From: Mark Wilson (emory2oo2@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 14:46:23 EDT
<x-flowed>
David:
You wrote (quoted):
-----
>"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."
>
>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.
------
I think what may be contributing to the confusion here is the
failure to distinguish lexical from grammatical aspect. Lexical
aspect is: "the inherent properties of the verb (lexeme) that
indicate how it unfolds through time."
Grammatical aspect (its morphology) is "used for Imperfective vs.
Perfective oppositions."
And then one must recognize the difference between Pragmatics
and Semantics.
There is no inherent notion of "keep on" or "continually"
with Grammatical aspect. That is, the Imperfect FORM does not
denote continuous action. Grammatically, it only indicates that
the action/event is "in progress" (unfolding) AT THE REFERENCED TIME.
What happens AFTER the referenced time is not addressed with the
Imperfect FORM.
You also quote:
-------
>"Hence we need not insist that HN (Jo 1:1) is strictly durative always
>(imperfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist also."
------
Here the author makes the common mistake of equating Lexical
and Grammatical aspect (twice!).
Concerning this:
-------
>Then, in his notes on John 1:1, Peter Misselbrook (Read the Greek New
>Testament, http://www.btinternet.com/~MisPar/GNotes/noteindx.htm#John )
>quotes C.K. Barrett 'The Gospel According to John', London SPCK, 1967
>
>"HN 'The continuous tense is to be contrasted with the punctiliar EGENETO
>(vv 3,6,14).
-------
Same mistake as above. There is no such animal in Greek as
"The continuous tense."
Then,
-----
>Is there an exception for EIMI, where the Imperfect does not carry
>durative force?
------
Stated correctly: Is there an exception for EIMI, where its
LEXICAL ASPECT does not carry durative force?
And, of course, the answer is Yes.
My thoughts,
Mark Wilson
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
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 - 15:37:23 EDT