From: clayton stirling bartholomew (
Date: Sat May 29 1999 - 01:50:57 EDT

Cindy wrote:

> There are quite a few
> other occurances of FEUGW in the aorist indicative.

I took a look at 16* occurrences of FEUGW in the aorist (any aorist).
And they all seemed to describe a process. I would suggest that
 "+ process" is simply a semantic feature of the lexeme FEUGW. If this
is the case then all the argumentation about FEUGW in the aorist, does
it or does it not mean a process can simply be factored out. The
tense/aspect issue appears to have no impact on when FEUGW includes the
the semantic feature "+process."

This highlights one of the major weaknesses in most of the tense/aspect
discussion. Everyone on all sides of the issue seem Hades bent on
loading up the tense/aspect morphological markings with more meaning
than they can bear.

A useful exercise to illustrate this point would be to remove all the
tense/aspect inflection from a long span of NT Greek. Make all the verbs
present tense. Then see how much difficulty one has understanding what
the text is saying.

The example of FEUGW should demonstrate one thing. While doing
tense/aspect research it is vital to factor in lexical semantics. You
need take into account of how word meaning impacts to your testing
model. Otherwise you will run the risk of assigning semantic properties
to the tense aspect morphological markings which are really semantic
properties of the lexeme. This kind of error leads to lots of confusion.

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

* Matt. 3:7 Matt. 8:33 Matt. 23:33 Matt. 26:56 Mark 5:14 Mark 14:50 Mark 14:52 Mark 16:8 Luke 3:7 Luke 8:34 Acts 7:29 Acts 27:30 Heb. 11:34 Rev. 12:6 Rev. 16:20 Rev. 20:11

--- 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 - 15:40:28 EDT