Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:
> Dear Harold,
>
> In the study of a dead language we can never draw a conclusion and believe 
> that this is the final word, this is the truth. But by the use of different 
> approaches we can try to come as close the the correct understanding as 
> possible. I have also applied my model to New Testament Greek, although I 
> have not yet analysed all the verbs of the NT. You are correct in your 
> observations that the aorist may have non-pastreference - it can even has 
> future reference (e.g., Jude 1:14). My  conclusion so far is that past tense 
> is not a  part of the aorist, but it represents the perfective aspect. I 
> take the imperfect as as past tense + the imperfective aspect, present as 
> the imperfective aspect, and future as future tense.
>   

HH: So how do you distinguish the aorist from the perfect? Presumably 
the perfect is also perfective, as you are saying the aorist is.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
>