Mark House wrote:The κραζω confusion isn't limited to future/future perfect. Bernard Taylor's database, which parses all the reduplicated future forms as future perfects, parses several other reduplicated forms as aorists:
The whole discussion raises a larger question for lexicographers. Do we parse words according to their form or according to their presumed meaning. Should the 2perfect forms of οιδα be parsed as presents and pluperfects as aorists? It makes more sense to me from a pedagogical standpoint to parse according to form and then go on to explain that in the case of certain verbs the tense meanings have (presumably) shifted over time.
Mark House wrote:Here are the search results from Logos. It doesn't have forms of οιδα, which it parses as futures:
Ken M. Penner wrote:Next: what about second aorists and imperfects?
Alan Patterson wrote:May I ask a rather naive question or two about this two-tense designation?
How should I understand a Future Perfect? (what is the difference in translating a Future Passive from a Future Perfect)
How hypothetically would I understand a Future Present (which to me seems equivalent to Future Perfect in its translation)?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest