[B-Greek] Aorist as an 'x' rather than a '.' (dot)
Jim West
jwest at highland.net
Mon Aug 1 17:57:39 EDT 2005
Eddie Mishoe wrote:
>This is from Smyth (p 414). Of course, Smyth is more
>so concerned with Classical Greek, but my question
>deals with why most grammarians, including Smyth
>himself, want to define the verbal aspect of the
>Aorist as a point or dot. This would seem to imply
>"completion," which seems more suitable for the domain
>of the Perfect.
>
No- the aorist describes action completed in the past and the perfect
describes action completed in the past- but with implications for the
present.
>Why is it generally taught that the
>Aorist portrays the event in its entirety or as a
>whole? Rather than the Aorist being portrayed by a dot
>or period, which implies completion, would it not be
>more accurate to label it with an "x" ? That way, we
>avoid putting something definite with an indefinite
>concept.
>
>
But it is a definite action completed in the past- that's why every
grammar describes it in that way.
Jim
--
D. Jim West
Biblical Studies Resources - http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Biblical Theology Weblog - http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list