I ran into a similar problem when I started learning Japanese in high school. In the first year, the teacher taught the "polite form" of verbs (ending in -masu). At the time, as far as I knew, it was the only form of the verb, and I couldn't understand why I couldn't look them up in a dictionary. So it came as somewhat of a shock in the second year when the teacher taught us the "plain" or "regular" verb forms (ending in -ru). I really wish I learned regular / plain form first and polite form later.
Wow, I am not alone in comparing starting from -masu form rather than -ru form in Japanese with starting from aorist tense to present tense. I opine strongly that Japanese shall teach verbs starting from -ru form (dictionary form). While it will be off topic, the terminology in Japanese grammar as a foreign language (be that in Chinese (my mother tongue) or Japanese) is too confusing and cause unnecessary obstacle to the learners. Anyway, the grammar in Japanese is not that complicated and switch the terminology is not that difficult.
The gap between when a student learns present and aorist is usually only a few weeks, maybe 5 weeks in some textbooks. The gap between learning one vs the other is so short I don't understand how it would really make that much of a difference in the long run.
I am learning Greek on my own. I'm using "Basics of Biblical Greek" by Mounce. I'm almost through studying it. I have no problem with how his book is laid out. I find he explains verbs well and I'm able to do some translation. Maybe my eagerness and knowledge of the English grammar has given me an advantage. However, I would like to purchase some other Greek study books just for comparison. Thanks for information.
You argued so persuasively of why you should teaching the present tense first that I don't think you were able to argue from that why you should start with the aorist form first.
I found this quite enlightening. I think it reflects that Greek is not a perfectly structured language and that it is difficult to prescribe a perfect and obvious route for learning it. I have read Mounce and Merkle and Plummer. I will read Decker, even though it is not supported by ParseGreek.
I think the present tense is most natural to teach. If you are good teacher you explain to your students difference between the root of a verb and the stem of the verb. I had no problem learning Greek verbs with Dr. Mounce I think it would be complicated the way you are thinking.
Present stem certainly has a morph (technically not morpheme) o/e. Also some have reduplication with i. And some have special infixes like the m in lambano or the (i)sk in gi(g)nosko.
I think you should learn by reading the Word and learn the tenses as they occur. Once you've encountered several present, first aorist, and second aorist verb forms, then you can study the conjugation tables. Which forms do Greek kids learn first?
The other issue with the present tense form is that the addition of the primary active endings to ω verbs to make the final forms creates forms least like the sum of its parts. There are many explanations necessary as to why the personal endings when combined with the connecting vowel don’t match the original endings list. Of course it all depends on whether the teacher considers the endings to include the connecting vowel or whether the true endings/morphology is taught.
ran into the same issues in both sanskrit and greek since sanskrit and greek both are into European languages often sanskrit logic works too first advantage of learning aorist is it helps in other endings and a lot of issues which would come in longer run would be sorted forexample imperfect and aorist.(since we are teaching aorist we have to teach sigmatic aorist,root aorist, reduplcative aorist) so this helps in learning the perfect tense where the -ka- infix is just added. so teaching aorist would indeed help making it easier moreover present tense approach is good but I generally use(using ancient greek logic + sanskrit) learning to be bhavati - ásmi - eimí also if you are planning to make a dictionary try making dual form dictionary. like using present and then verbal noun form aorist
Totally not an expert, but it sure seems like the only way to teach a language is one that gets complete sentences in front of you at the earliest possible moment. I'd be climbing the walls to have to wait until chapter five or so to allow a complete thought to happen
Is believeth (eis)"into" make belief a verb ? Also in the majority of instances in the new testament the English word " tongues", in the Greek is singular. Do you agree ?
I learned koine Greek on my own using Basics of Biblical Greek by Mounce and I had no problem with it. I found the layout good. To say Mouse is teaching the Greek wrong is just a matter of opinion. There are some things I wish he had done differently, but to say he teaches verb is wrong, give me a break!
