Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Post by Scott Lawson »

David,
Τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν :D
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Post by Scott Lawson »

David Lim wrote:From where did you get the idea that there is aspect in the imperative?
David, I don't believe I said aspect.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Post by Scott Lawson »

David,

Be silent, Put the muzzle on and keep it on. σιώπα, πεφίμωσο...Mark 4:39. The action is durative. Be in good health. ἔρρωσο Acts 23:30 Text. Rec.

The perfect imperative is rare in the N.T. and the action is durative.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Post by Scott Lawson »

David,
Regarding the kinds of action (Aktionsart) of the imperative I understand it to be:
Present tense form = durative
Aorist tense form = punctiliar or ingressive
Perfect tense form = constative

As per Smyth:
Present λέγε = tell (go on and tell in detail)
Aorist εἰπέ = state (in a word)
Perfect εἰρήσθω = let it have been said (once for all)
Scott Lawson
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Post by David Lim »

Scott Lawson wrote:David,

Be silent, Put the muzzle on and keep it on. σιώπα, πεφίμωσο...Mark 4:39. The action is durative. Be in good health. ἔρρωσο Acts 23:30 Text. Rec.

The perfect imperative is rare in the N.T. and the action is durative.
Here you say that the perfect imperative is durative but later you say that it is constative. But nevermind I think it is neither.
Scott Lawson wrote:
David Lim wrote:From where did you get the idea that there is aspect in the imperative?
David, I don't believe I said aspect.
Yes I mistook your statements, because I do not think lexical aspect (inherent in the verb) can be independent of grammatical aspect (expressed in grammatical syntax), but that grammatical aspect is restricted to such as is permitted by lexical aspect. As far as I know, and as you can also see from the examples in Funk's Grammar, I do not see evidence for the classification according to Smyth. Besides the examples of multiple imperatives that I listed, compare "λεγετε" in Luke 10:5 with "ειπατε" in Luke 10:10, and "γινωσκετε" in Luke 10:11 with "γνωτε" in Luke 21:20.
δαυιδ λιμ
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Post by Scott Lawson »

David Lim wrote:Here you say that the perfect imperative is durative but later you say that it is constative. But nevermind I think it is neither.
Hmmm....I'm not sure who's confused here...Robertson or Smyth. There is only one more perfect imperative in the NT (James 1:19) and it seems to me to be durative. I'm sure there is a reason the perfect imperative is dying out in the NT and is dead in MGreek. For more examples I guess we'd have to ask Homer. I don't mind letting Funk referee between Robertson and Smyth. I understand him to be saying that context is king and with this I heartily agree! :D
David Lim wrote:Yes I mistook your statements, because I do not think lexical aspect (inherent in the verb) can be independent of grammatical aspect (expressed in grammatical syntax), but that grammatical aspect is restricted to such as is permitted by lexical aspect.
Here you are speaking more English than I understand. :D I'll have to puzzle on this awhile. :?
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Post by Scott Lawson »

Scott Lawson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Here you say that the perfect imperative is durative but later you say that it is constative. But nevermind I think it is neither.
Hmmm....I'm not sure who's confused here...Robertson or Smyth. ....
Oh! It just occurred to me that maybe I was confused! Let's go with durative! :D
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Post by Scott Lawson »

Scott Lawson wrote:
Scott Lawson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Here you say that the perfect imperative is durative but later you say that it is constative. But nevermind I think it is neither.
Hmmm....I'm not sure who's confused here...Robertson or Smyth. ....
Oh! It just occurred to me that maybe I was confused! Let's go with durative! :D
Or, maybe it could be both depending on context just as Funk says!

Suddenly I'm wondering why you object. Whether one views the imperative as temporal or non-temporal if it is context that influences it could be a multiple of choices.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Post by Scott Lawson »

Is there anyone who believes the imperative is non-temporal that thinks its choice might reflect the type of action that the user/writer desires to see?
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative

Post by Scott Lawson »

Recently, I've been hanging out in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rubbin' shoulders with Robertson and Smyth and David's question on aspect jerked me back to the good old 21st century where I shook hands again with Mounce, Wallace and Campbell. Guess what! They connect aspect with the imperative!

Mounce says, "the imperative occurs in the present and aorist tenses, and its only significance is aspect;" Cf. pg. 310. However he does also list four occurences of the perfect imperative and yet leaves out σιώπα which Robertson includes. Why? In Roberston's list he includes ἔρρωσο at Acts 23:30 from the Textus Receptus and thus gives examples of four different words that are perfect imperatives. Mounce gives four passages with perfect imperatives with ἴστε occurring twice, once at Eph. 5:5 and once at James1:19. Has Mounce overlooked σιώπα or what is it that I'm missing?

Wallace indicates that with the aorist imperative, the force is generally to command the action as a whole, without focusing on duration, repetition, etc. and that in keeping with its aspectual force, the aorist puts forth a summary command. With the present, he indicates that the force is generally to command the action as an ongoing process. This is in keeping with the present's aspect, which portrays an internal perspective. Now that I've reintroduced myself to Mounce, Wallace and Campbell I'll have to rub shoulders with them for a while to get these ideas sorted out.
Scott Lawson wrote:David Lim wrote:
From where did you get the idea that there is aspect in the imperative?

David, I don't believe I said aspect.
Thanks David, for your question.
Scott Lawson
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”