> When the emphasis in the aorist (as seen in the context) is on the
> fact that something has happened (that's the basis for the
> testimony), it cannot be ingressive (emphasizing the beginning) or
> gnomic (a general maxim that is always true, a truism), but must
> emphasize the whole event from the perspective of looking back on it,
> i.e. culminative, an accomplished fact.
Thanks, I needed that! This is exactly the kind of heuristic that I need. Now
when can I know that an aorist *must* be ingressive, and can not be culminative
or gnomic, and when can I know that it must be gnomic...
I would be eternally grateful to anyone who can give me such rules, or examples
of misinterpretations together with explanations showing me why a particular
approach is wrong.
P.S. I find it very helpful to see how you and Carl interpret the use of tense
in these examples.