It really doesn't matter if is taught properly. It's easier to begin with the present tense because it's more natural to teach this way. I find some scholars make the simple too profound. For example I learned the deponent verbs these people find a problem with how it was or is taught. I comprehend it completely why change the concept.
Why not the εἰμί conjugations first the the standard present tenses and then the standard present active, imperfect active and future active, etc before the aorist.
I tend to agree about the sense of teaching the aorist tense form first from a morphological viewpoint. In teaching Greek recently for the future and aorist I have found myself having to refer to the verbal root quite often. Merkle and Plummer gets away with not teaching roots by adding letter combinations to the square of stops such as ζ with dentals and σσ to the velars. But it doesn’t always work. κραζω according to M&P should be ἐκρασα in the aorist. It’s not, because the root ends in γ but in the present it is changed to ζ, so the aorist is ἑκραξα following the velar pattern. It grates on me to not have proper morphological explanation but I understand the many benefits of using this grammar. Mounce, on the other hand is very hot on roots, though he too teaches the present first. At least he makes it clear that the present is the most altered tense form. Could it be because it is the most common? As you say, to teach the aorist first we need altered lexicons, or at least have the roots listed along with. I’ve found myself looking for a good source to point people to the find the root. As a say Mounce does it but I’d rather point to a different resource than another grammar. My Danker’s concise Lexicon does not show roots nor principle parts. Does BDAG show roots? I can’t remember if Mounce’s Analytical lexicon does or not. I’ll check when home. Any suggestions? In practice teaching the present first may be more beneficial paedagogically.
Hi.. Thanks for your comment.. As a beginner of Greek I would not know abouit the aorist issue stated in your first paragraph and so as a begginner of Greek I would be misled by the M&P grammar. My question: What is the answer to not being misled by diffrent Greek grammars and who is correct? thanks Nigel
The answer is really quite simple (and you give it yourself) - the present tense contains the smallest number of morphological building blocks to contend with, so is the easiest way to help students begin to get their heads around how we build the Greek verb morphologically. You spend a lot of time trying to argue yourself away from this obvious point... In the very earliest lessons you can't teach strictly in line with what seems most basic in terms of usage, rather over a period of time there's a whole bunch of basics that are all essential. So start with the simplest! And what's the thing with starting with εἰμί? I really don't understand what you were getting at - you said it's a great way of introducing subject-verb-object and of introducing accusative etc, except copular verbs have a complement in the nominative, not an object in another case.
The benefit of introducing the εἰμί verb first is to help English students who dont know English understand basic sentence structure and how it maps to Greek. Language structuring is not well understood today, so we need to teach this as we go. I agree regarding the nominative predicate though... its not perfect 😉
Check to see if in fact when there is a 2nd aorist, that 2nd aorist shows the actual root. Why don't you call the luo verbs 1st present & the -mi verbs 2nd present? The luo verbs add o/e morpheme between the root & the pronominal suffixes. But the -mi verbs do not do that, but instead largely use reduplication with iota to indicate present stem.
I just today read Dan Wallace's explanation on the different arguments for each view of that very issue in his Greek Beyond the Basics grammar book. Highly recommend his analysis. It is quite thorough and helpful.
No, pistis faith is a feminine noun, but the word THAT is not feminine, but neuter. The following word doron is neuter. τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον· Render it: For by grace you have been saved through faith [pistis, feminine], and that [touto neuter] (gift is) not of yourselves, the gift [doron neuter] is of God. Take "that" to mean "that gift".
The present tense had to be taught first because that's what's in the dictionaries and lexicons and students have to be able to look them up There's also the fact that things like Mounce's book are often taught over one semester at the Masters level, so you start learning Aorist very quickly anyway Your argument does have some merits though, I just think the clickbaity title of the video sounds pretentious and prideful (like you know better than every other expert in the field!) Even though I know you aren't from your other videos. That kind of title makes the natural reaction be to push back against you
Salvation is the gift, received through faith. Note the words that follow “it”. It is the gift of God, not as a result of works… The evident contrast is between salvation being the result of either faith or works. But we don’t speak of faith itself being a result of works; thus, it must be salvation that is the gift to be received, and it is received by faith. Romans chapter four has a great explanation of the faith/works contrast.
