Are participles temporally unmarked? Mk 1:35

George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 6 12:54:59 EST 1999




>From: "Moon-Ryul Jung" 

>But though I like your statement that 
>
>  "it does so through aspect, which is in truth inseparable
>   from time designation", 
>
>we can state this intuition better by separating (reference) time and 
>aspect....
>The reference time can be determined from the context. 
>
>For example,  consider Mark 1: 35, which I recently read:
>
>Kai pro^i                ennuka lian anastas exelthen kai ape^lthen. 
>    inmorning           night    still  rising     he-went 
>
>When the hearer hears the phrase  "pro^i   ennuka lian anastas",  
>he/she  would immediately form a situation in the mind where   
>somebody rose IN THE EARLY MORNING, which is the reference time    >for 
the situation described by the aorist participle clause.

Moon ~ [Is that name ok for you??]

So at least in this case, the aorist participial clause actually 
determines the "Reference Time" [If I am understanding you correctly] of 
the main verb[s]. It IS the time context. And the 'main' [indicative] 
verb[s] have their 'time[s]' derived from it. 

And aspectually ANASTAS simply indicates the fact of the complete action 
of arising at this time, which time is actually given two 
specifications.

The word order of this specification seems important, in that it follows 
the principle of paralleling couplets:

1 PRWI
  2 ENNUXA
  2' LIAN
1' ANASTAS

So that we are in effect being told: "Not only did he arise in the 
morning, but he got up while it was still dark outside."  This because 
of the concentration of emphasis into the center couplet 2-2'.  [Why 
that emphasis is important I do not know...]

I'm seeing paralleling couplets ever-whahrs these days! :-)

George



George Blaisdell
Roslyn, WA


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



More information about the B-Greek mailing list