[B-Greek] John 3:31-32... aspect analysis

Richard Lindeman oblchurch at msn.com
Thu Dec 15 11:04:34 EST 2005


Ken:

I am inclined to agree with your assessment that apart from aspect the event 
ERXOMENOS is a generalization and the generalization is perfective. 
Therefore my translation should probably be "the one who comes from above" 
rather than "the one who came from above".

But now I am having trouble distinguising what is aspect and what is 
aktionsart.  The verbal root of "come" appears to be 
imperfective(incomplete).   The generalization appears to be perfective 
(complete). The verbal tense is imperfective (incomplete).  But isn't 
complete/incomplete KIND of action or Aktionsart as opposed to 
completed/(not completed) as Rolf Furuli seems to be describing the nature 
of aspect?

Is there overlap here?  Is aspect in Greek "kind of action" 
complete/incomplete rather than time of action completed/not completed?

Thanks!

(now getting in way over my head) Rich Lindeman



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Penner" <pennerkm at mcmaster.ca>
To: "'Richard Lindeman'" <oblchurch at msn.com>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:06 AM
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] John 3:31-32... aspect analysis


>> New aspect analysis.  hO ANOQEN ERXOMENOS EPANW PANTWN ESTIN
>> ERXOMENOS -  E<S, R=E, R<S , imperfective, some of Christ's
>> coming occurs at
>> R time. or, Christ's coming is not completed at R time.  New aspectual
>> question: is this a reference to the incomplete nature of the
>> first coming
>> of Christ and a hint of the second coming of Christ?
>
> I agree with Carl's response. I'm not entirely sure about the participle
> phrase. In my dissertation I only deal with verbs functioning 
> predicatively;
> here the participle is functioning substantively. I also am a bit 
> uncertain
> how to deal with indefinite clauses, but in any case since it is a
> generalization R would = all time. S is therefore in R (relative present); 
> E
> would also have to be in R (perfective); E could be before or after S
> (absolute present). So here we appear to have a perfective event expressed
> with a present participle. I suspect semitic influence, through the
> Septuagint or as a direct translation of the Hebrew participle.
>
>> ESTIN - E=S, R<S, E>R,  imperfective,  some of Christ's being over all
>> occurs at R time. or, Christ's being over all is not
>> completed at R time.
>> New aspectual observation:  Christ is over all things now and always.
>
> EIMI is a special case. There is no aorist with which to contrast the
> present and imperfect. The generalization again has R = all time. S is 
> again
> in R (relative present); E is coextensive with R (perfective); S is in E
> (absolute present). So here we appear to have a perfective event expressed
> with a present indicative. But given the time relations (all present), the
> present tense is the only option for the writer.
>
> Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Greek Verbal Aspect), M.A. (Hebrew Poetry)
> Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University
> pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
> Flash! Pro vocabulary software: http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/flash or
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join
> Purchase: http://tinyurl.com/6tg2d
> 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list