I believe that you have a biased based on arminian theology that you believe....correct? You deny predestination and election? That saving faith is obtained from God by Gods elect only? You belive in free will?
@@Rbl7132 Sorry! My explanation could have been more clear. Paul's comment, "this is not of yourselves" sets up the contrast between those who do believe they can be saved by their own works (thus, salvation is "of themselves", being the result of their works), and those who understand that salvation is the gift of God. According to Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, the "more plausible" view is that the pronoun, "this" refers to "the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation". (See pp. 334-335). Verse 8 of Eph. 2 refers to "this" being the gift of God. Verse 9, referring to the same pronoun, says it is "not of works". But noone argues that faith somehow results from works--the claim of all religions apart from orthodox Protestantism is that salvation results from works, either coupled with faith, or by themselves. Thus, Paul draws the contrast between those claiming to be saved by works, or faith plus works, meaning their salvation is of themselves, with the believers in Christ, who receive salvation as a gift from God, by faith. BTW, I am not Arminian, but Provisionist, believing that God, in His sovereignty, allows man to choose to accept His gracious gift of salvation, or to reject it, and suffer the consequences.
Salvation is a free gift, but even a free gift must be recieved for it to be ours. The Greek word for " recieve" in the Greek means " to take hold of" We take hold of the free gift of salvation by our faith in action through obedience to Acts 2:38. If faith alone saved us, why repent ? Repentance is an act of obedience we must choose to do in order to be saved The reason that Acts 2:38 seems to make being saved too complicated is because being saved is being born again. Just as physical birth is the end result of a process so is spiritual rebirth.
@@robertnieten7259 so then you do not believe John 3:16? You are rendering John 3:16 a lie f you add baptism. Jesus did not speak partial truths. He is not someone trying to sell a car with salvage title and not tell you. We're talking about eternal salvation. The Lord Jesus Christ did not get it wrong. And nice try about the free gift analogy must being received or not. God's salvation is effectual on those that he chose before the foundation of the world. Those he called to Salvation he will save.
Hey Darryl, love your work, great respect, BUT you totally messed up everything in this video (if you wonder who gave you a thumb down - it's me). Here are the reasons: 1. Your logic is confused and you confuse your audience (I think you know it). I still didn't understand what you tried to say. 2. You make a catchy title, and state in the video that most grammars do it wrong by starting with the present tense. Then you go on for the entire video disproving your original thesis, that is proving that starting with the present tense is BETTER. You confirm it at the end when you share how you would write your hypothetical grammar book. 3. You conclude that there is no right or wrong way to teach verbs. Any approach is difficult. Really? Go through your own arguments - you already stated the answer. If Aor. has the purest form it does not mean it should be started with. Starting with Present is the easiest way because the Pres. Act. Ind. is the cornerstone of all verb paradigms!
I think I know what he is trying to get at but you are right he is (uncharacteristically) really struggling to say it! When learning Spanish like in Madrigal's spanish book, you start with the past tense for the same basic reasons as he points out here. It is more an issue of whether you want to learn the language or want to use the tools that help you do basic research in it.
@@1ugh1 I don’t know much about Spanish, but in Greek to start with Aorist is to complicate things. It is a “suicide mission” to try this approach on students.
