Verb – Leluka: all parts

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Leluka (1 – Result perfect)

The Leluka form has been claimed to be “exegetically significant” in various ways. Although there is debate about how to characterize the semantics of the perfect in the linguistics literature, it is agreed on all sides that it encodes a temporal relationship. As a verbal form which encodes such a relationship, its meaning is not inherently exegetically significant. Like every other verb form, its significance depends on the eventuality being referred to and how that relates to the larger discourse. Sentences like J esus rose from the dead (past-perfective), Jesus has risen from the dead (present-perfect), and Jesus will rise from the dead (future-perfective) all encode different temporal relationships. They are all significant because the event of rising from the dead is significant. The verbal forms simply relate the event to the time of speaking and the time being discussed.

The prototypical use of the Leluka form is the result perfect reading. The result perfect refers to a state which is preceded by an event that causes the state to hold, e.g. John has arrived. In this case, there is a prior event of John being in motion, and the result state is John being at the location of the speaker. This use is also found with Leluka:

fromLesson 19.1: Verb – Perfect/Leluka singular

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Leluka (2 – Existential perfect)

In 19.1.4.2, we said that the result state reading of Leluka is associated with verbs that encode results. However, Leluka need not take verbs with result states:

• (169) State (without a result)
• ἐγὼ πεπίστευκα ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς (John 11:27)
• I have believed that you are the Christ

The verb πεπίστευκα refers to a state. There is no necessary result to having come into the state of believing. In contrast, a verb like δέδωκα ‘have given’ must involve someone in possession of something new on account of the giving event happening. The use exemplified by John 11:27 has been called the existential perfect. It means that the event or state existed at some point prior to the time being talked about. Martha’s statement in John means that at some point prior to the present, she came to believe that Jesus was the Christ.

fromLesson 20.2: Verb – Perfect/Leluka plural

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Leluka (3 – Present stative)

In addition to the result perfect and existential perfect readings, Leluka can refer to a present state where a prior causative event is only inferrable. The most common verb in this respect is the verb οἶδα ‘know’ (introduced in 20.2.2). This use is introduced here and is expanded upon in 47.2.3.1.

fromLesson 23.2: Verb – Leluka medio-passive singular

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Leluka (5 – Universal Perfect)

The Leluka form can receive a universal perfect interpretation, which is a state that began to hold in the past and continues to hold in the present (see Semantics C). In the sentence I have lived in Jerusalem for five years, and indeed, I still live there, the state of me living in Jerusalem is said to begin holding five years ago, and this state continues up to the present time. There are two conditions for this interpretation of the perfect. First, the predicate must be a state (e.g. live), and second, the duration of the state must be explicitly given (e.g. five years). These two conditions make the universal perfect interpretation fairly uncommon, but it is still possible:

• (381) Universal perfect τί ὧδε ἑστήκατε ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ἀργοί; (Matt 20:6)
• Why have you stood here idle the whole day?

The verb ἑστήκατε is a state, and the phrase ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ‘the whole day’ specifies the duration of the state, so both conditions are met. Moreover, the correct interpretation of the phrase is that the people standing started doing so in the beginning of the day and have continued for the entire day up through the present moment.

fromLesson 38.2: Verb – -βαίνω and γινώσκω

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Leluka (6 – Completed past event)

Scholars have noted that there are a handful of examples where Leluka appears to be identical to the Aorist in meaning. Given the history of Greek, this should come as no surprise – the Leluka form eventually becomes the past-perfective form (like the Aorist) in later varieties of Greek. Given this, there had to be some stage in which the two forms overlap, and we see this already in the NT, though this use is rare:

The Leluka verb εἴληφεν is interpreted in a sequence of narrative events immediately after the Aorist verb ἦλθεν. The fact that the events of coming and taking are interpreted in a sequence suggests that the Leluka form here should be interpreted as a past-perfective like the Aorist. It is common for perfect forms to take on this function as they develop over time (see Semantics C for more discussion).

Similarly, some Aorist verbs have a meaning where we could just as easily use the Leluka form. When the verb refers to an event, both the Aorist and Leluka forms normally occur before the time of speaking. The only difference between them is that the Reference Time of the Leluka form should overlap with the time of speaking, which often means that there is some result associated with the event. Although the Aorist form does not specify an event with a subsequent result, a result can oftentimes be inferred with some events. Synoptic parallels sometimes alternate between the Aorist and Leluka forms:

The event of coming has an implied result associated with it, namely changing location. When used with the Aorist, the result is still present, though its implications are not explicitly marked as relevant to the discourse like the Leluka form implies. Even so, both the Aorist and Leluka have an implied result with such verbs. Both translations ‘Elijah already came’ and ‘Elijah has already come’ are acceptable, since the two are near-identical in the right context.

fromLesson 41.1: Verb - δ, θ, ζ endings