Jonathan Robie wrote:Why does Rijksbaron chose to use the infinitive when he presents the five tense stems, rather than the principal parts? Why does he choose the future perfect?
Jonathan Robie wrote:Why does he use the perfect middle for the perfect stem?
Jonathan Robie wrote:Is there need for the future perfect stem?
Jonathan Robie wrote:If we were writing this for Koine, would it be better to use the principal parts? Would we choose a different verb?
Stephen Carlson wrote:Jonathan Robie wrote:If we were writing this for Koine, would it be better to use the principal parts? Would we choose a different verb?
I am a recent convert to the value of principal parts because that is how the Greek verbal system is organized.
Stephen Carlson wrote:I would also chose a different verb and present it like this:
1. the present stem λύ-ειν as in λύω (ἔλυον)
2. the future stem λύ-σειν as in λύσω
3. the aorist stem λῦσ-αι as in ἔλυσα
4. the perfect active stem λελυκ-έναι as in λέλυκα (ἐλελύκη)
5. the perfect middle stem λελύ-σθαι as in λέλυμαι
6. the passive stem λυθῆ-ναι as in ἐλύθην (λυθήσομαι)
Stephen Carlson wrote:Except for the future stem, all the stems convey aspect (indeed, I would claim that the passive stem conveys perfective aspect, even in the future). (Con Campbell argues that the future too is perfective.) I would also suggest that Koine students would find the Rijksbaron's term "confective" less familiar than "perfective."
Jonathan Robie wrote:Is the "passive stem" a marker of aspect? Do ἐλύθην and λυθήσομαι have the same aspect?
Stephen Carlson wrote:I would claim that the passive stem conveys perfective aspect, even in the future
Jonathan Robie wrote:Can you say more?
Rijksbaron wrote:- the present stem (e.g. βουλεύε-σθαι)
- the aorist stem (e.g. βουλεύσα-σθαι)
- the perfect stem (e.g. βεβουλεῦ-σθαι)
- the future stem (e.g. βουλεύσε-σθαι)
- the future perfect stem (e.g. βεβουλεύσε-σθαι)
Smyth wrote:I. Present, including present and imperfect.
II. Future, “ future active and middle.
III. First aorist, “ first aorist active and middle.
IV. Second aorist, “ second aorist active and middle.
V. First perfect, “ first perfect, first pluperfect, and fut. perf., active.
VI. Second perfect, “ second perfect and second pluperfect active.
VII. Perfect middle, “ perfect and pluperfect middle (pass.), future perfect.
VIII. First passive, “ first aorist and first future passive.
IX. Second passive, “ second aorist and second future passive.
Jonathan Robie wrote:Is Rijksbaron oversimplifying here? I haven't read the entire book yet, does he say there are some kinds of stems that are not "tense stems"?
Stephen Carlson wrote:The two issues I would have for the typical Koine student (e.g., one who had a year of Mounce), would be:
(1) The unfamiliarity of the verb βουλεύεσθαι, and
(2) The extinction of the future perfect.
In addition, they may be more familiar with, and wondering about, the principal parts.
Jonathan Robie wrote:...
Might as well introduce the principal parts at the beginning, even if it does add a little more complexity. We can ignore voice for now, and focus on tense and aspect.
RandallButh wrote:Basically, that means that the reader needs to consider FOUR stems, or more precisely, four tense-aspect categories.
RandallButh wrote:The four-fold system will allow the student to follow and integrate what is learned in Rijksbaron with discussions in Fanning, et al.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest