Ps. 41:5 (LXX) TAUTA EMNHSQHN KAI EXECEA EP' EME THN YUCHN MOU hOTI DIELEUSOMAI EN TOPWi SKHNHS QAUMASTHS hEWS TOU OIKOU TOU QEOU EN FWNHi AGALLIASEWS KAI EXOMOLOGHSEWS HCOU hEOPTAZONTOS. My original question was: > What do you make of this use of the future > tense? Is this just a bad translation of the underlying Hebrew (changing > the sense of the Hebrew text), or can the future tense be used to > describe something that used to happen? Steven R. Lo Vullo wrote: > It may be a bad translation *and* a description of past action. As far as > past action is concerned, it all depends on how you understand hOTI. If it > is causal, then I don't see any way to take DIELEUSOMAI as past action. > However, in light of the fact that at least one of the main verbs is a verb > of perception, which may have a hOTI clause introducing indirect discourse > as its direct object, it is at least possible to take hOTI as a marker of > indirect discourse. This is a very interesting possibility. Does anyone know of any clear instances where a future tense is embedded within indirect discourse? Thanks again, Jonthan Boyd Ankeny, Iowa (experiencing a blizzard right now) ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu