Date: Sun Jun 01 1997 - 06:55:08 EDT
hope i can muster the gumption to offer a less verbosely professorial and more
professionally political answer to paul's questions.
but first let me observe re my own statement on the aorist:
i see that one of my statements was obscure:
<<you cannot tell from the form, but only from the setting, any other feature
than time attachable to said verbal statement>>
i had already said
<<you cannot tell at all from the form the timing of it relative to other parts
of the sentence>>
and therefore <<any other feature than time>> ws not meant to imply that you
could tell the time
furthermore <<any other feature>> was too strong, because i had in mind a class
or kind of other features like aspect, aktionsart, &c.
i had noted that one cannot say anything true about language and i guess that
includes me. still, as with others, some could learn some truth by considering
the statements taken as a whole.
from what i think i understand so far of carl's position, i'll bet if we had
time to talk it out and did so, venn diagrams of our commonalities on said
matters would be hugely overlapping with very little left completely peculiar
to each. if carl thinks otherwise, i'd accede to what he thinks on it, because
he's a practicing professional and most of my time is now taken with movement
arts ministry and questions of how to relate the power of love to spiritual
warfare -- i'm particularly concerned with affairs near the headwaters of the
tigris - euphrates and in my own 'backyard' called 'pisgah territory'.
note, paul, if my memory holds it's robertson -- robinson was mid 1800's and
did a fine lexicon showing the penchant of a 1st rate hebraist (he had
translated gesenius) and backgrounded the grimm - wilke - thayer notation of
which greek n.t. words translated which hebrew.
bearded bill of asheville <email@example.com>
unca not having approved either whom or thereof.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:17 EDT