[b-greek] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Mk 10:21

From: CWestf5155@aol.com
Date: Wed Aug 30 2000 - 17:23:12 EDT

Return-path: <CWestf5155@aol.com>
From: CWestf5155@aol.com
Full-name: CWestf5155
Message-ID: <a8.9f59cd1.26ded32f@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:14:23 EDT
Subject: Re: [b-greek] Re: Fwd: Mk 10:21
To: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu, b-greek@franklin.oit.une.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 114

In a message dated 08/30/2000 5:43:00 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes:

> >I guess that Rolf is suggesting that there is no pragmatic difference in
> >saying "You were lacking in one thing" and "You lack one thing" or perhaps
> >even "You lacked one thing" (throughout the process of your youth), since
> it
> >amounts to the same state or information. However, the full message
> involves
> >more than the transfer of information.
> I think this can be done in English as well; although the same essential
> content is expressed in each of these, there is certainly a difference of
> between the perspectives expressed inf:
> "You're missing one thing" or "You're getting one thing wrong" (Greek
> present)
> "You missed one thing" or "You got one thing wrong" (Greek aorist)
> "There was one thing you missed" (Greek imperfect)
> "One thing is definitely missing" (Greek perfect?)


Yes, and I think instances of speech like these in modern languages were
exactly what started the inquiry into aspect. As I said earlier, aspect is
also an issue in English studies.

And I also agree with your question mark on the perfect--you'd call its usage
"marked" which is emphatic, and while you can describe it, it needs a bit
more than a literal rendition in English (in my opinion).

Cindy Westfall,
PhD Student, Roehampton

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:35 EDT