Re: Periphrastic constructions with multiple participles (Mar 1:6)

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Sat Sep 07 1996 - 11:59:12 EDT

At 11:56 AM -0500 9/7/96, Mike Phillips wrote:
> I just want to confirm that Mar 1:6 has one imperfect form of EIMI that
>might be construed in periphrastic construct with two participles, the first,
>ENDEDUMENOS (Perfect) and the second, ESQIWN (present). I am uncertain as to
>the latter - whether it can use the same EIMI as the former or requires its

I don't see any reason why a second form of EIMI should be required. I
don't know what the grammatical authorities may say about this, but it
seems to me that the fundamental principle governing these so-called
periphrastic tenses is that the participle thus used with a form of EIMI
functions syntactically in the same way as does a predicate adjective or
predicate noun: i.e. it is in agreement in number, gender, and case. That
is to say, the participle is treated like an adjective. Perhaps this may
sometimes appear confusing, as in English, when one says, "I was tired
out": is this a passive verb? or is it a past tense of BE with a predicate
adjective? To be clear you'd probably have to add a qualifier clearly
indicating a passive verb: "I was tired out by my interrogators." But how
is that different in meaning from: "I was tired out as a result of the

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:50 EDT