Search

The verb ἕχω has two future formations, ἕξω and σχήσω. Opinion is divided, however, as to whether there is any semantic difference between them. In the view of some, ἕξω shows imperfective aspect ('will have, keep'), σχήσω perfective aspect ('will hold back, prevent'). Others deny that any such aspectual distinction can be drawn, pointing to passages where the supposedly aoristic σχήσω is clearly durative. Examination of the evidence from seven authors reveals that, despite the decline of the (-)σχησ- future, the two forms are nearly always used in distinct ways, which can often be characterized as aspectual. First, the (-)σχησ- future is used more often of telic events. Second, it is preferred when the verb has the meaning 'prevent', especially when it has a prepositional prefix; as this sense shows higher transitivity than the 'have' semantics of the (-)έξ- future, it is reasonable to associate it with the perfective aspect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The verb ἔχω has two future formations, ἕξω and σχήσω. Opinion is divided, however, as to whether there is any semantic difference between them. In the view of some, ἕξω shows imperfective aspect (‘will have, keep’), σχήσω perfective aspect (‘will hold back, prevent’). Others deny that any such aspectual distinction can be drawn, pointing to passages where the supposedly aoristic σχήσω is clearly durative. Examination of the evidence from seven authors reveals that, despite the decline of the (-)σχησ- future, the two forms are nearly always used in distinct ways, which can often be characterized as aspectual. First, the (-)σχησ- future is used more often of telic events. Second, it is preferred when the verb has the meaning ‘prevent’, especially when it has a prepositional prefix; as this sense shows higher transitivity than the ‘have’ semantics of the (-)ἑξ- future, it is reasonable to associate it with the perfective aspect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medieval Greek had three future periphrases making use of a finite verb and an infinitive: μέλλω + INF, ἔχω + INF, θέλω + INF + Given the parallel nature of the periphrases as well as the fact that the infinitive existed in both a perfective and an imperfective version, it might be expected that these future-referring forms developed aspectual distinctions in similar ways. However based on papyrological evidence from AD I and AD VI this article shows that this was not the case. Rather, each future periphrasis seems to follow its own path towards the aspectual distinction which is a hallmark of the Modern Greek verbal system:μέλλω+ INF has a much higher ratio of imperfective infinitives than the two other periphrases especially in AD I, ἔχω+ INF starts out using only the perfective infinitive when referring to the future, and θέλω + INF distinguishes for aspect before it gains future meaning. The difference in aspectual usage is explained both by the semantics of the respective auxiliaries and by different oppositional relations (modal and temporal) that the periphrases enter into. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that the present tense-form (ἐρΧόμενον) used in the confession of 2 John 7 should be understood as parallel to the perfect tense-form (ἐληλυθότα) used in the confession of t John 4:2. After critically reviewing the five current ways the present tense-form is interpreted, the article outlines how recent research into verbal aspect indicates that the present and perfect tense-forms are closely related. Evidence of this relationship is then provided from 1 John allowing some conclusions to be drawn about the five current interpretive options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most compelling proofs Porter offers to substantiate his claim that Koiné Greek does not encode temporal reference in the verb is the test of contrastive sub-stitution. The reasoning goes that if the different tense-forms can be used in the same temporal context, then these forms must convey something other than time, i.e., Greek lacks tense. Porter's primary literature makes clear that his claim is invalid, yet neither he or nor subsequent researchers engage or acknowledge these counterarguments. This raises troubling questions about the adequacy of interdisciplinary peer-review in NT linguistic studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Tahlhiyt Berber certain verbs form their imperfective stem by geminating one consonant. Since Dell and Elmedlaoui 1988, accounts of imperfective gemination have been based on syllable structure. Lahrouchi (2010) proposes an alternative analysis based on a binary-branching head-complement structure that regulates the distribution of consonant types in verbal roots. This paper argues that the syllable-based account is preferable and that it makes the head-complement structures advocated by Lahrouchi redundant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]