From: Jeffrey Gibson (
Date: Wed Nov 13 1996 - 22:58:51 EST

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 wrote:

> On 11/13 Prof. Conrad wrote:
> >its compounds and a corresponding middle-passive EBALLOMHN,
> >EBALLOU, etc. are well attested.
> Thank you for your response. I did find one use of the third plural
> imperfect in Mark 12:31, but the fact that it is well attested in extra
> Biblical literature makes my arguement more valid.
> I looked at BAGD again and it lists a future, 2nd aorist, a distinct aorist
> 3rd pl., a perfect, future passive, 1st aorist, perfect passive and a
> pluperfect form.
> Why doesn't it list an imperfect form seeing as it is in the NT and is well
> attested? Am I expecting too much from BAGD?
> Bruce Baker
> M.Div. Candidate
> Calvary Theological Seminary

I'm sure others will respond more fully regarding why the imperfect form
of BALLW (and for that matter, if I'm not mistaken, that of most other
verbs) is not found in BAGD is the assumption that the form is so regular
that it does not need to be listed, beside the fact that the imperfect is
not one of a verb's principal parts. You are indeed assuming too much: a
lexicon is not a grammar, nor is it a concordance. The examples listed are
meant to be taken as
illustrations, not full citations of instances. This is where the TLG is

Hope this helps.

Jeffrey Gibson

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:56 EDT