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