From: Frank W. Hughes (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 13:44:02 EDT
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
The real issue that the significance of participles is really a subset
of is what significance the tense of verbs has: does tense really
mean time or does it mean aspect? I think the time significance of
participles is well described in William D. Mounce, <u>Basics of Biblical
Greek</u>, pp. 239-241 and 248-250. He says that participles have
no time significance, except to relate to the same time as the main verb
of the sentence. See also pp. 118-120 as he presents aspect in his
introduction to verbs.
<p>I think Wallace has a good discussion of the two sides of the debate.
One side holds that tense means mostly time or partially time and partially
aspect. Another side, strongly influenced by modern linguistics,
means that tense means aspect, period. That is the view that Wallace
calls the non-temporal view.
<p>The view that Mounce presents is that all verbs and verb forms have
aspect; only indicative verbs have time. The reason that present
participles are so called is that they are built on the present stem of
<p>I hope this helps. Aspect of verbs is not an easy thing to grasp.
I like the up-front way it is presented in Mounce.
<br>Frank W. Hughes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:27 EDT