html>
</x-html>