From: Mark Wilson (emory2oo2@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Dec 19 2000 - 10:29:39 EST
<x-flowed>
Kimmo:
You wrote:
--------
>There would have been another option to use if the point was just a past
>reference time: the imperfect HGAPA. But I feel that the imperfect
>(imperfective) would be less natural here. God only once "so-loved" the
>world that He gave His Son. That would make it countable, perfective,
>bounded, and therefore the aorist is used over the imperfect.
--------
What this statement appears to attribute to the Aorist (perfective aspect)
is the semantic charatcteristics of "coutable, perfective, and bounded."
Now, according to Mari Olsen, if these characteristics can be cancelled in
other uses, then they are not "semantically" part of the Aorist.
The often quoted Gnomic Aorist passage does appear to cancel one or more of
these characteristics:
1 Peter 1:24
EXHRANQH hO CORTOS KAI TO ANQOS EXEPESEN
(The grass withers and the flower falls away)
Here, I would say that "countable and bounded" are not semantically related
to THIS use of the Aorist. And therefore, would not your view of
John 3:16 be true on PRAGMATIC grounds? That is, I think your conclusions
seem valid, but to attribute "countable and bounded" to the Aorist is rather
its PRAGMATIC, not SEMANTIC, feature. (Namely, elsewhere we see the Aorist
not used as it is in John 3:16.)
What makes John 3:16 "countable and bounded" is not the Aorist, but the
telic aspect of the perfective EDWKEN. The telic aspect of GAVE can NOT be
cancelled.
This is what I think Mari means when she says that Porter's Verbal system is
"overly simplistic." Without giving equal weight to LEXICAL ASPECT, much is
lost. (Remember, I am NOT speaking for Mari. This is only how I understand
her.)
Kimmo, am I misuderstanding your concept of PERFECTIVE? The reason I
understand your attributing the "countable and bounded" to the Aorist is
based on this statement you make: God only once "so-loved" (I almost get the
sense that because God's love finally attained this level, that he gave.)
By putting "once" into this clause seems to indicate you are taking "LOVE"
as countable and bounded. On a lexical level, I would think that "love"
itself can not be converted to "countability or boundedness." To view a
one-time-situation in which love was present does not seem to say anything
about the nature of that love.
Thank you,
Mark Wilson
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
---
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
</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:44 EDT