The translation of the aorist

Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Tue Dec 5 22:47:01 EST 2000


Moon cites Carl:

>In recent discussions on Gal 3:12, Carl translated
>hO POIHSAS AUTA in Gal 3:12 as
>the one who gets them performed" to emphasize the completion of the
>action involved.

My question is concerned with "completion of the action" in defining the 
Aorist.

I thought that the Aorist avoided such a commitment as this. To me, the 
Aorist simply "identifies" an action or event, but does not "assert" that 
the action or event has been, or ever will be, complete. Certainly, lexis 
may require that a particular action be complete if undertaken, but 
"completion" is related to the lexis, not the Aorist.

Would the Aorist in the following denote completion:

I loved him dearly.

I trusted in the Lord.


In other words, I was under the impression that the Aorist denoted an action 
or event, but whether or not it was ever complete(d), is unstated by the 
Aorist. In fact, I didn't think that the author was even portraying that 
action as complete; s/he was simply identifying the particular action or 
event in question.

And because it does NOT denote COMPLETION, I thought grammarians had 
invented all kinds of Aorists: GNOMIC, CONSTATIVE, CULMINATIVE, 
INGRESSIVE...

Need a little help here,

Mark Wilson








_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com




More information about the B-Greek mailing list