John 17:23, support Clay
Randall Buth
ButhFam at compuserve.com
Mon Aug 19 03:04:38 EDT 2002
shalom
Thought i'd give Clay some more support
(TIS EGRAYEN)
>>Is the conflict between the present subjunctive, indicating a wish and
>> therefore aspectually incomplete (imperfective) and the perfect which
>> indicates perfective aspect?
>
(CLAY EGRAYEN)
>I see that I didn't really understand the problem Matthew was having. This
>problem does not arise for me since I think of the two verbs as working
>together as a single functional unit.<
(MPOUQ GRAFEI)
I was uneasy when I saw the line above about 'present subjunctive
indicating
a wish ... THEREFORE incomplete"
There is a basic principle of language involved. The word in question was
WSIN 'they would be'. It is a "be" verb which should raise red flags for
most linguists, but more importantly in this case, there is only one
subjunctive form available. There is no possibility of an 'aorist'/(a.k.a.
'perfective' in general linguistics) subjunctive for this verb EINAI.
Therefore
it would be wrong to make a point of this. A person should not give
something a special (a.k.a. 'marked' in general linguistics)
classification
for which another option does not exist. That doesn't mean that WSIN
is not a continuative, by nature it is. But here it is functionally
just subjunctive.
Clay saw no problem with the vrebs working together. KALWS.
ERRWSQE
Randall MPOUQ
PALIN CWRWN ODON EIS KW (ac 21.1)
EIS EPTA HMERAS
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list