From: Carl W. Conrad (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Apr 07 1997 - 15:26:18 EDT
At 1:34 PM -0500 4/7/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>At 12:21 PM 4/7/97 -0500, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>The references in Smyth #1939 are
>>Iliad 2.113 NUN DE KAKHN APATHN BOULEUSATO, KAI ME KELEUEI ...
>>Iliad 3.439 NUN MEN GAR MENELAOS ENIKHSEN SUN AQHNHi.
>>Smyth does have a nice harvest in this section of aorist verbs, augmented
>>and unaugmented, that do not appear to have any clear reference to past
>Thanks for the references! I'm trying to compare them to this example from
>John 10:31 RABBI, NUN EZHTOUN SE LIQASAI hOI IOUDAIOI, KAI PALIN hUPAGEIS
>Mari suggests that NUN in this context can be translated "just now": "Rabbi,
>just now the Jews were trying to stone you". She says this indicates that
>the past reference of the imperfect can not be cancelled by adding NUN - it
>still refers to a past situation.
>I had really wanted to see whether the NUN cancels the past reference in the
>two Homeric references, but I suspect these examples don't help - in each
>case, the aorist feels like an ingressive aorist indicating the start of a
>new state, and NUN+ingressive aorist in these two examples has an effect not
>unlike the perfect.
Yes, I think that's the case. I certainly wouldn't want to say that the
past reference is cancelled in these instances. I am beginning to wonder,
however, about the imperfects in a present contrary-to-fact condition, and
what the augment on those forms is thought to imply about the time of the
action--it certainly isn't past action.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:11 EDT