James C. Clardy, Jr. ("JClar100@worldnet.att.net"@worldnet.att.net)
Fri, 02 Aug 1996 13:12:01 -0500

Some grammars have what would amount to the passive of the
pulperfect as the translation for the perfect passive. For example, "I
had been loosed" is noted as perfect passive.

If one is trying to give integrity to the subtle differences of the
language, wouldn't it be more acceptable to let the perfect passive
be translated as such rather than giving it the appearance that is
really "past action in past time" with no necessary effects continuing
in the present.

One grammar does suggest the "pluperfect passive forms a part of the
perfect middle system."

I'm reviewing this part of my grammar and thought some of you might have
a helpful comment.

One other question: Doesn't the language have more fluidity to it than
most of the traditional grammars have a tendency to recognize?

Jim Clardy

P.S. I continue to find all your thoughts fascinating. I was especially
interested a few weeks ago to read all you've written about the passages
in First Timothy. And I'm very interested in anything on Romans.