From: Rod Decker (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 16 1998 - 15:04:37 EST
>the sense that the action is not taking place in a "present" time
>frame (I think this is metalingual ?). Thus the "aoristic" present
>feels like it is portraying a past action simply because of the
>aspectual nuance, not because there is not temporal grammaticalization;
>its almost a Past Instans (ala the Future Instans).
I don't dare take time for a full response here. Let me just point out that
I think that "aoristic present" is an *Aktionsart* category, not an
aspectual one. Arguments for such a creature always point to the nature of
the action so described--and that is *not* what aspect is all about--but
that IS what Aktionsart is intended to describe.
Rodney J. Decker Baptist Bible Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT P O Box 800
email@example.com Clarks Summit PA 18411
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:10 EDT