Date: Sun Apr 12 1998 - 11:33:17 EDT
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> >>I want to call a final halt to this thread now
> I'm quite sorry if that was misunderstood.
Gosh Carl ~
I confess I misunderstood you like Ward did, and like him, I would
like to explore this issue further.
> By all means do so. I have tried in vain to convince George that the -S-
> marker of the first aorist is unrelated to the -S- marker of the future and
> that the -A- of the first aorist is NOT an alpha privative. But I think,
> George, you still believe that, don't you?
Belief is a good word, given my lack of schooling. When I first ran
across this approach to the aorist a couple of months ago, it just
made very simple common sense to me, and I have been using it on this
list as I have been developing an account of what it means and how it
works in the practical translations of lines of text. Criticisms have
been very helpful to me, but only those my unschooled and Biblically
unread eyes and mind can understand. Plain language criticism is a
must, or I will just drown in the swamp of multiple passage citations
and arcane technical analysis. My approach does seem to be working
pretty well in practice... And is still in development, so a
cooperative, rather than confrontational, tone would be both kind and
useful. And I need to tone down my own responses as well, and I
will... I'm just very excited about this.
> There may well be some different understandings of aorist aspect, but I
> would hope we can agree, most of us, that the -SA- morph is not itself a
> marker of "timelessness."
Let's take a look and see where the joints divide...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:22 EDT