The negation of perfect verb forms
Re: The negation of perfect verb forms
If indeed from εἴκω, "to have resembled, to have been like" becomes the completed or settled state represented by our English "seem."Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 11:12 pmἔοικεν
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: The negation of perfect verb forms
Excellent. I’ll take “completed or settled state” over “completed action.” That’s a big step in the right direction.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑September 14th, 2018, 9:36 am If indeed from εἴκω, "to have resembled, to have been like" becomes the completed or settled state represented by our English "seem."
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: The negation of perfect verb forms
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑September 14th, 2018, 10:01 amExcellent. I’ll take “completed or settled state” over “completed action.” That’s a big step in the right direction.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑September 14th, 2018, 9:36 am If indeed from εἴκω, "to have resembled, to have been like" becomes the completed or settled state represented by our English "seem."

Re: The negation of perfect verb forms
Really? You're doing this?Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 9:18 am It's one example out of many. I also gave ἔοικα. Please tell me how "the perfect refers simply to completed action" in James 1:6: αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει μηδὲν διακρινόμενος · ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένῳ.
State predicates don't behave like that.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: The negation of perfect verb forms
Who are you asking? Barry was claiming that there's a completed "action." I disagree and so I want to know from him where he thinks the action is in a state predicate.MAubrey wrote: ↑September 17th, 2018, 4:56 pmReally? You're doing this?Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 9:18 am It's one example out of many. I also gave ἔοικα. Please tell me how "the perfect refers simply to completed action" in James 1:6: αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει μηδὲν διακρινόμενος · ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένῳ.
State predicates don't behave like that.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: The negation of perfect verb forms
And I actually answered that.Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑September 17th, 2018, 7:03 pmWho are you asking? Barry was claiming that there's a completed "action." I disagree and so I want to know from him where he thinks the action is in a state predicate.MAubrey wrote: ↑September 17th, 2018, 4:56 pmReally? You're doing this?Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 9:18 am It's one example out of many. I also gave ἔοικα. Please tell me how "the perfect refers simply to completed action" in James 1:6: αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει μηδὲν διακρινόμενος · ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένῳ.
State predicates don't behave like that.
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: The negation of perfect verb forms
I have a feeling Mike's comment came in media res.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: March 17th, 2025, 11:05 am
Re: The negation of perfect verb forms
Hello, folks. Forgive me for reviving an old thread, and forgive me for any misunderstandings I may have about current understandings of perfect verbs...but I'm on a research mission, and the topic of the negation of perfect verbs is the target. There is very little discussion of this in literature available to me, so this thread has been fascinating. I would describe my own proficiency in Greek as on the lower edge of intermediate, so still have tons to learn.
I'm hear because of Robert Thomas' claim in his Revelation commentary that the negated perfect verb form in Rev 13:8 (οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς) and 17:8 (ὧν οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα ἐπὶ τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς) negates not an initial action, but the resulting state. Thus, it's not that they were never written, but that they didn't remain written.
From my standpoint, I believe he is likely theologically motivated in his exegesis here, but setting all the theology aside for the moment, I still am wrestling with his argument and haven't found much discussion on negation of perfect verbs outside of this thread. In light of the discussion here, how you would reason through his argument? In support, he only cites A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures, but I think he misunderstands Robertson who understands the perfect here to refer to a permanent state and thus suggests "stands written" as a translation. Negating this would simply mean they did not have the benefit of being permanently written, but it does not necessarily follow that they once had their names written. Thomas, however, seems to take it as justification that the names could possibly have been removed as they didn't "stand written".
I realize Robertson is a dated resource; I'm just interacting with Thomas' citation. I also realize there seems to be a shift in understanding of the use of the perfect that I was taught in seminary year ago, away from the grammatical concept of "past completed action with ongoing effect" that Robertson and Thomas may have been operating under, to a more a discourse function understanding that perfects highlight relevant information to the argument (per Runge, etc).
Help me out here! What do I need to know? How would you evaluate these claims?
I'm hear because of Robert Thomas' claim in his Revelation commentary that the negated perfect verb form in Rev 13:8 (οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς) and 17:8 (ὧν οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα ἐπὶ τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς) negates not an initial action, but the resulting state. Thus, it's not that they were never written, but that they didn't remain written.
From my standpoint, I believe he is likely theologically motivated in his exegesis here, but setting all the theology aside for the moment, I still am wrestling with his argument and haven't found much discussion on negation of perfect verbs outside of this thread. In light of the discussion here, how you would reason through his argument? In support, he only cites A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures, but I think he misunderstands Robertson who understands the perfect here to refer to a permanent state and thus suggests "stands written" as a translation. Negating this would simply mean they did not have the benefit of being permanently written, but it does not necessarily follow that they once had their names written. Thomas, however, seems to take it as justification that the names could possibly have been removed as they didn't "stand written".
I realize Robertson is a dated resource; I'm just interacting with Thomas' citation. I also realize there seems to be a shift in understanding of the use of the perfect that I was taught in seminary year ago, away from the grammatical concept of "past completed action with ongoing effect" that Robertson and Thomas may have been operating under, to a more a discourse function understanding that perfects highlight relevant information to the argument (per Runge, etc).
Help me out here! What do I need to know? How would you evaluate these claims?
-
- Posts: 4220
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: The negation of perfect verb forms
Welcome to B-Greek! We have plenty of people to answer questions, we need more good questions like yours.kchipchase wrote: ↑March 17th, 2025, 11:44 am Hello, folks. Forgive me for reviving an old thread, and forgive me for any misunderstandings I may have about current understandings of perfect verbs...but I'm on a research mission, and the topic of the negation of perfect verbs is the target. There is very little discussion of this in literature available to me, so this thread has been fascinating. I would describe my own proficiency in Greek as on the lower edge of intermediate, so still have tons to learn.
I do not have that commentary. Does he give any evidence for this claim?kchipchase wrote: ↑March 17th, 2025, 11:44 amI'm hear because of Robert Thomas' claim in his Revelation commentary that the negated perfect verb form in Rev 13:8 (οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς) and 17:8 (ὧν οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα ἐπὶ τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς) negates not an initial action, but the resulting state. Thus, it's not that they were never written, but that they didn't remain written.
Let's look at some negated perfect verbs of expression and perception ...
John 5:37
Romans 15:21καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ οὐδέποτε ἀκηκόατε οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε
1 John 1:10ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται· οἷς οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὄψονται, καὶ οἳ οὐκ ἀκηκόασιν συνήσουσιν
ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν, ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτόν
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/