From: A. Brent Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 07 1996 - 23:10:34 EDT
> Bl.-D refers to the structure "EI + indicative in the protasis
> as "EI with the indicative of reality."
It seems that the "reality" is demonstrated from the classification of the
indicative rather than on formal grounds relating to the condition. I
searched for first class conditions in the 1Cor (thanks for the hint Bruce)
and I found that 1Cor 15:17 appears to be a "contrary to fact" first class
condition. If we can take the indicative as "potential indicative
expressing a condition" (p. 117) in this instance, why must the "declarative
indicative" be used in other first class conditions? (p. 117) It seems to
me that only context can determine the reality or unreality of a first class
condition. Such an approach would allow an interpretation of "since" (which
you have already noted is possible but I assume we must based on the context
since it would not work in 1Cor 15:17) and also a simple "if."
-- __________________________________________ A. Brent Hudson Graduate Program in Religious Studies McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA __________________________________________ email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org __________________________________________ "Everything used to be so clear"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:42 EDT