Τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν

David, I don't believe I said aspect.David Lim wrote:From where did you get the idea that there is aspect in the imperative?
Here you say that the perfect imperative is durative but later you say that it is constative. But nevermind I think it is neither.Scott Lawson wrote:David,
Be silent, Put the muzzle on and keep it on. σιώπα, πεφίμωσο...Mark 4:39. The action is durative. Be in good health. ἔρρωσο Acts 23:30 Text. Rec.
The perfect imperative is rare in the N.T. and the action is durative.
Yes I mistook your statements, because I do not think lexical aspect (inherent in the verb) can be independent of grammatical aspect (expressed in grammatical syntax), but that grammatical aspect is restricted to such as is permitted by lexical aspect. As far as I know, and as you can also see from the examples in Funk's Grammar, I do not see evidence for the classification according to Smyth. Besides the examples of multiple imperatives that I listed, compare "λεγετε" in Luke 10:5 with "ειπατε" in Luke 10:10, and "γινωσκετε" in Luke 10:11 with "γνωτε" in Luke 21:20.Scott Lawson wrote:David, I don't believe I said aspect.David Lim wrote:From where did you get the idea that there is aspect in the imperative?
Hmmm....I'm not sure who's confused here...Robertson or Smyth. There is only one more perfect imperative in the NT (James 1:19) and it seems to me to be durative. I'm sure there is a reason the perfect imperative is dying out in the NT and is dead in MGreek. For more examples I guess we'd have to ask Homer. I don't mind letting Funk referee between Robertson and Smyth. I understand him to be saying that context is king and with this I heartily agree!David Lim wrote:Here you say that the perfect imperative is durative but later you say that it is constative. But nevermind I think it is neither.
Here you are speaking more English than I understand.David Lim wrote:Yes I mistook your statements, because I do not think lexical aspect (inherent in the verb) can be independent of grammatical aspect (expressed in grammatical syntax), but that grammatical aspect is restricted to such as is permitted by lexical aspect.
Oh! It just occurred to me that maybe I was confused! Let's go with durative!Scott Lawson wrote:Hmmm....I'm not sure who's confused here...Robertson or Smyth. ....David Lim wrote:Here you say that the perfect imperative is durative but later you say that it is constative. But nevermind I think it is neither.
Or, maybe it could be both depending on context just as Funk says!Scott Lawson wrote:Oh! It just occurred to me that maybe I was confused! Let's go with durative!Scott Lawson wrote:Hmmm....I'm not sure who's confused here...Robertson or Smyth. ....David Lim wrote:Here you say that the perfect imperative is durative but later you say that it is constative. But nevermind I think it is neither.
Thanks David, for your question.Scott Lawson wrote:David Lim wrote:
From where did you get the idea that there is aspect in the imperative?
David, I don't believe I said aspect.