From: Mark Wilson (emory2oo2@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 25 2001 - 11:29:51 EDT
<x-flowed>
Jonathan wrote:
>"You (plural) let it be known" captures most of this, but not the
>distinction between aorist imperative and present imperative. The present
>imperative would imply an ongoing or habitual activity. The aorist
>imperative implies something that should be done as a simple action.
Is there really a material difference in either command? It seems to
me that both the Pres. and Aorist Imperatives command the same behavior, the
difference is only in HOW a writer wants to present
the command.
Just as in the gospels, the same event is described by one
writer using the Present, while another writer chooses to use the
Aorist.
I wonder if the Pres. Imp. stresses the need to initiate the behavior
NOW (rather than in some "on-going, continual" fashion), and the Aor. Imp.
stresses the need to behave a certain way ALWAYS (as a rule).
The Pres. Imp. would also imply remaining (always) obedient, as well as the
Aor. Imp. would imply that the behavior should begin immediately (now).
I guess for some reason I tend to NOT see the Present Tense as
something of an ON-GOING, CONTINUAL nature, but rather something
of a NOW nature.
Any thoughts?
Mark Wilson
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
---
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 - 15:37:02 EDT