RE: Are participles temporally unmarked? Mk 1:35

From: Hultberg, Alan D (
Date: Sat Mar 06 1999 - 13:26:25 EST

>>And aspectually ANASTAS simply indicates the fact of the complete action
of arising at this time<<

Sorry to intrude; I haven't been following this thread very closely, so I hope
this isn't old hat. From what I understand of aspect theory, George's above
statement is technically incorrect.

Someone asked earlier in this thread about the difference between aspect (as
used in aspect theory) and *Aktionsart*. George's statement is one of
*Aktionsart*, in that it posits a direct relationship between the action as it
occurred in reality and the verb tense (as a morphological, not temporal
category) used to describe the action. In other words, part *Aktionsart*
posits that the aorist "indicates the FACT of the complete action..." George
may well be aware of this and perhaps only made a slip in his wording, but
aspect theory says the choice of the morphological verb tense bears no
necessary relationship to the actual performance of the action described; it
only reflects the author's/speaker's PORTRAYAL of the action. In this
instance, Mark portrays the action of Jesus' arising as a complete act, or as
simply having occurred, if you will--he gives us a snapshot of the action, not
a movie.


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