Two examples of participles expressing time are given.
In the second one, “φυγων τουσ βατβαρουσ υπο τω Αθηναιων εαλω” I recognize “φυγων” and “εαλω” as the aorist tense of both the participle and the main verb. So all is clear.
My problem is with the first example, “εκοψε τον δικαστην εξιοντα”, where, as Ι see it, the main verb is in the aorist tense but I don’t recognize any past tense in the participle. Shouldn’t the circumstantial temporal participle be expressing a past tense to go with the main verb?
Thanks to all responders.
The answer to your question lies in aspect not tense. If you look again at unit 20 all should be clear. The action of hitting was a one off completed action in the past. The action of coming out was a continuous action.
This should also help:
"The present participle conveys the aspect of the present stem: that is, continuous or repeated action. In practice, it most often refers to an action contemporaneous with the action of the main verb of the sentence and is usually translated in English by a present participle (X’ing, being X’ed). But in the proper context, the present participle may refer to an action antecedent or subsequent to that of the main verb; for example, a Greek present participle may be translated into English as an imperfect:
τοὺς τότε παρόντας οὐ παραδώσει.
He will not surrender those who were present at that time.
p 225.
Participles generally don’t carry information about absolute time, unlike (in most cases) the tenses of the indicative. The three “tenses” of participles are really verbal aspects, indicating whether the verb is seen as ongoing, as a complete action without regard to duration, or as a process with a lasting effect.
Generally speaking, however, a present participle indicates an action ongoing at the time of the main verb, while an aorist participle indicates an action already complete at the time of the main verb. So φυγων in the first sentence indicates that the subject escaped the barbarians before being captured by the Athenians. In the second sentence εξιοντα indicates that the judge was struck as he was leaving.
Cross posted with Seneca.
Thanks to both Seneca and Hylander for the two replies received so far.
This is rather embarrassing. After submitting the post I reread the text on the first page of the unit and discovered the answer as expressed by both of you. I thought of deleting my post but figured that your replies might give me even more insight, which they did.
So thanks again to both of you.