Re: Aspect: discourse function (Mk.2)
On 05 Nov 1994 Caral Conrad wrote:
> one thing strikes me right away, and that is the use of the
> perfect tense in "hina eidhte": I would question whether this is a
> perfect tense other than in terms of the verb's ancient (even
> pre-) history. For all practical purposes it is a present tense.
> I am quite frankly puzzled here; it seems to me that these forms ought to
> be described and analyzed in terms of their semantic function rather than
> their morphological form and that their aspect is properly described as
> "present." What do the aspect-experts say about such verb forms. Frankly,
> I really don't know whether this has any real bearing on your analysis...
Guess I should have anticipated that response! So you know up front my
purpose, as I mentioned once before, I'm deliberately working with
Porter's analysis of aspect this fall to see how it actually works "in the
real world" of exegesis. With that explanation, let me note two things.
1. Even if we use the more traditional explanation of oida as perfect
form/present meaning, the larger issue of aspect in the pericope still
stands: the distinct use of aorist/perfective and present/imperfective.
This passage shows that as clearly as any I've evaluated.
2. The focus on oida is based on another of Porter's arguments in his
dissertation/book. In brief (details below), he argues that oida should be
treated as a genuine perfect and thus stative aspect. The best way to
elaborate that is to excerpt my summary of that section. Since that is
LONG, I will include it in a separate message. If anyone is not
interested, you might want to skip reading the next msg. on this list that
has my name as sender.
Calvary Theological Seminary
Kansas City, MO