Wed Jan 31 09:19:58 1996

From majordom  Wed Jan 31 09:19:58 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA24478; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:19:58 +0500
From: John Wevers 
Message-Id: <199601311417.JAA21423@epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Future subjunctive
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:17:17 -0500 (EST)
Cc: jwevers@epas.utoronto.ca (John Wevers)
In-Reply-To:  from "James R. Adair" at Jan 31, 96 02:15:36 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 777       
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


	Possibly a Septuagint scholar might join the discussion.
The last thirty years of my scholarly career has been devoted
largely to dealing with mss readings. Copyists simply did not
distinguish between the homonymic -omai and wmai. In other
words aorist subjunctives could be spelled with -o- or with -w-
almost indiscriminately. I would strongly suggest that one 
abandon the notion of a future subjunctive. Grammatically
that makes no sense, and the reading that has been
identified as a future subjunctive is nothing of the kind,
but is simply a misspelled indicative. As far as I know future
subjunctives are not attested as anything but the result of
homonymic spelling. JWW
-- 

John Wevers
Near Eastern Studies
University of Toronto
INTERNET: jwevers@epas.utoronto.ca

Back