PeterD wrote:Can we say that the proleptic aorist, unlike the future tense, stresses the the unequivocal outcome of the event at some unknown time in the future? It is going to happen, but the time is not defined (aorist = undefined).
Yes, that seems like a good definition of the proleptic aorist.
You raise an interesting issue with regard to the meaning of 'aorist'. Dionysisus Thrax and his commentators apply the term 'aorist' (undefined, indefinite) to both the aorist and future tenses. They would seem to mean that both tenses are indifferent with respect to nearness in time. "I went to the store" could mean I went yesterday or 10 years ago. Similarly, "I will go to the store" could mean in the next 5 seconds or some day in the far future.
Later authors like Goodwin regard the meaning of 'aorist' from a more aspectual perspective, e.g., having to with freedom from the limitations imposed by aspectual concepts like completion, progress, repetition, etc.
The proleptic aorist must take its force from aorist aspect
and not from any past temporal reference.
A particularly good example of the proleptic aorist is Jude 1.14:
[face=SPIonic]le/gwn )Idou\ h)=lqen Ku/rioj e)n a(gi/aij muria/sin au)tou=[/face]
"saying 'Behold, the Lord is coming
with his many saints'.."