[b-greek] Re: (somewhat long), Re: Mk 10:21

From: Dave Reigle (reigles@paonline.com)
Date: Sat Sep 02 2000 - 01:38:35 EDT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I usually lurk on this list, but I want to say I
have found this discussion<BR>helpful.&nbsp; I'm glad to hear the patient
explanations and the direct<BR>questions.&nbsp; The question raised in your post
is one that has troubled me<BR>since I started looking into what these
Aspectologists are all about.(Please<BR>I mean no disrespect by Aspectologists,
I just don't know what word is<BR>general enough to cover what all these fine
scholars are doing.) To you who<BR>hold with this newer thinking on aspect, I
also ask:<BR>How do you know that aspect is only a point of view in Koine
Greek?&nbsp; How do<BR>you know that Foregrounding and Backgrounding are what
the writers intended<BR>to do with these morphological choices?&nbsp; If there
is some objective basis<BR>for these ideas, I would love to hear them, because I
am delighted to think<BR>about Aspect in these terms.&nbsp; It seems too explain
many difficulties, and<BR>provide a push toward the goal of understanding just
what the Greeks meant<BR>by they're choice of tenses.<BR>But I have an uneasy
feeling that I'm in a fairy land and not in touch with<BR>the "guts" of the
language.&nbsp; I am a mathematician by training, so you may<BR>see how this
viewpoint could appeal to me, but can you put me on a more<BR>solid footing with
some objective evidence?<BR>Thank you,<BR>Dave Reigle<BR>Elizabethtown, PA<BR><A
Original Message -----<BR>From: clayton stirling bartholomew &lt;<A
Biblical Greek &lt;<A
Friday, September 01, 2000 10:42 AM<BR>Subject: [b-Greek] Re: (somewhat long),
Re: Mk 10:21<BR><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>


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