RandallButh wrote:"What is wrong with this picture?"
RandallButh wrote:What is incongruent in that statement?
RandallButh wrote:The pairing is a mismatch, either the wrong aspects are being paired, or for a small subset of verbs (related to ἐκεκράγει), the opposition doesn't normally exist**.
The fact that a pairing is rare cannot be said to be significant unless you motivate it.
RandallButh wrote:On the one hand, the opposite of an imperfect is an aorist indicative. The imperfect is a past marked for imperfectivity while the aorist is a past marked for perfectivity. An author can subjectively take a particular verb and move in and out of the modes of presentation, choosing an imperfect ('e.g. was singing') or an aorist ('sang'). That is plain-vanilla narration, provides relational information to the flow of the story and can be used for additional pragmatic effects.
If you paid attention to how the past perfect is used in narrative, you'd see that it fills the very same function in narrative in relation to the aorist: offline, background material vs. mainline, foreground.
RandallButh wrote:The incongruency in the quoted statement is the pairing of imperfect with past-perfect. That is not a normal or expected opposition.
You keep saying that. But I need something more than your intuition and translation glosses to be convinced of it. By what language internal criteria
do you make such a claim? I certainly do not see evidence (here or in general) that using two aspectual forms in conjunction with each other should be viewed as anomalous.
**As a PPS: notice in Josephus how the pluperfect ἐκεκράγει functions with imperfects:
Antiq 10.117 ... ἐκεκράγει καὶ ἐκήρυσσε (were proclaiming)
War 2.280 ... ἱκέτευον (were imploring) ... ἐκεκράγεσαν
War 2.295 (ἔνιοι) ... ἐκεκράγεσαν ... ἀπῄτουν (were soliciting).
War 2.599 ...(τὸ πλῆθος) ἀνεβόα (crowd was crying out)... (οἱ δε) ἐκεκράγεσαν (others were "having-cawwed"-ing) παρώξυνεν δὲ τοὺς πολλούς ὁ Ἰωάννης (was provoking).
War 5.458-459 ... ἐβλασφήμουν (were blaspheming) ... ἐβόων (were shouting) ... ἀναμίσγοντες (mixing these words with reproaches) ἐκεκράγεσαν (were "having cawwed"-ing).
War 6.308 μάλιστα δ' ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς ἐκεκράγει (especially in the feasts he used to "having cawwed") ... οὔτ' ἤμβλυνεν τὴν φωνήν ([and for 7 years and 5 months] was not dulling his voice).
I could take the time to repeat all of these clauses and then add my own non-imperfective translation in parenthesis, too, but that wouldn't make my claim any more true that it does for yours. Give me a motivation.
RandallButh wrote:NB: Josephus does not use the imperfect (e.g., ἔκραζε). The commonplace imperfect of this word is a seemingly colloquial development that occurs in the NT 13 times.
(1) Is the significance of that fact that the perfect is filling that role?
(2) Is it that Josephus never had a practical need to use the past imperfective?
(3) Or is it that the semantics of the lexeme are such and the semantics of the perfect are such that there's a grammatical preference for the perfect over against the imperfect?
Considering that there are only 16 instances of κρἀζω in the past imperfective from Homer up to the 2nd century AD (in Perseus plus the Duke Documentary Papyri and other texts in Logos), there's little reason why I should go with either options one or two. Option three is vastly superior. It also makes sense when we note that the non-past imperfective is nearly just as rare for this verb.
cwconrad wrote:The form is clearly perfect, but LSJ clearly enough indicates that the perfect κέκραγα is indeed commonly used in a present sense, κεκράξομαι is used as a future equivalent to κράξω
Nouns κέκγραγμα, κεκραγμός and κεκρακτής are built on the perfect stem; these nouns appear in Aristophanes, Euripides, and Lysias, Attic authors. Use of the perfect in a present sense must, it would seem, be Attic. κέκραχθι and κεκράγεε appear as imperatives of κράζω in Aristophanes and Menander.
I'd like to know more about these perfect tense forms that appear to be used in the sense of a present tense. There are evidently several in addition to οἷδα and ἕστηκα. ἔρρωμαι (ῥώννυμαι) is one of them, from which our "farewell" ἕρρωσο derives; another may be πεφίμωσο (= φιμώθητι) -- although this may be an instance of conflation of aorist and perfect.
What does LSJ mean by "present sense"? Do they mean present temporal reference? Do they mean "used like a non-past imperfective" (i.e. Greek present stem)?