B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum

Luke 4:30: " αὐτὸς δὲ διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο."
"but he passed through their midst and went on his way. " NASB, 2020



I know that an imperfect means something not finished yet or continuing or repeating. I was wondering if ἐπορεύετο is a continual "continued on his way"?

Ματταθίας wrote: ↑February 26th, 2022, 7:31 pm Luke 4:30: " αὐτὸς δὲ διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο."
"but he passed through their midst and went on his way. " NASB, 2020



I know that an imperfect means something not finished yet or continuing or repeating. I was wondering if ἐπορεύετο is a continual "continued on his way"?

διελθὼν is an Aorist Participle, so is more correctly translated as "having gone" - ie, he did that, and then traveled - and the traveling took a period of time (hence the imperfect) "But he, having gone through their midst, went/traveled/ . . ."
Shirley Rollinson

Thank you. That makes sense.


Matt

Ματταθίας wrote: ↑February 26th, 2022, 7:31 pm Luke 4:30: " αὐτὸς δὲ διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο."
"but he passed through their midst and went on his way. " NASB, 2020



I know that an imperfect means something not finished yet or continuing or repeating. I was wondering if ἐπορεύετο is a continual "continued on his way"?

Yes, you are on the right track. Here, the imperfective past is an open-ended fade-out to the scene, "he was going away . . ." This is a use of language for literary effect.
The NASB tried to capture some of that in its English translation "went on his way," which leaves the destination open and produces a similar effect.

Length of time of an action has nothing to do with aorist or imperfect tenses, it is all about the presentation, whole or open-ended. A person would say "He ruled for forty years" in perfectly good Greek with an aorist: ἐβασίλευσεν τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη.
Compare John 2.20 τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος "this temple was built (aorist) in forty-six years.

Ματταθίας wrote: ↑February 26th, 2022, 7:31 pm Luke 4:30: " αὐτὸς δὲ διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο."
"but he passed through their midst and went on his way. " NASB, 2020



I know that an imperfect means something not finished yet or continuing or repeating. I was wondering if ἐπορεύετο is a continual "continued on his way"?

From Athenaze, third edition, page 250:
The imperfect has several special uses that you should probably review to keep from drawing conclusions that might not be warranted by its use. The rule of thumb is that it “usually indicates continuous or incomplete action in past time” (Athenaze, p. 249), but that is not always how you should look at it. In addition to the the above-mentioned inceptive imperfect, Athenaze lists in this section also the conative imperfect, which expresses the idea of trying to do something, not its continuous action. For example (pg. 250):

εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν εἰσελθόντες ἐπόνουν.
Entering the field, they began to work.

Would that not be better translated as "having entered the field, they began to work"?
Using an English present participle ("entering") would imply that they were working at the same time as they were entering the field.
They probably have to enter the field first before they can begin working.

Shirley Rollinson wrote: ↑March 8th, 2022, 2:39 am εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν εἰσελθόντες ἐπόνουν.
Entering the field, they began to work.

Would that not be better translated as "having entered the field, they began to work"?
Using an English present participle ("entering") would imply that they were working at the same time as they were entering the field.
They probably have to enter the field first before they can begin working.

In the stricter Greek sequence, this is true. English is a bit more fluid in so using its participles.

Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑March 8th, 2022, 12:25 pm

Shirley Rollinson wrote: ↑March 8th, 2022, 2:39 am εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν εἰσελθόντες ἐπόνουν.
Entering the field, they began to work.

Would that not be better translated as "having entered the field, they began to work"?
Using an English present participle ("entering") would imply that they were working at the same time as they were entering the field.
They probably have to enter the field first before they can begin working.

In the stricter Greek sequence, this is true. English is a bit more fluid in so using its participles.

English has become sloppy. We done real good if verb in sentence.

This example and discussion may illustrate the pitfalls of discussing one language in terms of translation into another language.

English and Greek are structured differently. English does not have a good imperfective past tense, certainly not as flexible as Greek. Likewise, Greek has a structural ability to relatively demote events through choices of participles and finite verbs. Each language uses and develops its own structures and communicative strategies within itself. And they can change over time.

Take the simple English sentence, "entering the field they began to work." As a mother-tongue English speaker I can approve the sentence. In fact, it is better than a more logical "Having entered the field they began to work." Why? Because "having entered" sounds heavy and pedantic. [Frankly, modern English would prefer a finite verb.] Consider the following larger script:
"Having entered" would be too heavy and distracting in this little introduction. In fact, English prefers finite verbs to participial clauses. Also note that the imperfective idea of "picking petunias without picturing the end point" is introduced with a simple past "began" [think "aorist"] rather than a so-called imperfect equivalent "they were picking." The sample story even has an inciting incident embedded in a dependent temporal clause "when a shot rang out."

There are quite a few complicated pragmatic effects in this little vignette. Their discussion does not directly touch on Greek. Additionally, modern English has moved away from classical models of communication so that participles in older English may not be processed clearly. "A militia being necessary, the right of the people shall not be infringed." One clause is backgrounded/demoted, one clause is the main point. This illustrates the importance of reading pragmatics correctly in any language. (It is not an invitation to political debate here!)

Back to Greek, English labels and translations can distract from what is happening in Greek. So-called inceptive/inchoative imperfects and conative imperfects can mis-direct an audience's attention. A Greek imperfect does NOT focus on the beginning (however translated n English) but is normally on the event being open-ended. Nor does the Greek focus on "attemptedness". An attempted event may be put in the Greek imperfect past in order to state that the end point is not reached in this presentation. Typically, that will be in contexts where the attempt failed. Where the attempt was successful we may find aorist verbs (with or without a lexical "attempt"). I recommend checking out the pragmatics of these things. Look at ten examples of "inchoative imperfects" and "conative imperfects". Then compare contexts where the lexically specified perspective is used, with indicatives of "ἄρξασθαι", "πειρᾶν/πειράζειν" (with meaning "attempt") and ζητεῖν/ζητῆσαι are used. Notice the tense and aspect choices. E.g., there are NO examples of imperfect ἤρχετο out of 84 middle ἄρξασθαι in the NT.

This is a lot of work and more than I am willing to write up here.
But I recommend it for those trying to learn and internalize Greek according to Greek.

English would probably not even bother with participles, but use two clauses or sentences. "They entered the field and began to work"