From: yochanan bitan (ButhFam@compuserve.com)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2000 - 07:02:39 EST
>Mark 5:9 KAI EPHRWTA AUTON
>TI ONOMA SOI;
>KAI LEGEI AUTWi
>LEGIWN ONOMA MOI,
>hOTI POLLOI ESMEN.
>How would we rank the salience of LEGEI in this verse? Is this question
>and answer about the name LEGIWN a supporting detail somewhat
>subordinate to the main story line which is being carried along by the
>verbs in the aorist? I would be tempted to see the salience of EPHRWTA
>and LEGEI as roughly equal.
>Stephanie Black has an article in the same book which treats the
>historical present in Matthew. She sees the historical present with
>speech verbs as something like a fixed form, which I suspect means that
>it would have a different distribution as well as a different level of
>salience than historical present not associated with speech verbs.
The imperfect EPHRWTA is a typical use of the backgrounded imperfect (even
though 'perfective' in context) in order to lead-in to a more salient
event/saying which will follow the imperfect sentence/saying.
Thus, LEGEI, the event led into, would be more salient than EPHRWTA, with
LEGEI being roughly equivalent to EIPEN, though the whole scene will await
later develop. The aorist in 5.11 gets to the climax of the conversation.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:57 EDT