[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Thu Jul 1 22:53:05 EDT 1999

"Carl W. Conrad" wrote:

> At 10:23 PM -0500 6/30/99, James S. Murray wrote:
> >Greetings everyone:
> >
> >I would appreciate some help in understanding the use of verb tense in
> >dependent clauses.  The text reads;  ...KAI EPISTEUSAN OSOI HSAN
> >TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION.  I take the dependent clause as an
> >adverbial relative clause, either of condition or possibly comparison
> >(yes?).  Is the use of the periphastic pluperfect relative to the main
> >verb, implying the action occurred prior to the action of the main verb,
> >or is this only true with participles (non-periphrastic, that is)?  I'm
> >just interested in the grammar, please.
> I think the main thing to be said about the verb form TETAGMENOI HSAN is
> that one regularly finds ONLY the periphrastic in the third plural both in
> the perfect passive and in the pluperfect passive. The older inflected
> forms TETACATO and TETACATAI are found in Homer, perhaps here and there
> elsewhere in earlier Greek: reduplicated stem TETAC + NTAI/NTO with typical
> shift of the consonantal N to the vowel A between two consonants. So you
> wouldn't see a non-periphrastic form in Koine--and yes, I think the time is
> relative to the time of the main verb, i.e., prior.

Carl,  Just to clarify, would it be true, then, that the verb tense in any kind
of dependent clause is generally relative to the main verb; i.e. a present
tense would denote action taking place at the same time as the action of the
main verb, an aorist would denote action prior to the action of the main verb,
and so forth?  I understand that this is generally true with participles,
unless it is an aorist participle describing attendent circumstances.  My
question is if this is also true of any verb form in a dependent clause? Hope
this makes sense?



Jim Murray
Racine, WI

More information about the B-Greek mailing list