From: S. M. Baugh (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 12 1997 - 20:04:58 EDT
Tom Launder wrote:
>Ok, if I understand everything correctly here then the aorist
>subjunctive is "default" when coupled with OU MH. But then I figure
>that I do not understand the significance of OU MH. Wallace states,
>"This is the strongest way to negative something in Greek. . . OU MH +
>the subjuctive denies a *potentiality*. . . OU MH rules out event the
>idea as being a possibility" (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics,
>So how does this relate to the OU MH KRIQHTE? Is there an idea here of
>the impossibility of one experiencing judgement? Or is this reading
>too much into the OU MH? Does context weaken or strengthen OU MH?
Tom, what we were really talking about is the fact that KRIQHTE was
expressed as an *aorist* rather than a *present* subjunctive (setting
aside the perfect). This is a statement of firm conviction about a
future event. None of that is changed by the "tense form."
>For the stative idea. . .does that mean that the verb KRIQHTE is one
>that does not have a continual idea built into it?
Right sort of. "Stative" means that the verb refers to a state of being
("I exist," a condition "I am tall" "I am pregnant" or a relationship
between the subject and an object or another person "I love" etc.). With
these kind of verbs, the aorist may indicate entrance into the state: "I
become pregnant" "I got sick" "they came to life" "he began to reign."
KRINW refers to a simple action which has an understood time limitation
(a "telic performance" in my lingo); it is not a stative idea, and the
ingressive or inceptive idea you proposed is not really possible with
this verb. That's all.
S. M. Baugh
Westminster Theological Seminary
1725 Bear Valley Pkwy
Escondido, CA 92027
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:12 EDT