[B-Greek] SIGATW in 1 Cor 14:30
Elizabeth Kline
kline-dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 4 13:24:29 EDT 2005
Mssrs. Huovila and Buth,
On Sep 28, 2005, at 5:23 AM, Kimmo Huovila wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 27 September 2005 16:18, bitan buth wrote:
>
>> Can you use SIGA as something almost generic, unmarked?
>> MALISTA.
>>
>
> Yes, Tobit 10:7 seems to confirm this.
>
If we say that SIGAW in the present is pragmatically unmarked is it
safe to conclude that the present has no (zero) semantic significance
in this context? When a word is used in a certain form frequently we
might suggest that the form does not draw attention to itself, that
it is pragmatically unmarked. But to conclude that the form becomes
devoid of semantic significance because it is pragmatically unmarked
-- Do we really want to do this?
We also might want to take a look at how Paul is using the present/
aorist in the co-text. For starters in 1Cor 12-14 the finite verbs in
the present are significantly more frequent (compared to aorist) than
in the rest of Paul. Why is this? I think focusing on a single word
SIGAW is useful but has limitations. We need to study how Paul is
using the present/aorist in general and then specifically in 1Cor
12-14 and then see how SIGAW fits or does not fit into this pattern.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list