[B-Greek] Aorist as Verbal Aspect
Dr. Don Wilkins
drdwilkins at verizon.net
Tue May 13 16:16:57 EDT 2008
Remarks below.
On May 12, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Mitch Larramore wrote:
>
> --- "Dr. Don Wilkins" <drdwilkins at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I applaud Randall in his pointing out the
>> significance of the
>> augment, which aspect-only advocates must explain
>> away to maintain
>> their positions, though I think they have
>> contributed something to
>> our understanding of Greek grammar. When you remove
>> the augment by
>> employing a mood other than the indicative, you do
>> find the aorist
>> used of the present, and even of the future.
>
> Dr. Wilkins:
>
> But the non-Indicative mood would not portray an
> actual event, right? So how could such an event be
> called "present or future"? It seems to me that events
> would be possible or potential, but not actual, with
> reference to time.
Mitch, I took another look at your original email, and I may be
misunderstanding what you mean by "actual". There you used the
phrase, "how an event ACTUALLY occurs/occurred," and I focused on
"how". Here, by "actual" you evidently mean *whether* an event
occurs. In that sense your objection is well taken. Only past- and
present-time tenses of the indicative fit this category. When I was
speaking of the aorist in the present or future, I was referring to
potential events.
>
>
> Also...
>
> But
>> most statements are
>> in the indicative, where the aorist is virtually
>> confined to past
>> time. I would also submit that all tenses and moods
>> are necessarily
>> subjective portrayals of events.
>
> I'm assuming this does not take into consideration
> narratives and didactic sections, which seem to cover
> most of the NT. I am really not sure why "all" tenses
> and moods are "necessarily" subjective. I would
> suspect that much of the NT is Gospel writers
> recalling what they saw or heard, and the epistles are
> basically providing instruction.
>
> Mitch Larramore
> Sugar Land, Texas
>
Again, if you are thinking in terms of whether events actually occur,
then you would make a distinction between the reporting of actual
events and all other non-event statements. But I was referring to the
speaker/writer's point of view in making statements of any kind.
Describing an event in the indicative does not make the event true,
any more than painting a realistic picture of a fictional event would
make that event true. In forensic contexts, the truth of an ordinary
indicative statement depends in part on the credibility of the
witness. If the witness is credible, you then have the problem of
determining whether his/her description is an "objective" portrayal
of an event. We've all seen examples of eyewitness testimony that are
incorrect even though the witness is credible and true to his/her own
observations. That's what I had in mind when I said that all
statements are necessarily subjective.
Don Wilkins
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list