No subject


Tue May 3 10:41:24 EDT 2011


frequently contemporaneous in the epistles than in narrative literature. 
There is also such a thing as an aorist participle of subsequent action, 
though quite rare.

End quote.

Having read this, I naturally think of an aorist participle expressing time 
related to the main verb as more than likely "antecedent" and less often 
"contemporaneous." Of course, Daniel Wallace notes that it can denote 
subsequent time, but rarely.

My question is this: Do these two grammarians agree with one another? 
Wallace seems to state that "time" is denoted with the participle, while 
Goetchius seems to be saying that "aspect," NOT TIME, is inherent in the 
participle.

Thank you,

Mark Wilson


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com




More information about the B-Greek mailing list