From: Trevor Peterson (06PETERSON@cua.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 10:46:24 EDT
>===== Original Message From "David J. Sugg" <djsugg@bigfoot.com> =====
>Recently I have been studying the grammar of the Prologue to John's
>Gospel. Last night I was looking at John 1:1, and in particular the use of
>HN. I had recently heard a sermon that emphasized the fact that since this
>verb is an imperfect tense, it proves the eternality of the Logos, since
>the imperfect tense carries with it durative force.
I would say that was overstating things by a long shot. For one thing, would
anyone suggest that any time an imperfect form is used it indicates
eternality? I hope not--even the preacher you heard probably wouldn't say
that.
>
>In the Online Bible verb notes for the imperfect tense, it states:
>
>"The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated
> action. Where the present tense might indicate "they are
> asking, " the imperfect would indicate "they kept on asking."
>
> In the case of the verb "to be, " however, the imperfect tense
> is used as a general past tense and does not carry the
> connotation of continual or repeated action."
Generally speaking, I think this sort of distinction is on the right track,
but it could be clearer. The point of aspect is not to define the nature of
the action or state--it's to choose a particular point of view for describing
the action or state. If I'm describing someone walking, it's not a question of
whether they walk instantaneously or over a long period of time. It's a
question of whether I'm inclined to show you the time or progress inolved. And
no aspect that I can think of is capable of indicating on its own that the
action or state described is eternal. Personally, I think it can be misleading
to think in terms of English participial constructions. For instance, if I say
"he walks" vs. "he is walking," what I am primarily trying to do with the
different forms is distinguish between something like "he walks to work every
morning" and "he is walking to work right now." This semantic distinction is
not primarily a factor of aspect, IMO. So, while these default translation
practices may be helpful as a starting point for the student, what needs to be
grasped at some point is the semantic effect of the different tense forms.
>
>I am puzzeled by the second paragraph of this description, as I cannot
>find this exclusion mentioned anywhere else in the grammar's I consulted.
>The closest comment was in Robertson's Greek Grammar of the New Testament.
>On pages 882-883, in the section on 'Durative (Linear) Action', Robertson
>discusses 'Doubtful Imperfects' and states:
>
>"Hence we need not insist that HN (Jo 1:1) is strictly durative always
>(imperfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist also."
Isn't EIMI limited to the imperfect form in the past tense? For some reason I
seem to remember this word being more restricted than most in the forms that
it takes. I would think, if that's the case, it would tend to rule out
attaching too much significance to the aspect involved. I may be wrong,
though. It's a lot harder for me to make specific off-the-cuff remarks about
Greek than some other languages.
Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics
---
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 - 15:37:23 EDT