From: Decker, Rodney (rdecker@bbc.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 05 2002 - 05:59:31 EST
<x-html>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=360085410-05022002>I've not time to answer this in detail here. It's been
debated vigorously on the list before (search several years back for the most
extensive discussions). I've addressed the augment question & the imperfect
in my book, *Temporal Deixis....* In (very) brief summary, the augment is viewed
as a marker for secondary endings, not past tense. It is morphological, not
semantically tensed.</SPAN></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=360085410-05022002><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2><STRONG>Book info (on augment, see pp. 39f):
<http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/deixis.htm>.></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>============================================<BR>Rodney J.
Decker, Th.D.<BR>Associate Prof/NT, Baptist Bible Seminary<BR>Clarks Summit,
Pennsylvania, USA<BR><<A href="http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/"
target=_blank>http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/>><BR>PURL: <<A
href="http://purl.oclc.org/NT_Resources/"
target=_blank>http://purl.oclc.org/NT_Resources/>><BR>============================================<BR></FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Rbsads@aol.com
[mailto:Rbsads@aol.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 04, 2002 10:43
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Biblical Greek<BR><B>Subject:</B> [b-greek] past tense
augment<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=360085410-05022002><STRONG><FONT face="Trebuchet MS"
color=#0000ff> </FONT></STRONG></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=360085410-05022002> </SPAN>My question is concerning the
grammarians who interpret verb form as rendering aspect and not time. For
these it seems that temporal indications are entirely contextual. How do
these grammarians understand the significance of the tense augment for the
aorist and imperfect? Most explanations indicate that the augment
indicates past tense, which of course is not consistent with an understanding
of verbal form as rendering aspect only.
</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>
---<BR>
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]<BR>
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>
<BR>
</BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:17 EDT