Re: Future Perfect (was "Ungrammatical ...")

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Wed Sep 01 1999 - 09:46:49 EDT

<x-rich>At 6:38 AM -0500 9/1/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

>At 1:49 AM -0700 9/1/99, Al Kidd wrote:

>>My question is: Why did Greek settle on a periphrastic construction
for the

>>Future Perfect Active when the concept of using a true Future

>>Active was not unknown to them (e.g., TEQNXW = I shall be dead, I

>>have died)?

> [quite a bit omitted]

>I've checked Smyth on the future perfect and shall forward to the

>later either what's really relevant to this question or at least the

>to permit anyone who is interested enough to check it out for him or


For those who want to check this out, the relevant sections in the
online <color><param>0000,7777,0000</param>version of Smyth's Greek
Grammar (1st edition) at the Perseus website are:

</color>I don't find anything here that runs counter to what I argued
about probable reasons for the periphrastic (as opposed to the
inflected) form of the future perfect being much more common.


Carl W. Conrad

Department of Classics/Washington University

One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018

Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:38 EDT