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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.