iterative -SKO, -SKE

Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Fri May 3 23:12:00 EDT 2002



Carl:

I wrote:

--------
> >Literally, I could go on all day. So I simply must be misunderstanding
> >you, or I am using the Interative aspect different than you use it.
> >Or, maybe we are using the Perfective tenses differently.
> >But as always, I remain open to correction by you. Where am I off?
--------

You replied:

--------
>From my perspective, you're seeing more in those verb-forms than I can see;
>moreover, it seems to me that you're making it rather difficult to
>distinguish the perfective from the imperfective aspect.
--------

I am NOT seeing the iterative (not interative.... sorry for the
slip) in the verb-form. That was precisely my argument against
Iver. What I am suggesting is that the iterative aspect is found
equally in all tenses, because iterative is NOT related to the
lexeme or its inflection per se. It is related to the context
AND these other factors.

The list I cited earlier was randomly selected by turning to
the pages of the GNT. The iterative aspect "can be" found in
all tenses and contexts. In fact, the only verbal component
that logically can NOT denote iteration is the lexeme, contra
Clay.

The verb "to die" is not subject to iteration. The verb "to hit"
quite naturally is.

I realize you contend that the iterative aspect is more so
denoted by the Imperfective forms, but that is exactly what
needs to be shown, not presupposed. I think my few examples
could be multiplied by the hundreds throughout the GNT.
I did not see any grammatical or linguistic reasons for rejecting
an iterative aspect EQUALLY present in the Perfective forms
as the Imperfectives.

Iteration is an interpreter's somewhat subjective understanding
of a text. It really is next to impossible to argue for or against
the positions we are "defending."

With many of my examples you suggested that a Imperfective form
would seem more appropriate, but that is exactly what I mean
by we are beginning with opposite presuppositions.

I'll just briefly reply to some of your remarks below.

---------
> >hOI PATERES hHMWN EN TWi OREI TOUTWi PROSEKUNHSAN
> >
> >"Our fathers repeatedly worshiped...

Carl wrote:

>I think you're importing "repeatedly" into the aorist here; I don't think
>anything more is being said in the verb PROSEKUNHSEN than that in fact the
>ancestors DID worship on the mountain in question. If there were any
>intention of indicating specifically that they worshipped REPEATEDLY on the
>mountain, I believe the verb would have been PROSEKUNOUN.
--------

This says nothing more than you assume the Imperfective form shows
iterative force. But that is exactly what is being argued. This would
seem to be circular reasoning. And I do not mean that with any
disrespect. I mean that we both are arguing the same thing, but
beginning with opposite presuppositions. What you would need to
show is that on grammatical and/or linguistic grounds my presupposition
is without support, not that we see things differently.


---------
> >DIA TOUTO KAGW AKOUSAS THN KAQ' hUMAS PISTIN...
> >
> >One could equally argue that Paul repeatedly heard this from
> >many people... (In fact, AKOUW would be a fairly common verb
> >that would reflect an iterative idea.)

Carl wrote:

>Perhaps one could argue that, but I certainly wouldn't. I'd expect
>"repeatedly hearing" to be expressed by AKOUWN.
--------

Same as above.

--------------
> >EIDOTES hOT hO EAN TI EKASTOS POIHSi AGAQON, TOUTO KOMIEITAI
> >PARA TOU KURIOU...
> >
> >Each time one does a good thing, he receives...

Carl wrote:

>This is a conditional construction in the future; while the principle might
>be exemplified recurrently, what's stated is the single instance.
----------

True, but only if we begin with your presupposition on iterative
uses. If we begin with mine, then your statement would be false.


-------------
> >PLHRWSATE MOU THN CARAN hINA TO AUTO FRONHTE...
> >
> >"Be repeatedly fulfilling my joy" would be as acceptable as
> >"for now, fulfill my joy this one time."

Carl wrote:

>I'm dumbfounded by this; from your usage I can't see any reason why one
>would choose to use an aorist rather than a present tense imperative. I
>would read this rather as, "make my joy full (get it accomplished!) ..."
-------

ditto (see above comments)


------------
> >The mystery, that is NUNI DE EFANERWQH TOIS hAGIOS AUTOU
> >
> >... is being revealed, is repeatedly being revealed to us,
> >the mystery is not something one understands at one sitting...

Carl wrote:

>You're confusing the fact of revelation with the process of understanding.
-----------

Or, as I would suggest, "you are confusing the process of understanding
with the fact of revelation."


-------------
> >KAQWS PAREKALESA SE PROSMEINAI EN EFESWi...
> >
> >How many times Paul besought Timothy is unknown, but one could
> >argue equally that he besought him only once, or repeatedly.

Carl wrote:

>I'd translate this, "As I have urged you to stay in Ephesus ..." While the
>urging may have been done more than once or twice, the verb form, as I see
>it, only indicates that Paul has in fact urged Timothy.
----------

I would agree that the Aorist highlights the fact Paul urged Tim,
but I would not consequently reject the iterative force, as if the
two were mutually exclusive. Many of your responses above concede
a possible repeated idea, but that you would not see that BECAUSE
of the Perfective form used. Again, that is what we are trying
to conclude, not presuppose.


---------
> >KAI CARIN ECW TWi ENDUNAMWSANTI ME CRISTWi IHSOU ....
> >
> >Again, Paul is repeatedly empowered by Christ during his ministry.

Carl wrote:

>And you honestly think that the repeated action is clearly implicit in
>ENDUNAMWSANTI? Perhaps one shot of power wasn't enough to do the trick?
>Once again, I see only simple fact here; I don't see any clear iteration.
---------

"Clearly implicit" is a bit strong to describe "aspect." And I think
the "one shot" is not at all what I am arguing against or for. I am
simply suggesting that Paul, like us, has his ups and downs. Often
he was discouraged, and often he was not. Perhaps we should be
discussing what ENDUNAMWSANTI means, not aspect. This of course
would probably lead to endless theological debates.

Please note that in all my above comments I am not saying that
YOU ARE WRONG. What I am unable to see from your comments is
that I AM WRONG.

As always, respectfully your student

Mark Wilson


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




More information about the B-Greek mailing list