Thanks for your feedback Stan! Your comment about paradigms is actually part of the point. We start with Present paradigms because historically we started with the present. So if we were to start with the aorist we would probably want to revise a number of things along the way. For example, at some point someone decided it would be better to use the present as the lexical form rather than the aorist or perhaps even the infinitive. Remember, there are several major grammars that start with Aorist verbs and they do a good job of teaching verbs. So while I think the Aorist would be a better form to start with, convention and perhaps the simplicity of the present argues for the present as a starting point. So I’m not entirely convinced there is an ideal here
@@bma maybe you are right. I have Decker’s book. I should reread his approach to have a better understanding. However, Aor. is way too complex in comparison to the present as you pointed in your video. Even if we have a few grammar books that start with Aor. It doesn’t mean they are good and suitable for novice learners. They might be more a reference work than a step by step guide. Perhaps I should make a video response to outline why starting with Pres. is better. Haha Keep up the good work
@@GreekForAll Whether I agree just depends. If you look in my previous comment, notice the end where I say it depends on whether you are in it for the grammar or to learn the language. Take the example I was giving: when I help Spanish speaking immigrant children in school they don't need to worry about forms, endings, or for that matter ANY grammar! They need vocabulary and exposure - period. They want to learn the language not the grammar of it. On the other hand, Koine greek is just a literary language, so if you want learn that then I can see how the aorist would be a problem. Do the latino children speak "baby" english for a while? Of course they do! But they are in it to SPEAK the language and that is how you do it - just vocab. and listening/reading.
I ran into a similar problem when I started learning Japanese in high school. In the first year, the teacher taught the "polite form" of verbs (ending in -masu). At the time, as far as I knew, it was the only form of the verb, and I couldn't understand why I couldn't look them up in a dictionary. So it came as somewhat of a shock in the second year when the teacher taught us the "plain" or "regular" verb forms (ending in -ru). I really wish I learned regular / plain form first and polite form later.
Wow, I am not alone in comparing starting from -masu form rather than -ru form in Japanese with starting from aorist tense to present tense. I opine strongly that Japanese shall teach verbs starting from -ru form (dictionary form). While it will be off topic, the terminology in Japanese grammar as a foreign language (be that in Chinese (my mother tongue) or Japanese) is too confusing and cause unnecessary obstacle to the learners. Anyway, the grammar in Japanese is not that complicated and switch the terminology is not that difficult.
The gap between when a student learns present and aorist is usually only a few weeks, maybe 5 weeks in some textbooks. The gap between learning one vs the other is so short I don't understand how it would really make that much of a difference in the long run.
I am learning Greek on my own. I'm using "Basics of Biblical Greek" by Mounce. I'm almost through studying it. I have no problem with how his book is laid out. I find he explains verbs well and I'm able to do some translation. Maybe my eagerness and knowledge of the English grammar has given me an advantage. However, I would like to purchase some other Greek study books just for comparison. Thanks for information.
You argued so persuasively of why you should teaching the present tense first that I don't think you were able to argue from that why you should start with the aorist form first.
I found this quite enlightening. I think it reflects that Greek is not a perfectly structured language and that it is difficult to prescribe a perfect and obvious route for learning it. I have read Mounce and Merkle and Plummer. I will read Decker, even though it is not supported by ParseGreek.
Please do a video on the critical verse Revelation 13:8... be thrilled for you to go into detail!!! !!!! Thank you!!!
I think the present tense is most natural to teach. If you are good teacher you explain to your students difference between the root of a verb and the stem of the verb. I had no problem learning Greek verbs with Dr. Mounce I think it would be complicated the way you are thinking.
That's an excellent take! Learning the ειμι verb first makes so much more sense
Present stem certainly has a morph (technically not morpheme) o/e. Also some have reduplication with i. And some have special infixes like the m in lambano or the (i)sk in gi(g)nosko.
I think you should learn by reading the Word and learn the tenses as they occur. Once you've encountered several present, first aorist, and second aorist verb forms, then you can study the conjugation tables.
Which forms do Greek kids learn first?
That is how I have learned.
