[B-Greek] Re.. Imperfect and Aorist Aspects!
Paul F. Evans
pastorpaul1957 at bellsouth.net
Thu Sep 7 10:49:03 EDT 2006
Elizabeth, Cindy (if you are monitoring this discussion), List,
>The native aspect of the aorist is perfective, i.e. completed
>action.
If the native aspect of the aorist is perfective, or completed action, how
does one arrive at the conclusion that the aspect of the aorist in the
indicative is undefined or unmarked? And if the imperfect in marked but has
exceptions to the rule so that it can have a more perfective aspect, why is
the aorist not considered perfective in the indicative except for
exceptions?
I can't see why the aspect of the aorist is unmarked, or open, up for grabs
(if I am understanding the term unmarked correctly!), in the indicative if
it is perfective elsewhere, unless there is pattern in the indicative (or
lack of a pattern) to determine the "normal undefined" aspectual use of the
aorist, that in my very limited experience, I am unaware of.
Paul F. Evans
Pastor
Wilmington First Pentecostal Holiness Church
http://www.wilmingtonfirst.org
PastorPaul1957 at bellsouth.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Kline [mailto:kline_dekooning at earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:28 PM
To: pastorpaul1957 at bellsouth.net
Cc: B-Greek
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Re.. Imperfect and Aorist Aspects!
On Sep 6, 2006, at 8:39 AM, Paul F. Evans wrote:
> In other syntactical contexts does the aorist have a "native"
> aspectual
> significance ...
Cindy Westfall could do a better job on this question and probably
has if you look in the archives.
My source for this is S.Levinshon, Discourse Features of New
Testament Greek 2nd Ed., SIL 2000 pages 172-176. The aspect of the
imperfect is imperfective, i.e. uncompleted action.
In some narrative the imperfective aspect is used to mark background
information where the main story is carried along by the aorist. This
is not a hard and fast rule. Exceptions abound.
There are also cases where the imperfect appears to function like an
aorist which, in other words it appears to have perfective aspect.
Levinshon (page 175) cites John 8:31 where ELEGEN (imperfect) appears
to function as if it had perfective aspect. This looks like it
creates problems for Machen's rule that the aorist/imperfect are
always aspectually distinct. Levinshon calls this a marked use of the
imperfect which means that this imperfect is notable and draws
attention to itself because it violates the expectations of the
competent reader.
JOHN 8:30 TAUTA AUTOU LALOUNTOS POLLOI EPISTEUSAN EIS AUTON. 31
ELEGEN OUN hO IHSOUS PROS TOUS PEPISTEUKOTAS AUTWi IOUDAIOUS: EAN
hUMEIS MEINHTE EN TWi LOGWi TWi EMWi, ALHQWS MAQHTAI MOU ESTE 32 KAI
GNWSESQE THN ALHQEIAN, KAI hH ALHQEIA ELEUQERWSEI hUMAS.
BTW, marked and unmarked when used without qualification refer to
semantic marking not morphological marking. It would be trivial to
say that the pluperfect is morphologically marked in relation to the
aorist.
Elizabeth Kline
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/437 - Release Date: 9/4/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/437 - Release Date: 9/4/2006
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list