John 7:8 -- ANABHTE vs ANABAINW

Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Wed Mar 13 16:23:23 EST 2002


I've gotten a few off-list replies, and I appreciate them.  But I can
see from those replies that the point of my question is somewhat
missed.  I'm asking a deeper question.

In English, if I negate a progressive form, especially if the verb is
already inherently progressive (like `go', `walk', `run'; unlike `die',
`stop', `slap'), the entire action becomes perfective.  "I'm not
walking" means I'm in a STATE of "not walking".  It seems to me it
doesn't quite mean "I'm currently doing the activity of `not walking'." 
In other words, in English, at least with certain verbs, when you negate
a progressive, you get something that looks kinda perfective.

This issue is made more difficult since in English, when I say, "I'm
going" or "I'm not going" I also convey intention.  This is unlike when
I say, "I'm walking" or "I'm not slapping."  So, in English, when I say
"I'm not going" I'm not only negating the action of going, but I'm also
negating the intention.  This is problematic when translating this
sentence.  It may have also been problematic for the Greek since there
appears to be a textual issue.  For everyone's information some
manuscripts have OUPW for OUK.

Also, John 21:17 has a negated perfective ANABAINW and a progressive
ANABAINW.

Furthermore, first person aorists appear to be "I went" and I can't
imagine a way of meaning a punctiliar present `going' in the first
person.  Though it works in a second person imperative:  "you go".

So, my question has to do with whether the negation of 1st person
present ANABAINW reflects the sense of "not presently doing the action
of going."  Sort of a "I"m currently not going."

On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 14:24, Mike Sangrey wrote:
> John 7:8
>     hUMEIS ANABHTE EIS THN hEORTHN: EGW OUK ANABAINW EIS THN hEORTHN
>     TAUTHN, hOTI hO EMOS KAIROS OUPW PEPLHRWTAI.
> 
> I noticed the second ANABAINW is present tense while the first is
> aorist.  In English we can't say, "you go up to the feast, I not go up
> to this feast."  I suspect that one CAN say that in Greek and therefore
> there is a distinction in tense here.  What I'm wondering is this:  is
> the sense of this sentence along the lines of:
>     
>     You go up to the feast; I'm not presently going up to this feast
>     since I have some things I need to complete.
>     
> If it's translated as "you go up...I'm not going up..." the sense of the
> second verb is actually more perfective in English than I think the
> Greek conveys.  Here, the English means, "I'm not now, nor ever, going
> up."  But the Greek isn't perfective, it's imperfective, being in the
> present tense.
> 
> Does this make sense?  What are your thoughts?
> 
> Thank you a head of time for your feedback.

-- 
Mike Sangrey
msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Landisburg, Pa.
                        "The first one last wins."
            "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."




More information about the B-Greek mailing list