Having just downloaded the sample, it doesn’t seem to be proper reflowable Kindle text - rather, page images. They are pretty clear, but that’s still not ideal fit big pages.
Can anyone with the full Kindle edition verify whether it’s a proper Kindle edition or page images ask the way through?
Can you explain the following in the review you cited. “A minority of NT scholars and students will likely be disappointed to find that the authors take the position that tense is grammaticalized in the indicative mood, but of course grammarians and linguists of Classical Greek have wholly rejected the idea of a tenseless verb for the language on empirical ground.”
Thanks!
This article seems a good place to start:
I was trying to respond directly to Paul, but I just have a quick question. Is the book about the Greek verb by Rijksbaron called The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek?
Is the book about the Greek verb by Rijksbaron called > The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek> ?
Yes.
of course grammarians and linguists of Classical Greek have wholly rejected the idea of a tenseless verb for the language on empirical ground.
???
This explains it:
Though I have only sporadically studied Koine (NT) Greek (informally, and not systematically – not something to be recommended), . . .
It’s also noteworthy that these reviewers are focused largely on the small sample of ancient Greek texts lumped together under the rubric of “New Testament Greek.”
Exactly the right reaction. My first reaction on hearing this theory was “Have these people actually read any Greek?”
Deleted
I don’t think the writer deserves to be defended, but apparently, if I understand correctly, he is trying to make the following point: In all other moods except the indicative, the distinction between the different tenses is only aspectual, but in the indicative, the distinction is temporal as well as aspectual, although, according to him, there is apparently “a minority of NT scholars” who deny this and think that the distinction is solely aspectual in the indicative mood as well (oh how much I’d like to meet them!). Of course, the way the writer expresses this makes complete nonsense out of it.
Thanks for this and the other replies to my question. I did read the reference provided by Barry but concluded it was not really mainstream classical scholarship and not worth pursuing. No wonder I had not come across it before.
I have yet to read a decent review of CGCG but I find it easier to use than Smyth and the explanations clearer.