[B-Greek] Aorist Indicative - Aspect undefined and/or punctiliar
Webb
webb at selftest.net
Fri Dec 30 16:31:28 EST 2005
In my view, "punctiliar" is too restricted. The way I like to think of it is
as the "unmarked" past, when it's in a normal narrative setting. It's not
emphasizing anything about the action--not its punctiliarity, not its
extension, or anything else. It's the simple, unremarkable past. When you
see the imperfect, that is a "marked" form. It gives the clue that something
like extension or repetition or habit is in mind. If they hadn't been in
mind, the aorist would have been used. So in that sense, the aorist
indicative is relatively "perfective" in its usual sense. But "punctiliar"
is too specific for me.
Webb Mealy
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Robb Wallace
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 1:00 PM
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [B-Greek] Aorist Indicative - Aspect undefined and/or punctiliar
Mounce's BBG textbook describes the aspect of the aorist indicative as
undefined, but older grammars like Robertson's describe it as punctiliar. To
me it makes more sense as punctiliar which would contrast it to the
present/imperfect indicative's continuous aspect rather than simply as
undefined. How do you all see the aspect of the aorist indicative?
Robb Wallace
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/216 - Release Date: 12/29/2005
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list