Re: Are participles temporally unmarked? Mk 1:35

From: George Blaisdell (
Date: Sat Mar 06 1999 - 12:54:59 EST

>From: "Moon-Ryul Jung"

>But though I like your statement that
> "it does so through aspect, which is in truth inseparable
> from time designation",
>we can state this intuition better by separating (reference) time and
>The reference time can be determined from the context.
>For example, consider Mark 1: 35, which I recently read:
>Kai pro^i ennuka lian anastas exelthen kai ape^lthen.
> inmorning night still rising he-went
>When the hearer hears the phrase "pro^i ennuka lian anastas",
>he/she would immediately form a situation in the mind where
>somebody rose IN THE EARLY MORNING, which is the reference time >for
the situation described by the aorist participle clause.

Moon ~ [Is that name ok for you??]

So at least in this case, the aorist participial clause actually
determines the "Reference Time" [If I am understanding you correctly] of
the main verb[s]. It IS the time context. And the 'main' [indicative]
verb[s] have their 'time[s]' derived from it.

And aspectually ANASTAS simply indicates the fact of the complete action
of arising at this time, which time is actually given two

The word order of this specification seems important, in that it follows
the principle of paralleling couplets:

  2' LIAN

So that we are in effect being told: "Not only did he arise in the
morning, but he got up while it was still dark outside." This because
of the concentration of emphasis into the center couplet 2-2'. [Why
that emphasis is important I do not know...]

I'm seeing paralleling couplets ever-whahrs these days! :-)


George Blaisdell
Roslyn, WA

Get Your Private, Free Email at

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:19 EDT