Re: Periphrastic constructions with multiple participles (Mar 1:6)

Carlton L. Winbery (
Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:34:36 +0400

Carl Conrad wrote;
>At 11:56 AM -0500 9/7/96, Mike Phillips wrote:
>> I just want to confirm that Mar 1:6 has one imperfect form of EIMI that
>>might be construed in periphrastic construct with two participles, the first,
>>ENDEDUMENOS (Perfect) and the second, ESQIWN (present). I am uncertain as to
>>the latter - whether it can use the same EIMI as the former or requires its
>I don't see any reason why a second form of EIMI should be required. I
>don't know what the grammatical authorities may say about this, but it
>seems to me that the fundamental principle governing these so-called
>periphrastic tenses is that the participle thus used with a form of EIMI
>functions syntactically in the same way as does a predicate adjective or
>predicate noun: i.e. it is in agreement in number, gender, and case. That
>is to say, the participle is treated like an adjective. Perhaps this may
>sometimes appear confusing, as in English, when one says, "I was tired
>out": is this a passive verb? or is it a past tense of BE with a predicate
>adjective? To be clear you'd probably have to add a qualifier clearly
>indicating a passive verb: "I was tired out by my interrogators." But how
>is that different in meaning from: "I was tired out as a result of the
In my earlier post I should have listed the grammars that I checked. (I
just happen to have some of my notes at home in a brief case.) They are;
Fanning, Verbal Aspect
Porter, Verbal Aspect
Moulton, Howard, & Turner, Grammar
Aerts, Periphrastica
Regard, La Phrase Nominale
Clapp & Friberg, Analytical Concordance
Only Moulton and Regard (I think) see Mk. 1:6 as periphrastic and then only
with the first ptc.

Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek La College