I absolutely agree that the aorist should be first, it’s the most common
The other issue with the present tense form is that the addition of the primary active endings to ω verbs to make the final forms creates forms least like the sum of its parts. There are many explanations necessary as to why the personal endings when combined with the connecting vowel don’t match the original endings list. Of course it all depends on whether the teacher considers the endings to include the connecting vowel or whether the true endings/morphology is taught.
ran into the same issues in both sanskrit and greek
since sanskrit and greek both are into European languages often sanskrit logic works too
first advantage of learning aorist is it helps in other endings and a lot of issues which would come in longer run would be sorted forexample
imperfect and aorist.(since we are teaching aorist we have to teach sigmatic aorist,root aorist, reduplcative aorist) so this helps in learning the perfect tense where the -ka- infix is just added.
so teaching aorist would indeed help making it easier
moreover present tense approach is good but I generally use(using ancient greek logic + sanskrit)
learning to be bhavati - ásmi - eimí
also if you are planning to make a dictionary try making dual form dictionary. like using present and then verbal noun form aorist
I love Decker's grammar!
Totally not an expert, but it sure seems like the only way to teach a language is one that gets complete sentences in front of you at the earliest possible moment. I'd be climbing the walls to have to wait until chapter five or so to allow a complete thought to happen
would you start with the subjuntive aorist, since the indicative has a prefixed e (or augment)?
Is believeth (eis)"into" make belief a verb ? Also in the majority of instances in the new testament the English word " tongues", in the Greek is singular. Do you agree ?
I learned koine Greek on my own using Basics of Biblical Greek by Mounce and I had no problem with it. I found the layout good. To say Mouse is teaching the Greek wrong is just a matter of opinion. There are some things I wish he had done differently, but to say he teaches verb is wrong, give me a break!
It really doesn't matter if is taught properly. It's easier to begin with the present tense because it's more natural to teach this way. I find some scholars make the simple too profound. For example I learned the deponent verbs these people find a problem with how it was or is taught. I comprehend it completely why change the concept.
Why not the εἰμί conjugations first the the standard present tenses and then the standard present active, imperfect active and future active, etc before the aorist.
If you can get all the Lexicons to agree with you and adopt the Aorist as the lexical form, then I'll jump on board too.
Haha! Thanks!
lambano The m is an infix for present stem.
I tend to agree about the sense of teaching the aorist tense form first from a morphological viewpoint. In teaching Greek recently for the future and aorist I have found myself having to refer to the verbal root quite often. Merkle and Plummer gets away with not teaching roots by adding letter combinations to the square of stops such as ζ with dentals and σσ to the velars. But it doesn’t always work. κραζω according to M&P should be ἐκρασα in the aorist. It’s not, because the root ends in γ but in the present it is changed to ζ, so the aorist is ἑκραξα following the velar pattern.
It grates on me to not have proper morphological explanation but I understand the many benefits of using this grammar. Mounce, on the other hand is very hot on roots, though he too teaches the present first. At least he makes it clear that the present is the most altered tense form. Could it be because it is the most common? As you say, to teach the aorist first we need altered lexicons, or at least have the roots listed along with. I’ve found myself looking for a good source to point people to the find the root. As a say Mounce does it but I’d rather point to a different resource than another grammar. My Danker’s concise Lexicon does not show roots nor principle parts. Does BDAG show roots? I can’t remember if Mounce’s Analytical lexicon does or not. I’ll check when home. Any suggestions?
In practice teaching the present first may be more beneficial paedagogically.
Hi.. Thanks for your comment.. As a beginner of Greek I would not know abouit the aorist issue stated in your first paragraph and so as a begginner of Greek I would be misled by the M&P grammar. My question: What is the answer to not being misled by diffrent Greek grammars and who is correct? thanks Nigel
To see roots, go to LIddell & Scott. For roots I prefer the Little LIddell & Scott as if a word represents a "root," it is in all caps.
