[B-Greek] Aorist as an 'x' rather than a '.' (dot)
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at ioa.com
Mon Aug 1 18:22:35 EDT 2005
On Aug 1, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Jim West wrote:
> 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.
The only problem with this description is that it is only the
INDICATIVE of the aorist that necessarily or normally concerns the
past. Subjunctive, imperative, infinitive, and participle of the
aorist do NOT necessarily refer to a past event.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list