From: Mark Wilson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Aug 27 2000 - 13:03:30 EDT
How can this happen?
Wallace/Manning seem to see the Aorist Tense in a way radically different
It seems to me that Wallace sees the Aorist Tense as the Past Tense,
conceding that other “intrusions” can alter its fundamental, inherent “past
But Porter does not seem to see the Aorist Tense as a “past tense.” He
seems to argue that it requires grammatical “intrusions” to indicate Past
tense, as if “past tense” is not its fundamental sense.
Do I understand this debate correctly?
If so, what can I state “for sure” about the Aorist Tense?
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:34 EDT