The answer is really quite simple (and you give it yourself) - the present tense contains the smallest number of morphological building blocks to contend with, so is the easiest way to help students begin to get their heads around how we build the Greek verb morphologically. You spend a lot of time trying to argue yourself away from this obvious point... In the very earliest lessons you can't teach strictly in line with what seems most basic in terms of usage, rather over a period of time there's a whole bunch of basics that are all essential. So start with the simplest!
And what's the thing with starting with εἰμί? I really don't understand what you were getting at - you said it's a great way of introducing subject-verb-object and of introducing accusative etc, except copular verbs have a complement in the nominative, not an object in another case.
The benefit of introducing the εἰμί verb first is to help English students who dont know English understand basic sentence structure and how it maps to Greek. Language structuring is not well understood today, so we need to teach this as we go. I agree regarding the nominative predicate though... its not perfect 😉
The aorist comes in a second form the 2nd aorist. Present doesn’t.
Check to see if in fact when there is a 2nd aorist, that 2nd aorist shows the actual root. Why don't you call the luo verbs 1st present & the -mi verbs 2nd present? The luo verbs add o/e morpheme between the root & the pronominal suffixes. But the -mi verbs do not do that, but instead largely use reduplication with iota to indicate present stem.
PLEASE TEACH ON EPHESIANS 2:8!!!!!!
I AM HEARING VERY UNBELIEVABLE EXPLANATIONS. "FAITH" IS OBVIUOSLY WHAT IS THE GIFT OF GOD IN THIS SCRIPTURE.
Sounds like something I might be able to manage. Thanks for the suggestion!
I just today read Dan Wallace's explanation on the different arguments for each view of that very issue in his Greek Beyond the Basics grammar book. Highly recommend his analysis. It is quite thorough and helpful.
No, pistis faith is a feminine noun, but the word THAT is not feminine, but neuter. The following word doron is neuter.
τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον· Render it: For by grace you have been saved through faith [pistis, feminine], and that [touto neuter] (gift is) not of yourselves, the gift [doron neuter] is of God. Take "that" to mean "that gift".
@@lufknuht5960 so what is "not of yourselves"? Do you believe saving faith is not obtained by God? Do you believe your faith comes from yourself?
@@lufknuht5960 do you believe that saving faith is obtained from God ? Or does it reside in every human being to be exercised?
Are you an Australian? Have you heard of Ward Powers?
The present tense had to be taught first because that's what's in the dictionaries and lexicons and students have to be able to look them up
There's also the fact that things like Mounce's book are often taught over one semester at the Masters level, so you start learning Aorist very quickly anyway
Your argument does have some merits though, I just think the clickbaity title of the video sounds pretentious and prideful (like you know better than every other expert in the field!) Even though I know you aren't from your other videos. That kind of title makes the natural reaction be to push back against you
Salvation is the gift, received through faith. Note the words that follow “it”. It is the gift of God, not as a result of works…
The evident contrast is between salvation being the result of either faith or works. But we don’t speak of faith itself being a result of works; thus, it must be salvation that is the gift to be received, and it is received by faith.
Romans chapter four has a great explanation of the faith/works contrast.
I believe that you have a biased based on arminian theology that you believe....correct? You deny predestination and election? That saving faith is obtained from God by Gods elect only? You belive in free will?
Your explanation does not make sense...
How could someone think that salvation is "of themselves" ??? Salvation comes "out of" them?
@@Rbl7132 Sorry! My explanation could have been more clear. Paul's comment, "this is not of yourselves" sets up the contrast between those who do believe they can be saved by their own works (thus, salvation is "of themselves", being the result of their works), and those who understand that salvation is the gift of God.
According to Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, the "more plausible" view is that the pronoun, "this" refers to "the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation". (See pp. 334-335).
Verse 8 of Eph. 2 refers to "this" being the gift of God. Verse 9, referring to the same pronoun, says it is "not of works". But noone argues that faith somehow results from works--the claim of all religions apart from orthodox Protestantism is that salvation results from works, either coupled with faith, or by themselves. Thus, Paul draws the contrast between those claiming to be saved by works, or faith plus works, meaning their salvation is of themselves, with the believers in Christ, who receive salvation as a gift from God, by faith.
BTW, I am not Arminian, but Provisionist, believing that God, in His sovereignty, allows man to choose to accept His gracious gift of salvation, or to reject it, and suffer the consequences.
Salvation is a free gift, but even a free gift must be recieved for it to be ours. The Greek word for " recieve" in the Greek means " to take hold of"
We take hold of the free gift of salvation by our faith in action through obedience to Acts 2:38.
If faith alone saved us, why repent ? Repentance is an act of obedience we must choose to do in order to be saved
The reason that Acts 2:38 seems to make being saved too complicated is because being saved is being born again. Just as physical birth is the end result of a process so is spiritual rebirth.
@@robertnieten7259 so then you do not believe John 3:16? You are rendering John 3:16 a lie f you add baptism. Jesus did not speak partial truths. He is not someone trying to sell a car with salvage title and not tell you. We're talking about eternal salvation. The Lord Jesus Christ did not get it wrong. And nice try about the free gift analogy must being received or not. God's salvation is effectual on those that he chose before the foundation of the world. Those he called to Salvation he will save.
Hey Darryl, love your work, great respect, BUT you totally messed up everything in this video (if you wonder who gave you a thumb down - it's me). Here are the reasons:
1. Your logic is confused and you confuse your audience (I think you know it). I still didn't understand what you tried to say.
2. You make a catchy title, and state in the video that most grammars do it wrong by starting with the present tense. Then you go on for the entire video disproving your original thesis, that is proving that starting with the present tense is BETTER. You confirm it at the end when you share how you would write your hypothetical grammar book.
3. You conclude that there is no right or wrong way to teach verbs. Any approach is difficult. Really? Go through your own arguments - you already stated the answer.
If Aor. has the purest form it does not mean it should be started with. Starting with Present is the easiest way because the Pres. Act. Ind. is the cornerstone of all verb paradigms!
I think I know what he is trying to get at but you are right he is (uncharacteristically) really struggling to say it! When learning Spanish like in Madrigal's spanish book, you start with the past tense for the same basic reasons as he points out here. It is more an issue of whether you want to learn the language or want to use the tools that help you do basic research in it.
@@1ugh1 I don’t know much about Spanish, but in Greek to start with Aorist is to complicate things. It is a “suicide mission” to try this approach on students.
Thanks for your feedback Stan! Your comment about paradigms is actually part of the point. We start with Present paradigms because historically we started with the present. So if we were to start with the aorist we would probably want to revise a number of things along the way. For example, at some point someone decided it would be better to use the present as the lexical form rather than the aorist or perhaps even the infinitive. Remember, there are several major grammars that start with Aorist verbs and they do a good job of teaching verbs. So while I think the Aorist would be a better form to start with, convention and perhaps the simplicity of the present argues for the present as a starting point. So I’m not entirely convinced there is an ideal here
@@bma maybe you are right. I have Decker’s book. I should reread his approach to have a better understanding. However, Aor. is way too complex in comparison to the present as you pointed in your video. Even if we have a few grammar books that start with Aor. It doesn’t mean they are good and suitable for novice learners. They might be more a reference work than a step by step guide.
Perhaps I should make a video response to outline why starting with Pres. is better. Haha
Keep up the good work
@@GreekForAll Whether I agree just depends. If you look in my previous comment, notice the end where I say it depends on whether you are in it for the grammar or to learn the language. Take the example I was giving: when I help Spanish speaking immigrant children in school they don't need to worry about forms, endings, or for that matter ANY grammar! They need vocabulary and exposure - period. They want to learn the language not the grammar of it. On the other hand, Koine greek is just a literary language, so if you want learn that then I can see how the aorist would be a problem. Do the latino children speak "baby" english for a while? Of course they do! But they are in it to SPEAK the language and that is how you do it - just vocab. and listening/reading.