Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 6:19 am
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 2:17 am
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑September 10th, 2018, 8:36 am
However, how do you think that οἶδα came to be used with a present sense in Greek, and why would nōvī in Latin do the same thing? BTW, fun fact, noscō is cognate with the Greek γιγνώσκω (in early Latin it is spelled gnoscō), which is not used in the same way in the perfect.
Not just Greek or Latin, but Swedish too. "I know" in Swedish is "jag vet," using a verb that is preterit in form but present in semantics. In fact, "vet" is a cognate of οἶδα. The answer is not a Greek answer but involves something way back in Proto-Indo-European or even pre-Proto-Indo-European.
Interesting. I suspect the answer is semantic. οἶδα is the o-grade of εἶδον, originally Ϝιδ- root. That comes into Latin as videō, perfect vīdī (yeah, I know, vēnī and vīcī). However, that perfect is used normally in Latin (I saw, I have seen) whereas the perfect of (g)noscō, nōvī, cognate with γιγνώσκω, is used in the present sense parallel to οἶδα.
My point is that οἶδα is a specialized usage. It doesn't speak for how the perfect is used for practically every other verb in Greek, so it really needs to be left out of the equation.
My understanding is that there are quite a few verbs that are naturally stative that take the perfect, although the perfect usually takes telic verbs. οἶδα isn't really an exception.
I've been reading Aubrey's thesis lately, and tried summarizing his views of the perfect (I didn't want to post the summary on here until he's had a chance to respond-- not sure he will like the way I've tried to simplify/summarize it). I'll just put in one small section here.
He says when a verb that's normally stative becomes intensified/perfected, it becomes the "highest degree of the state" (https://koine-greek.com/2015/05/14/stat ... fect-pt-1/
). This understanding particularly fits verbs that are gradient or express emotion (Aubrey thesis 109):
τεθύμωντο πρὸς τὴν ὕβριν
They were furious from the insult
(Josephus, Wars of the Jews 4.284).
Ἰσραὴλ μεμεθυσμένος οὐχὶ νοήσει
Israel, completely drunk, will have no ability to think
(Sibylline Oracles 1.360)
So verbs that are naturally stative, still become completive in the perfect. That is the difference the perfect makes in that situation.
Using the last example, what I was expecting was that if the Sibylline oracle quote was negated, we'd end up with Israel being a little buzzed, but not drunk.
Rev. 2:3 καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις, καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου, καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες.
Why is the perfect form used in Revelation 2:3, with the negative? Is it that they aren't at all tired? Not completely tired? Or is that asking too much of the verb-- all we can say for sure, is that something/someone isn't completely X, and whether they are a little X, or not at all X, is not something we know from the negated perfect.
In checking Rev. 2:3 this morning, BDAG says: "the pf. here expresses the thought that the Ephesian congregation has not become tired to the extent of ‘giving up’)."
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 558). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.