Jonathan Robie wrote:Porterites, Campbellites, and Deckerites are much more common in NT circles than in Rijksbaron's circles. Would we need to modify this note?
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:R. says "it is not taken into account that 'not-completed' and 'completed' should in principle be understood as 'not-completed' and 'completed' with regard to a certain point of orientation". I feel I almost get it (and the whole of his argument) but not quite. What does he mean?
Rijksbaron, Syntax, 2 wrote:On the other hand, it is often stated that Greek had no proper means to express relative time and that the stems are really aspect stems, aspect being defined as the 'the speaker's view of the internal constituency of the state of affairs'. Thus, the speaker would be free to choose between, for instance, a present stem form and an aorist stem form, a choice simply depending on whether he would view the state of affairs as 'not-completed' or 'completed'. In general, this opinion is untenable. For one thing, an important function of, for instance, the imperfect and aorist indicative in temporal clauses is neglected: they serve to establish the order of events, a function especially significant in historical narrative. In other words, it is not taken into account that 'not-completed' and 'completed' should in principle be understood as 'not-completed' and 'completed' with regard to a certain point of orientation.
Rijksbaron, Syntax, 76 wrote:Temporal clauses establish a temporal relationship between two states of affairs. Relative to the state of affairs of the main clause that of the dependent clause may be anterior, simultaneous or posterior; the dependent clause may express both single and repeated states of affairs, in past, present, or future, as well as habitual.
Eeli wrote:
Students would certainly be confused if they first were introduced to a more or less tensless view as a de facto consensus
... lack of peer-reviewed ...
Jonathan Robie wrote:Porterites, Campbellites, and Deckerites are much more common in NT circles than in Rijksbaron's circles. Would we need to modify this note?
Stephen Carlson wrote:Jonathan Robie wrote:Porterites, Campbellites, and Deckerites are much more common in NT circles than in Rijksbaron's circles. Would we need to modify this note?
I checked the 1984 edition of the book. It is pre-Porter, but the wording of this note is the same. I wonder who Rijksbaron's target was?
Return to The Verb in Koine Greek
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest